The Virtue Of Forgetting Of The Digital Age - Viktor Mayer...

Delete The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age - Viktor Mayer-Schonberger Chapter one is entitled â€Å" Failing to Forget the Drunken Pirate.† This chapter starts off giving examples of real people that have professional jobs that posted something online that later on came back and ruined their lives in some way. One person was a woman by the name of Stacey Snyder who was a 25 year old aspiring teacher. After completing all the coursework needed to become an educator, university officials denied her of her certificate because of a picture that she posted on her private Myspace account. The picture was captioned â€Å"drunken pirate† and she was holding a red cup, the university officials claimed her behavior was â€Å"unbecoming.† Although her page was private, it was still easy for the officials to find this one image that ruined Stacey’s career. In this chapter it is stressed how easy it is to find information on anyone. Google actually keeps individual records of people s search history, web pages browsed, and keywords that they often search. Google used to keep these records forever, but as of recently that changed and they are only kept for a short period of time. Also in this chapter it is stated that there is no more privacy. Cell phones have GPS receivers which allows our location to be tracked all day everyday. Because of this you can now even track someone through GPS from a photo they’ve take. In chapter two â€Å"Importance of Remembering†, The main points that SchonbergerShow MoreRelatedThe Impact of Social Media Upon Self Esteem2506 Words   |  11 Pagesavailable on the Internet also adds another layer of social pressures. Because of digitization, the Internet has a perfect memory; when something is posted online, it remains in cyberspace, easily accessible by almost anyone with Internet access (Mayer-Schonberger, 2009). This means that we can easily recall any past mistakes, embarrassing moments, or posts that did not receive a significant amount of positive feedback. By combining all of these factors, the social media scene has effectively created

Cold War Ethical Reflection Free Essays

Reflection of the Cold War The Cold War, from 1945 to 1991, is one of the most important periods of time that has greatly influenced and shaped the modern world. It was not just a battle between two super powers, the USA and the Soviet Union, but also a clash of two really popular ideologies during that time. There was the American claim of fighting for freedom and democracy and the Soviet claims of fighting for the interests of the workers and the common people. We will write a custom essay sample on Cold War Ethical Reflection or any similar topic only for you Order Now Now in theory, these ideologies seemed ethical, but throughout this period, both countries’ actions severely opposed the ideologies they represented on numerous occasions. Some say it all came down to a competition of achieving the most power and influence and just using what they’re supposed to represent as a disguise to hide the true intention of their actions. Now this is partly true and in this reflection I will explain the cynicism caused by both superpowers and decide which one actually represented a greater evil. Let’s start with Soviet Union. They were communist and actually held true to these values inside their own country but did use brutal force to destroy anyone who opposed their totalitarian rule and this often led to many deaths. Even though life under Soviet Union had its ups and downs, it is the actions that they did in other countries which really gave them a negative image especially in the west, throughout most of the cold war. One of the first atrocious acts they committed was the Berlin Blockade which was an attempt to exercise their power over East Berlin. They blocked the country from receiving necessary supplies and instead of helping the workers and installing communism, they were oppressing them and this was a major event that deteriorated their image, and they even did this again with the construction of the Berlin Wall. The same thing happened in Czechoslovakia. Although they were supporting Communism in the country, they were not representing the interests of the common people. Most wanted freedom but the Soviets just rolled in their tanks to stop this from happening, first in 1948 by arranging a coup to put the unpopular communist party in power, and then they rolled in the tanks again in the Prague Spring but this time were unsuccessful in stopping the uprising. The Soviets had a habit of undermining eastern European countries through force and keeping them in the Iron Curtain which later led to popular distaste of their regime like in the Polish solidarity Movement. But you could argue that they even though they used brute force to install communism, they were in general, supporting their ideologies. Also whenever there was a communist uprising in any foreign country, they would almost always support it either politically, or by supplying arms and finance. They did this for ideological reasons usually because part of the Marxist theory is that communism is inevitable, so it was their duty to help a communist regime in trouble. They did exactly this by supporting the communist party in the Greek Civil War who were being violently oppressed by the other side (Irony) and there actually was a big social class division in Greece at the time and many people wanted communism as a solution so the soviets justly supported the movement even though it failed. They did this again in the Korean War, and the first Indo China War whose situations were pretty similar. But their greatest success was in the Chinese Civil War and when the Communists won, it drastically strengthened Soviet Russia’s Ideologies. Now let’s talk about USA. They stood for freedom and democracy and were really against the communist ideology. But throughout most of the cold war, it is impossible to depict USA as a good influence. The Marshal Plan although was one of the greatest actions USA had taken and they gave about 13 million dollars in aid to the war devastated countries in order to help them rebuild. Some might argue that they only did this to improve their trade business with these countries and to help form NATO in order to compete with the Soviets and this is partially true. Other things they did which showed they actually stood up for democracy was supporting the democratic revolutions in the Korean War, Polish Solidarity Movement, and the Velvet Revolution. They not only did they do this for freedom, but also to stop the authoritarian spread of Communism which they deemed highly undemocratic and even propagandized it as evil especially during the Berlin Airlift which is one of the most famous benevolent event that the USA orchestrated. But those were the only freedom fighting they took. Everything else they did was highly undemocratic. USA has a tendency to overthrow foreign government if they don’t please their interests. Their first major anti-freedom action was overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran simply because the new leader decided to nationalize the oil for benefit of the Iranian People. Then they did the exact same thing in Guatemala because the interests of their fruit companies were in danger. All of these overthrows were done through US backed coups and the School of America played a key role in this, especially in Latin America. This Superpower has caused so much devastation in Latin America through that school that it was unbelievable. They would train agents in that school to do the most brutal actions necessary to â€Å"stop communism†. The US backed coups in Chile, Argentina, and Brazil, along with supporting the PRI in Mexico brought years of terror in those countries that still affect them today. All of this happened only because the elected leaders had some socialist tendencies and that was all the excuse USA needed. So much for freedom and democracy. They even illegally and secretly invaded Cuba (tried to) and Grenada and brought more horror to those places especially to Grenada whose economy was completely destroyed for a while. They used massive propaganda justify all their illegal actions especially in Vietnam which was their biggest mistake. Three million Vietnamese (mostly Civilians) died in this pointless war to stop the spread of Communism. They were so many opportunities to negotiate a peace treaty but this Superpower was too intent on dragging it on for twenty years. So many innocents were slaughtered especially during the Cambodian Genocide which was also caused by USA that lies about this war reached American citizens who then protested to stop the war, especially after the coverage of the My Lai Massacre where US soldiers killed over 300 innocent men, women, and children. The country was so anti-communist at one point that the freedom of expression of the people was destroyed during the McCarthy witch-hunt. Anyone who was associated with communism or had communist tendencies was unjustly prosecuted and this lasted for a whole six years from 1950 to 1956. It was of the greatest tragedies In US history because it greatly destroyed the image of freedom usually associated with the country. The feeling of cynicism towards both Superpowers was definitely justified because both had committed multiple atrocious acts during the cold war, but USA is still definitely in my opinion the greater of the two evils. Even thought the Soviet Union was brutally authoritarian in many cases, they still stayed true in general in their claims about supporting communism and never once did anything anti-communist. They supported multiple communist struggles across the world economically and militarily, some of these actions were morally justified and others weren’t. The USA on the other hand had overthrown so many democratically elected governments for the most unethical reasons ever that it is hard for me to associate freedom with USA. The Soviets at least kept true to their claims (brutal as they were) but the same cannot be said for the other Superpower. They did considerably a so many undemocratic and anti-freedom actions which massively deteriorated their claims in my opinion. They only positively influenced Europe but devastated the rest of the world especially Latin America who were pretty much set back a couple of decades thanks to USA’s actions. This country was involved in multiple illegal conflicts that opposed their claims and led to the senseless deaths of millions of people around the world and many more were negatively affected by these actions, especially economically. As much devastation both countries caused to the world, USA defiantly represented a greater evil in the cold war. By: Afzal Manzoor How to cite Cold War Ethical Reflection, Essay examples

Australian Current Policy on Renewable Energy †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Australian Current Policy on Renewable Energy. Answer: Introduction The renewable energy policy plays an increasingly pivotal role as Australia grapples with the appropriate strategy of climate change as well as increasing penetration in renewables. The renewable energy policy environment in the recent years has turned out to be highly politicized and uncertain. The industrial implications are also significant, and the current Australian policy on renewable energy has been taken through a period of rapid changes. Currently, there is increasing concern on reduction of various interventions by the government, sectoral efficiency and having least cost solutions incentivized since the review of the 2013 renewable energy policy (Buckman Diesendorf 2010, p.56). The priorities of government and the political parties as well as polarity in perspectives have been caused by significant policy uncertainty, policy responses and increased politicization of the climate change. The existing consensus, however, maintains that there are inefficiencies in the Austral ian renewables and the energy sector. The purpose of this paper is to carry out an examination of the key policy measures on renewable energy as well as their impact on the industry's future. The single largest sector contribution in Australia is realized from the electric power generation that produces 33% of the countrys greenhouse gas emissions (GHG emissions). From the year 2012 to 2013, fossil fuels approximately provide 87% of Australia's electricity compared to 13% realized from the renewable sources (Elliston, Diesendorf MacGill 2012, p. 89). As a result of reduced demand for electricity in the National Electricity Market (NEM) of Australia and variations in the generation mix, there has been approximately a 4% decrease in electric power emissions from 2012-2013 to 2013-2014. Generation of renewable energy is predominantly hydro though solar and wind has also been on the rise. Various environmental factors have mostly caused variation in the hydro generation while a slow-down in the deployment of the renewables has led to the increased production of the black coal generators. The successive Australian governments have been encouraged to transition away from the f ossil fuel based generation by increasing domestic and international concerns related to GHG emissions. The current Australian renewable energy policy The dramatic changes in renewable energy policy environment have been caused by a change of the Australias federal government. Uncertainty has characterized the policy environment with strategic priorities differing from one political party to the other and even within the ideologies of the same parties (Byrnes et al. 2013, p.123). On both sides of politics, political uncertainty over leadership at the federal level implies that a broader risk is a consequence of internal party priorities. The focus of the new renewable energy policy environment is on the reduction of costs of electricity, least cost energy production, ensuring the development of the extractive industries in Australia such as gas sector is enhanced and allocative efficiency is realized. The energy policy goals of the Australian government, as well as its political ideologies, have been set out in a new Energy White Paper (Byrnes et al. 2013, p. 101). The White Paper concentrates on the themes of the temporary Energy Green Paper like reduction of pressure on the energy expenses for businesses and households. It also looks into the improvement of international competitiveness, increased exports and removal of interventions which are considered inappropriate and bars business innovation and competition. The focus of the White Paper is on the themes of consumer cost reduction by increased competition, facilitation of resource development and innovation through investment and improved productivity in the use of energy (Yu Halog 2015, p.141). As a result of productive investment and market operation, the energy mix of Australia will grow in diversity over time. Cost reflective tariff pricing enhances reduction of network investment driven by the peak loads and related expenses as well as increased demand management. Uniform or regulated tariffs are predominantly used in Australia (Byrnes et al. 2013, p.146). Despite the associated benefits in the approach relating to reduced pressure on network investment and reduced cross-subsidies, it is apparent that there is limited recognition of the capacity for issues touching on equity. It is also arguable that the function of the non-monetary signals for the behavior of electricity demand for some of the users. The users of rural electricity benefiting from subsidized electricity resulting from the high cost of local supply are likely to face vulnerability to the policies of cost-reflective tariffs. Direct policy discussion related to renewable energy has been relatively minimal over an extended period. The focus of the policy is in large part on ensuring that a (reduced) target of renewables is kept and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) and Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) are abolished. The roles of these government agencies include facilitation of access to finance and commercialization of the technologies of renewable energy (Head et al. 2014, p.66). Despite emissions abatement being a priority, internalizing externalities of the environment which include emissions generated from the fossil fuels is not prioritized. Nevertheless, the low emission technologies have a policy support especially coal which undergoes carbon capture and storage. The policy environment set up by the government intends to be neutral technologically because given the insights into the needs of the market; the industry best makes decisions regarding investment on the assets which a re to be generated in the future including the technological choice. The view that price signals are diluted, competition shielded and energy markets distorted is reflected by the focus on the provision of subsidies and removal of regulatory barriers (Sims, Rogner Gregory 2003, p.134). The market regulations and interventions should not stifle competition and consumer choice but should instead highly encourage such aspects, and cost-benefit analysis is a primary requirement needed for such regulations. Definition of investment outcomes is driven by the inherent focus on the use of the competitive energy markets. The greater focus on the policy appears to be in the gas industry development, export of energy such as uranium, gas and coal and driving competitiveness. The table below shows the various changes to key policies which exist, impacting the occurrence of renewables since 2013 and the focus are on the examination of the policies' roles and implications (Council 2014, p.75). Table 1: Key policies on renewable energy and their status Policy instrument Does it exist? The comments Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) Yes The recent policy initiative of ERF is designed to encourage the abatement of least cost investment. Nevertheless, it is not likely to have direct support for the renewable sector. Carbon pricing scheme (Operative 2011-2014) No In 2014, the plan was repealed, and in the short term, the price of carbon is unlikely. ARENA Yes ARENA's future is uncertain. There is the commitment by the Federal government for its closure although the Senate has prevented this step. The government will honor the existing funding obligations if it is closed. CEFC Yes CEFC's future is also uncertain. The Federal government has shown its commitment to close it, but the Senate has prevented this initiative. The government will have to honor the financial obligations it is closed. Renewable Energy Target (RET) Yes The Renewable Energy Target in 2015 from 41,000-gigawatt hours by 2020 to 33,000-gigawatt hours in 2020. The biannual reviews were also targeted for removal. Electricity Tariffs Yes Although electricity tariffs vary significantly between Territories and States, FiTs still exist in Australia. The agenda includes the tariff reform. The Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) The Federal governments key climate policy include ERF worth $AU 2.55 billion (Clarke, Fraser Waschik 2014, p.197). Its aim is the reduction of organization and households GHG emissions by use of positive incentives through an auction process that is considered silent. The government has imposed a maximum bid price that remains undisclosed, and any project will not be paid for if it goes above the set bid price. It is also committed to buying 80% of the emissions volume falling below the maximum bid price for every auction (Regulator 2015, p.176). The carbon credits are paid at the bid price if the process is successful at the auction. The selection of successful projects is solely based on the lowest bidder. This policy looks into directing strategies of reducing emissions to the least cost projects and favoring minimal incremental variations such as forestry and light replacement in industrial buildings over projects that are more capital intensive (Walsh, Russell-Smith Cowley 20 14, p.131). The core objective of this policy is to aid Australia in meeting its target of emission reduction of 5% below 2000 levels by the year 2020 through a scheme which ensures cheapest methods of emissions reduction thus increasing productivity and reducing costs (Byrnes Brown 2015, p.202). ERF covers a non-exhaustive list of projects including: Improvement of agricultural soils. Reduction of waste coal mine gas. Revegetation and reforestation. Capturing the landfill gas. Improvements in the efficiency of energy. Use of technological development to reduce electricity generator emissions. Since ERF is a new policy in Australia, it is not easy to carry out an assessment of the impact it has on the renewable sector. Nevertheless, it is unlikely to be favorable to the deployment of renewables given its focus and objectives on the efficiency of energy and the capture and storage of emissions (Byrnes Brown 2015, p.199). A significant support to the existing operations is provided by the scheme though it does little as far as support of new households and businesses without emissions track record to abate is concerned. Carbon pricing The previous labor government introduced the carbon pricing scheme to help in internalizing the costs of carbon for the primary polluters. The fact that carbon pricing was removed in 2014 after some negotiations is one of the major election scorecards for the current regime (Fahimnia et al. 2013, p.214). As a result, carbon price no longer exists in Australia unless the price is provided by the ERF. However, forming part of the scheme were other measures which include CEFC and ARENA, and they have not yet been removed. Some parts of Australian electorate have exhibited hostility to pricing carbon meaning that the absence of global agreement, political leadership, tax or a carbon trading scheme have largely contributed to such behaviors. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) The role of ARENA is fundamental to improve the increased supply of renewable energy and the competitiveness of renewables (Sioshansi 2011, p.104). It is technology impious and focused on the erosion of commercialization and technological barriers and sharing of knowledge. The senate has thwarted the attempts by the Australian government to close ARENA. The agency has continued to assess and fund projects despite its pending demise. At the time of its repeal, the government has committed honoring the funds which are allocated by ARENA. ARENA carries out an enabling function for initiatives and projects faced with commercialization and technical challenges that hinder market support (Simpson Clifton 2014, p.188). Its focus is more on commercialization of technology rather than the approaches which are utilized. Some projects especially in the remote communities are however faced with multifaceted and complex commercialization changes and may not easily match the remit of ARENA. The kind of risk that surrounds the future of ARENA is not conducive to the deployment of renewables. The project development is resource and time intensive. The incentive for resource and time allocation is most likely to lead to the reduction of particular uncertainty concerning the future of ARENA. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) The CEFC is a financier getting its funds from the government to aid in overcoming the funding challenges which are associated with the development of clean energy including technologies on low emissions and renewable energy. Its focus is on the provision of funds at a concessional rate for projects on clean energy with a positive rate of return. The concession highly relies on the benefits that do not emanate from within provided by the project and can be in the form of longer duration, reduced costs and higher rate of risk (Hua, Oliphant Hu 2016, p.45). The Senate has barred the commitment by the Australian government to ensure CEFC is closed. The reason for the closure of CEFC comes into sight to provide a reflection on the perception that the government is not to provide funds if the profile of the project risk is unacceptable to the private sector. The CEO of CEFC asserted that the willingness of private financier to take part in the Australian market had been reduced by the uncertain and complex policy environment (Martin Rice 2015, p.97). Therefore, the CEFCs role is critical due to this policy environment. The availability of finance is restricted by the tendency to focus on established businesses and the requirement for concessional market returns in an attempt to take charge of the profile of credit risk. The large projects with lower transaction costs have high capacity to attract finance from the CEFC specifically those that involve more established businesses. The organizations which are less established with limited acc ess to funding like smaller projects, small businesses or community groups may not be included (Hua, Oliphant Hu 2016, p.49). Lack of products standardization, high costs of transactions, perceived risks of investment, locational challenges, inability to acquire co-finance or complexity related to the alignment of stakeholders are some of the causes for their exclusion. The Renewable Energy Target (RET) The aim of RET is the reduction of GHG emissions from the generation of electricity through the provision of certificates for generation of renewable energy (Cludius, Forrest MacGill 2014, p.55). The large systems are given proper documentation based on the generated MWh while the small systems which are less than 100 kW are provided with upfront payments. The electricity retailers who are liable entities have to make purchases of a given number of certificates. This policy is significant as it has played a key function in the facilitation of the deployment of renewables and reduction of emissions in Australia. RET was reviewed in 2014 by the federal government (Panel 2014, p.133) signaling its intention to have the target reduced and it was concluded that: Given the availability of abatement alternatives for lower cost emission, the cost to the community of the RET has shot up. RET is funded via a cross-subsidy by the consumers, electricity retailers and incumbent generators. The impact of RET on the prices of electricity is small. Approximately $13 billion of the large-scale generation which is not required will be developed given the changes in the electricity environment. RET provides investment incentive in the production of renewable energy which is not essential in meeting demand and not viable without subsidy by RET. The Federal government is committed to enabling the reduction of RET and initially set targets of 26,000 GWh following the review of the RET. At the period RET of 41,000 GWh of generation of renewable energy by 2020 was being written was reduced to approximately 33,000 GWh in 2015 (Stock 2015, p.111). This is a clear reflection of the contractual amount between the two key players resulting from the protracted negotiations. Moreover, there has been considerable confusion surrounding the involvement of wood waste as a source of renewables and trade exemptions exposed in industries from the RET. RET has played a crucial role in the facilitation of the deployment of the renewables in Australia. If the reduced RET target is made efficient, it will assist in the reduction of uncertainty through the provision of a floor target which is not likely to go down in the near future (Martin Rice 2012, p.162). Significant reduction in the investment in the renewable energy especially for the large-scale systems has been caused by the uncertainty that surrounds the RET. Tariff policies and Feed in Tariffs (FiTs) The Territory and the State have the responsibility of implementing the tariff policies. The FiTs of the household have entirely gone down across all the States and Territories and are currently low. As a result of information asymmetry regarding the impacts of network and capacity of offsetting the wholesale price (Oliva, MacGill Passey 2014, p.152), there is uncertainty in the value of household PV that is under exportation to the grid. The regional DNSP in Western Australia came up with a scheme with FiTs to a tune of $0.50/kWh (Byrnes et al. 2016: 210) for the encouragement of the deployment particularly in the off-grid diesel networks although as a result of a range of non-monetary and monetary barriers, there has been limited success. The rationales behind reductions in FiT are twofold. First of all the household solar PV in the urban areas is relatively cost competitive. Secondly, the declining revenue and the cost of network adaptation covering similar asset base leads to an impact in distribution throughout the network specifically for those who do not have solar (Martin Rice 2013, p.71). The use of uniform tariff policies in Australia has significant impacts in distribution specifically in some regions where the cost of supply is estimated to be much higher than the rates of tariffs (Chapman, McLellan Tezuka 2016, p.124). Distribution businesses, retail, and governments need to take into consideration the tariff policy to show the changing nature of the electricity networks. Conclusion The renewable energy sector in Australia has faced a lot of uncertainty and several significant policy changes. The potential for utilization of renewable technologies and storage to optimize the operation of the network is significant as penetration of distributed generation increases. A good policy should proactively address the resultant opportunities and not respond reactively to the challenges that may arise where there is the use of inappropriate policy (McHenry 2009, p.164). As the technology matures over time, flexibility to adapt to the technological changes, payments in capacity and payments in lump sum of the operating subsidies for solutions that are innovative in some areas will become more significant. Primary barriers to deployment, enabling rules and regulations, firm support and institutional frameworks developed for the industry dealing with fossil fuel have been identified through analysis of the renewable energy policy environment and the economic theory. The just ification for intervention by the government to support the renewable energy sector and improvement of the general economic efficiency resulted from this context. The energy policy's central tenet appears to rely on the market mechanisms for competitive determination of supporting extractive industries in particular in the export markets and optimum generation mix. As a requirement for integration into the future energy mix, it implies that the market will efficiently develop innovative solutions and direct enough resources. References Buckman, G. and Diesendorf, M., 2010. Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies. Energy Policy, 38(7), pp.3365-3376. Byrnes, L. and Brown, C., 2015. Australias renewable energy policy: the case for intervention. Byrnes, L., Brown, C., Foster, J., and Wagner, L.D., 2013. Australian renewable energy policy: Barriers and challenges. Renewable Energy, 60, pp.711-721. Byrnes, L., Brown, C., Wagner, L., and Foster, J., 2016. Reviewing the viability of renewable energy in community electrification: The case of remote Western Australian communities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59, pp.470-481. Chapman, A.J., McLellan, B. and Tezuka, T., 2016. Residential solar PV policy: An analysis of impacts, successes, and failures in the Australian case. Renewable Energy, 86, pp.1265-1279. Clarke, H., Fraser, I., and Waschik, R.G., 2014. How much abatement will Australia's emissions reduction fund buy?.Economic Papers: A journal of appliedeconomics and policy, 33(4), pp.315-326. Cludius, J., Forrest, S. and MacGill, I., 2014. Distributional effects of the Australian Renewable Energy Target (RET) through wholesale and retail electricity price impacts. Energy Policy, 71, pp.40-51. Council, C., 2014. The Australian Renewable Energy Race: Which States Are Winning or Losing. Climate Council of Australia Limited, 47p. Elliston, B., Diesendorf, M. and MacGill, I., 2012. Simulations of scenarios with 100% renewable electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market. Energy Policy, 45, pp.606-613. Fahimnia, B., Reisi, M., Paksoy, T. and zceylan, E., 2013. The implications of carbon pricing in Australia: An industrial logistics planning case study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 18, pp.78-85. Head, L., Adams, M., McGregor, H.V. and Toole, S., 2014. Climate change and Australia. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(2), pp.175-197. Hua, Y., Oliphant, M. and Hu, E.J., 2016. Development of renewable energy in Australia and China: A comparison of policies and status. Renewable Energy, 85, pp.1044-1051. Martin, N. and Rice, J., 2013. The solar photovoltaic feed-in tariff scheme in New South Wales, Australia. Energy policy, 61, pp.697-706. Martin, N. and Rice, J., 2015. Improving Australia's renewable energy project policy and planning: A multiple stakeholder analysis. Energy Policy, 84, pp.128-141. Martin, N.J. and Rice, J.L., 2012. Developing renewable energy supply in Queensland, Australia: A study of the barriers, targets, policies, and actions. Renewable Energy, 44, pp.119-127. McHenry, M.P., 2009. Agricultural bio-char production, renewable energy generation and farm carbon sequestration in Western Australia: Certainty, uncertainty, and risk. Agriculture, Ecosystems Environment, 129(1), pp.1-7. Oliva, S., MacGill, I. and Passey, R., 2014. Estimating the net societal value of distributed household PV systems. Solar Energy, 100, pp.9-22. Panel, E., 2014. Renewable Energy Target Scheme: Report of the Expert Panel. edited by, D. Warburton (Chair). Commonwealth of Australia. Regulator, C.E., 2015. Emissions reduction fund: auction guidelines. Available at: cleanenergyregulator. gov. au, p.2. Simpson, G. and Clifton, J., 2014. Picking winners and policy uncertainty: Stakeholder perceptions of Australia's Renewable Energy Target. Renewable Energy, 67, pp.128-135. Sims, R.E., Rogner, H.H. and Gregory, K., 2003. Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation. Energy policy, 31(13), pp.1315-1326. Sioshansi, F.P. ed., 2011. Smart grid: integrating renewable, distributed and efficient energy. Academic Press. Stock, P., 2015. Authorship. (57) Walsh, D., Russell-Smith, J., and Cowley, R., 2014. Fire and carbon management in a diversified rangelands economy: research, policy and implementation challenges for northern Australia. The Rangeland Journal, 36(4), pp.313-322. Yu, M. and Halog, A., 2015. Solar photovoltaic development in Australiaa life cycle sustainability assessment study. Sustainability, 7(2), pp.1213-1247.