Thursday 30 October 2014

Palmer's Climate Lies Should Come As No Surprise | newmatilda.com

Palmer's Climate Lies Should Come As No Surprise | newmatilda.com



Palmer's Climate Lies Should Come As No Surprise



By Ben Eltham





Once
again backing away from a commitment, the PUP leader has announced
support for direct action. His deal with Greg Hunt serves a personal
interest but puts the Australian economy at risk, writes Ben Eltham




The Abbott government has secured the likely passage of its Direct Action carbon policy through the Senate.


The news comes as a result of an agreement reached yesterday between
Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Palmer United Party leader Clive
Palmer, for the PUP to support the bill with minor amendments.



Once again, after tough talk and media stunts, Palmer has rolled over
in the back rooms and done a deal in his own best interests. As the
owner of several large coal and iron ore mines, Palmer has an obvious
vested interest in ensuring a taxpayer-funded compensation plan for big
polluters. 



As we've argued many times,
Direct Action is a fraudulent policy that can’t possibly reduce
Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to our target of a 5 per cent
reduction by 2020.



What it will do is pay the biggest polluters in the country a total
of $2.55 billion over the next six years. All for doing what everyone
(except the most ardent climate denialists) agrees they must, if the
world is to escape devastating warming: lower their fossil fuel
pollution.



The government claims the policy will spend $2.55 billion in reverse
auctions to those firms that can promise the biggest reductions. This
will be great for the bank balances of big polluters, but won’t do much
to reduce Australia’s overall emissions.



You can get an idea of just how little the government cares by
reference to Hunt’s plans for those polluters who take advantage of the
scheme to rapidly ramp up their emissions. He has no plans to punish
rogue polluters.



Hunt just expects everyone to play by the rules. After all, fining
polluters for releasing greenhouse gases would look awfully like … a
carbon tax. “Our intention is no, our budgeting is no, and that's
because we think the firms will operate within it," Mr Hunt told Sky News on Thursday.



The passing of Direct Action in this manner is Australian politics at its barrel-bottom worst.


Everyone is lying. Hunt is lying when he says Direct Action will
reduce emissions by enough to meet Australia’s 5 per cent target. So
obviously will the policy fall short, the government has understandably
decided not to bother commissioning any fresh modeling.



No credible analyst believes Direct Action can achieve anything like
the 5 per cent emissions reduction target we have signed up to.
According to respected analysts RepuTex, Direct Action may be able to
reduce emissions by 80 to 130 million tonnes at best. “This is
equivalent to a shortfall of over 300 million tonnes for Australia to
meet its 5 per cent emissions reduction target of 421 million tonnes by
2020,” RepuTex’s Hugh Grossman told The Australian.



But even if Direct Action magically achieves the 5 per cent mark, the
next round of international talks will see many countries push
Australia for a bigger reduction by 2030 – perhaps 15 per cent, perhaps
more. There is simply no way Direct Action can do this.



In the manner of chancers everywhere, Hunt has doubled down on his
rhetoric in recent weeks, ramping up the chutzpah to superlative levels.
“Well, this is a scheme which is designed to last for 20 years, for 30
years,” Mr Hunt said in a press conference yesterday. “It is absolutely
capable of providing for the long term.”



Voters might be more confident in such predictions if the government
itself had budgeted for the policy “for the long term.” Direct Action
isn’t even fully budgeted for the medium term: while the headline budget
is $2.55 billion, the forward estimates in Joe Hockey’s May budget provide only $1.15 billion to 2017.



Clive Palmer is lying too. He put out a press release yesterday that
read “Palmer Saves Emissions Trading Scheme”. Even in the
reality-challenged worldview of Palmerama, this is a pretty impressive
confection. Australia doesn’t actually have an emissions trading scheme
to save: Palmer voted with the government to abolish it.



Palmer is probably talking about his pet scheme for a “zero dollar”
emissions trading scheme that would have a carbon price of zero until
Australia’s major trading partners introduce their own schemes
(presumably Europe is not a major trading partner). He secured a token
concession from Hunt on this point, allowing the Climate Change
Authority to research the zero-price ETS and report back.



But Hunt is frank about the government’s attitude to such a proposal.
“We have agreed to a review but our policy is crystal clear, we
abolished the [carbon] tax and we're not bringing it back," Mr Hunt told the ABC this morning.



Palmer is also trumpeting his success in saving certain climate
agencies and initiatives like the Climate Change Authority and the
Australian Renewable Energy Authority, both of which the government
wants to abolish.



It’s not much of a success. The last federal policy that is achieving
any emissions reductions of note, the Renewable Energy Target, is hanging in the balance. Palmer has pledged to vote to keep the RET.



On the other hand, he also pledged to vote against Direct Action,
which he is now voting for. On recent form, anything Clive Palmer rules
out one week is a good chance to receive his support the next. Perhaps
Al Gore can explain.



The real tragedy here – apart from the environmental one – is for
Australia’s future economy. Australia once had a world-leading scheme to
prepare it for a carbon-constrained future. That architecture has been
comprehensively dismantled, to be replaced with government hand-outs to
the worst culprits.



Greens leader Christine Milne made the obvious point. “What we have
here is no contribution to bringing down emissions, no modelling to
backup the claims, by a government and Clive Palmer which tore down an
emissions trading scheme which was bringing down emissions,” she said in
response.



Meanwhile, the world keeps warming, and the world’s economic powers
are rapidly moving towards far more serious efforts to transform their
polluting industries.



If you want proof, look to China’s latest five year plan.
It ploughed billions into renewable energy, established a pilot ETS in
some of the its largest regions, including Beijing, and moved to
radically lower coal consumption in an attempt to curb China’s crippling
air pollution. China has introduced a coal tariff, and Australia’s
biggest trading partner is reportedly preparing to introduce a national ETS in 2016.



In contrast, Australia is going backwards.


Under Direct Action, Australia is storing up huge risks for our
future economic wellbeing. Instead of a gradual transition that allows
the market to adjust in the least costly manner, we are instead headed
for a disruptive future in which rapid decarbonisation may well be
forced on us by international sanction. The result could be precisely
the sort of rust-belt doomsday that Tony Abbott prophesied in his
campaign against the carbon tax.





PrintPrint  
 
 
googleplus 

Wednesday 29 October 2014

Greg Hunt and the paid polluters' 'lower' electricity prices

Greg Hunt and the paid polluters' 'lower' electricity prices






Greg Hunt was bubbling over at sealing the deal with Big Clive Palmer last night (Image screenshot ABC 7.30)


With Greg Hunt boasting on ABC 7.30 about yesterday’s
deal with Clive Palmer, as well as the repeal of the “carbon tax”,
Lachlan Barker looks at his dubious claims about lower electricity
prices.




FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT MINISTER Greg Hunt was in high spirits on the ABC last night after sealing a deal
with coal mining magnate and Federal MP Clive Palmer to establish a
Soviet-style fund to pay Big Carbon taxpayers’ money to voluntarily stop
polluting.




He was in such good spirits some unkind people have even suggested
that he may have partaken in one too many celebratory champagnes after
the press conference announcing the deal , just before his interview with Leigh Sales on ABC 7.30.
This seems unkind, though there certainly did not seem to be much
sensible information emerging from his mouth during the course of the
programme.




One of the things Hunt did want to gush out ‒ and did so, over and
over again, speaking over Sales, much to her annoyance ‒ was that he had
also recently managed to repeal the carbon tax, “lowering electricity prices” for consumers.




Indeed, Hunt and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann have both recently released press releases
crowing about a drop in electricity prices and how this is due to the
repeal of the carbon tax. None of their media spin, however, mentioned
why power prices are so high — network charges, and the gold plating of the poles and wires. What’s worse, the Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS) even says, literally in black and white, that it is impossible to
quantify to effect of removing the carbon tax on electricity prices.








It’s the vibe, man!



I contacted Cormann and Hunt to ask if they could explain how they
can link the price drop to the carbon tax repeal when the ABS clearly
says it can’t.




The environment minister’s press secretary, could answer the question, instead mumbling something about:



“… mums and dads are seeing real changes in their bills”.




The Finance Minister’s office obviously knew they were on a loser and didn’t care to respond.



So, why did the price drop?



Well I checked with several experts and none had a definitive answer.



However, Associate Professor Mark Diesendorf
of the University of New South Wales’ Institute of Environmental
Studies did gave a speculative answer when I asked him if he knew why
the electricity price had dropped 5.1%, to which he replied:




‘No doubt the removal of the carbon price contributed, but so is
the growing contribution of wind power in South Australia, which is
clearly reducing wholesale electricity prices there.’





No mention of that from happy Greg Hunt, of course.



Nevertheless, Hunt has been trumpeting power bill savings following the repeal of the carbon tax.





Here is an example of Hunt’s claims, taken from an interview with Steve Price on Sydney’s home of Alan Jones, 2GB:



“If you’re with Lumo Energy, you had an 8.7% reduction in terms of the carbon tax being taken off. EnergyAustralia 8.9%; Simply Energy
10%; and if you were with Simply Energy for small business, a 9%
reduction. And if you’re using gas, similarly we’ve had very large
reductions.”





When I first read this, I thought the minister had derived these
figures using actual power bills. But that’s not the case; it turns out
that the minister was simply relying on ‘data’ given to him by these
power companies.




So I went away and checked and it turns out these are power company
estimates only — and ones with enough get out clauses to satisfy
Houdini.




Here how EnergyAustralia arrived at their “estimate”:



The estimated annual average cost savings for
residential electricity customers are based on the carbon price per MWh,
loss factors, MWh per annum used, the estimated customer bill for the
financial year 2014-15 for each State/Territory and EnergyAustralia’s
implementation costs.’





Clear as mud!



And they’re all like that.



Powerdirect, a subsidiary of AGL ‒ a company the minister’s press secretary put me on to ‒ even says on its home page prices may increase:



Although the price reductions due to the removal of
carbon tax are being backdated to 1 July 2014, some customers may see an
overall increase to their energy rates due to these other changes.’





‘These other changes’ refer to recent price changes, unrelated to the carbon tax, in Queensland, NSW and South Australia.



The point here, just to reiterate, is that Hunt and Cormann can’t
link the entire electricity price drop to the repeal of the carbon tax.






They may be able to in the future, but not now.



So, when the minister said in his radio interview “you’ve had an 8.7% reduction”, he was flat out lying.



To be accurate, Greg Hunt should have said:



“You may receive a reduction of 8.7%."




But even then, I wouldn’t count on it.



As mentioned previously, the real reason power bills are so high is
because of the power company’s outrageous network charges. I’ve written
on this topic myself, but it is clear I need to cover the topic again.




This year, Origin ‒ one of the industry’s biggest players, with 4.3 million customers ‒ is forecast to increase its profits by 10% to $784 million.



So clearly, if they are planning to put their prices down due to the
scrapping of the carbon tax, then they are planning to get their profit
increases elsewhere. Maintaining high network charges will be a part of
it, while another may be using cheap gas from Queensland to bring down the cost of generation.




Greg Hunt even referred to this in his radio interview and, as usual from our Coalition Government, it’s (still) all Labor’s fault:



“Under Labor electricity prices went up, according to the Bureau of Statistics, 101% over their six years.”




Now, this is widely agreed, even by me, which leads to the question: isn’t it time the LNP did something about it?



So I called both Greg Hunt and Matthias Cormann and asked them that, asking them both:



If power prices went up 101% during Labor’s term of office, is
this because of network charges, the ‘gold-plating’ of the poles and
wires? If so, are you going to legislate to reduce these charges?







Greg Hunt’s office referred me to Energy Minister Ian Macfarlane, so I forwarded the questions, and got (shock!) a response.



A spokesperson for the Energy minister said that his Government will be:



‘… providing consumers with more information to manage their
electricity use, and ensuring the regulatory framework minimises red
tape and extra costs for electricity suppliers, which are ultimately
passed on to the consumer.’





So, in other words, they will be telling consumers to use less power,
while at the same time removing any regulatory safeguards to stop power
companies gouging you for every cent you’ve got.




By the way, once again, the smart operators in Matthias Cormann’s office knew they were on a loser and did not respond.



Let’s summarise what we’ve learnt today.



Firstly, the repeal of the carbon tax will have little or no effect on your bill — it may even go up.



Secondly, the Federal Government refuses to deal with the real reason
that power prices are so high ‒ network charges ‒ in any meaningful
way, instead dealing with the problem by diversion and spin.




As ever, these articles on power prices are paradoxical for those of us who care about the environment.



Clearly, none of us want those on low incomes to be struggling to pay
their power bills to fuel power company profits, yet the greed of the
fossil fuel based power companies ‒ in league with their partner and
protector the Federal Government ‒ is leading to a rush to install
renewable power in the home.




Fifty thousand solar panels
were installed in NSW in the first three months of this year in an
effort to reduce crippling power bills — giving a current total of 1.3 million Australian homes
now with solar panels on their roofs. Therefore, ironically, power
company greed is having a bizarre ‘good for the environment’ effect.




Finally (and this really sums up the power companies’ desire to
protect the environment, AKA, nil) when I was doing my research, I went
to the AGL home page to read their spin and found this job ad:








'Envrionment' — really?



When an energy company can’t even spell ‘environment’, you can be pretty certain they couldn’t care less about protecting it.



But then again, we have an environment minister so in raptures over
repealing a price on carbon and sealing a deal with a coal miner to pay
polluters taxpayer’s money to please stop polluting he is utterly
insensible on national television.




What did Australia do to deserve this?





Lachlan Barker blogs at cyclonecharlie88.blogspot.com.au. You can follow him on Twitter @cyclonecharlie8.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License



Direct Action: Coalition secures $2.5bn plan amid fears over emissions target

Direct Action: Coalition secures $2.5bn plan amid fears over emissions target



Direct Action: Coalition secures $2.5bn plan amid fears over emissions target








clive palmer

PUP leader Clive Palmer and environment minister Greg Hunt at Parliament House in Canberra on 29 October 2014.
Photograph: Mike Bowers/Mike Bowers








The Coalition will get its $2.5bn Direct Action climate policy
through the Senate after agreeing to investigate the emissions trading
policy it has vowed never to introduce, leaving analysts sceptical
Australia can achieve its 2020 emission reduction target or deeper
long-term cuts.



Environment minister Greg Hunt agreed to an investigation of
emissions trading schemes and Australia’s future greenhouse targets as a
“gesture of good faith” to win the votes of the Palmer United party,
even though he insisted the coalition would never, ever support an
emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax.



Despite this, and despite the fact that his party voted to repeal the
emissions trading scheme Australia already had in July, PUP leader
Clive Palmer said his deal with Hunt had “kept alive the hope of the
ETS”, releasing a press release proclaiming “Palmer Saves Emissions
Trading Scheme”.



Hunt said the deal was “a tremendous outcome for the government ... a
fundamental success”, but Labor, the Greens and environment groups
slammed the outcome.



Labor’s environment spokesman Mark Butler said it was “a terrible
deal for Australia’s future … leaving Australia with no meaningful way
to reduce carbon pollution.”



“I don’t know what Jedi mind trick Greg Hunt just played on Clive
Palmer … we don’t need another inquiry. We need action,” he said.



Greens leader senator Christine Milne said: “What we have here is no
contribution to bringing down emissions, no modelling to backup the
claims, by a government and Clive Palmer which tore down an emissions
trading scheme which was bringing down emissions.”



The government has also agreed to a demand by independent senator Nick Xenophon
to move quickly to set up a “safeguards” scheme to stop companies
increasing their greenhouse emissions – but has not committed to any
detail, and Hunt insisted Xenophon had not won any concessions that were
not already coalition policy.



He rejected Xenophon’s push to allow the government to purchase international carbon permits, something the prime minister once described as sending
“money … offshore into dodgy carbon farms in Equatorial Guinea and
Kazakhstan”, even though this would have made it easier and cheaper to
reach Australia’s agreed emissions reduction target. It is understood
Tony Abbott remained strongly opposed to this idea, despite its strong
backing from the business community.



The government has also agreed to retain the Climate Change Authority – which it was once committed to abolish – to undertake the investigation into an ETS and future reduction targets, and provide reports to parliament.


Under Direct Action the government will commit $2.5bn over four years
to an “emissions reduction fund” for competitive grants to companies or
organisations that volunteer to reduce their emissions.



The “safeguards” mechanism is supposed to impose some upper limit on
emissions across the board – including on companies or sectors not
bidding in its auction – so that their increasing emissions do not
cancel out the decreases in emissions purchased through the government
fund.



But Hunt insisted there would be no revenue raised as a result of the “safeguards”.


As revealed by Guardian Australia in August,
former Australian Conservation Foundation head Don Henry and co-chair
of Greg Hunt’s own expert committee on Direct Action, Danny Price, have
been involved in months of backroom talks to win the backing of PUP,
Xenophon and DLP senator John Madigan during the three months since the
government succeeded in repealing the former government’s carbon pricing
scheme.



Deep concerns about the adequacy of the policy remain. The government
has not modelled whether the fund has enough money to meet Australia’s
minimum 2020 target to reduce emissions by 5%, with Abbott saying during
the election campaign he preferred to just “have a crack”.



CCA chairman Bernie Fraser, who attended the press conference to
announce the deal with Hunt and Palmer, referred to the authority’s
previous work when asked whether Australia could meet its target, and
what that target should be.



In February, the authority reported that Australia would have to
treble its 2020 target to 15% to remain internationally credible, and
without a carbon price or other “effective” policies, emissions will
grow to 17% above 2000 levels by 2020. That, it said, would leave an
“improbably large task for future Australians to make a fair
contribution to global efforts” to constrain global warming to 2C.



Market analysis firm Reputex said their projections showed the
emissions reduction fund would only be able to buy 20 to 30% of the
greenhouse gas abatement needed to meet the 5% target. The firm says
that if the “safeguards mechanism” did become a proper baseline and
credit emissions trading scheme, it could help the government make up
this shortfall.



Separate modelling by Sinclair Knight Merz/MMA and Monash University’s Centre of Policy Studies, commissioned by the Climate Institute,
which used assumptions more generous to the Coalition, found it would
need at least another $4bn. Abbott has said if Direct Action falls short
he will not allocate any more money.



Hunt would not reveal what advice he had to substantiate his “hope,
belief and expectation” that the target would be achieved, but said
Australia would be helped by the fact that the decline of manufacturing
was reducing electricity emissions and that abatement might be purchased
more cheaply than he had originally anticipated.



The government must reveal by early next year what post-2020 target
it is willing to adopt, and is under strong international pressure to
agree to much deeper cuts, but few observers believe the “direct action”
policy could achieve them.



The terms of reference for the CCA review show the report could embarrass the government just as this pressure is intensifying.


Coalition frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull once warned its costs could
become prohibitive when Australia has to cut its emissions even further
after 2020, especially without the option of buying cheaper offshore
carbon permits.



In a 2010 speech after he was deposed as leader, Turnbull said
direct-action style schemes were “a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a
grand scale” and “schemes where bureaucrats and politicians pick
technologies and winners, doling out billions of taxpayers’ dollars,
neither are economically efficient nor will be environmentally
effective”.



And the “blue book” prepared by the Treasury for a possible incoming Coalition government in 2010 said
“a market mechanism can achieve the necessary abatement at a cost per
tonne of emissions that is far lower than alternative direct-action
policies”.



Environment Minister fast-tracks coal expansion on Great Barrier Reef

Environment Minister fast-tracks coal expansion on Great Barrier Reef

Environment Minister fast-tracks coal expansion on Great Barrier Reef







Brisbane, 29 October 2014: Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt has
fast-tracked the approval of the world’s biggest coal port in the heart
of the Great Barrier Reef today, ignoring impacts on the Reef and the
adjacent internationally significant Caley Valley wetlands at Abbot
Point, said Greenpeace.
Under the proposal, millions of tonnes of seabed would be dredged
from the World Heritage Area and dumped on the Caley Valley wetlands –
home to over 40,000 water birds.


“At the behest of a coal company, the Queensland Government has
created a proposal to dredge the Reef and dump it in the Caley Valley
wetlands in order to fast-track the controversial expansion of Abbot
Point coal terminal,” said Greenpeace Reef campaigner Shani Tager.


“A colander has fewer holes than this dredging proposal,” said Ms
Tager. “There has been no assessment on the impacts of dumping this acid
sulphate dredge spoil on vulnerable species such as the Australian
painted snipe, or endangered turtle breeding habitat.


“Adani, the Indian coal company behind the new Abbot Point coal
terminal, has been holding the Queensland and Federal Governments to
ransom over this development, threatening to pull out unless their
demands are met. Greg Hunt has rolled over, again failing to stand up to
Adani and its Reef wrecking agenda.”


Minister Hunt’s decision comes amidst financial uncertainty over the
future of the new Abbot Point coal terminal. This week, some of the
world’s largest investment banks ruled out financing the development.


“Despite all of the concerns by UNESCO, scientists and the Australian
community, dredging for Adani’s proposed new mega coal port in the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area will not even require a full
environmental impact assessment. It’s an outrage,” Ms Tager said.


“Millions of Australians want to protect the Great Barrier Reef from
coal developments. We need to let them know we will not take this lying
down.”


Greenpeace’s submission to Environment Minister Greg Hunt on the revised dumping and dredging plans at Abbot Point is available here.
Queensland Government dredging and dumping proposal is available here
Queensland Government wetland proposal is available here

For comment, please call: Shani Tager, 0432 050 809
Photographs
of the Caley Valley wetlands and Abbot Point available at:
http://www.greenpeacemedia.org/main.php?g2_itemId=19146 Username: photos
Password: green


For interviews or more information, contact: Elsa Evers 0438 204 041


Categories

Tuesday 28 October 2014

The Coalition's 19th-century colonial time warp on climate

The Coalition's 19th-century colonial time warp on climate



Article by DAVID HOLMES

The Coalition’s 19th-century colonial time warp on climate










AAP/Lukas Coch






Greens senator Scott Ludlam’s prophecy
that environment minister Greg Hunt has been directed to play solitaire
for an entire term of office is so far holding up to scrutiny.




It is looking increasingly unlikely that Australia will meet even its
now-minuscule target of cutting emissions to 5% of 2000 levels by 2020,
in the face of news that the European Union has just agreed to cut emissions by 40% by 2030.




This landmark agreement leaves Australia’s bipartisan target
pitifully short of any internationally credible benchmark. But even this
target is being eroded by direct inaction on Hunt’s part and the coal
mining lobby’s resurgence in Australia.




Not only has the gap between accepting the science of climate change
and the Coalition’s policies on mitigation widened since assuming
office, the government has discarded the links between them all together
with an all-out sales pitch for coal as not just good for our economy but for humanity.




But Tony Abbott’s comments on coal have been widely misunderstood as
simply an advertorial for the fossil fuel industry. The humanitarian
argument behind his statement actually harks back to a colonial era of
thinking about how the exploitation of natural resources can help
developing countries as much as it can help the countries that are
engaged in the exploitation.




Abbott’s comment is directly following the line of Hunt and fossil fuel-friendly climate contortionist Bjorn Lomborg that exporting coal to India is a charitable exercise because it means (according to Hunt):



… providing electricity to up to 100 million people in India … [who] can be lifted out of poverty.


As I have argued elsewhere, this argument is incredibly patronising, not simply because India itself is now supporting renewables ahead of coal, but because it disregards the oppressive legacy of colonialism in India itself.



To argue that Australia should lead poorer nations into the more destructive aspects of their economic activities is offensive.



Abbott and co. are inhabiting a 19th-century time warp that poor
nations are on some kind of continuum to prosperity that is provided by
the grace of developed nations. In fact, it is poorer nations that have
actually been underdeveloped by capitalism and the activities of
imperialist states that are hundreds of years old.




Promoting the same logic by which European capitalism under-developed Africa, South America and India hundreds of years ago is one of the most pathetic apologies for big coal ever seen in the post-colonial era.



But whereas – according to the Coalition – coal might be good for
humanity in India, it seems that it is not as good for humanity when it
is burnt in China. When the Abbott government was on its mission to
repeal the carbon tax, its biggest argument was that the effectiveness
of the tax would pale against the large emitters. China was cast as
emitting so much carbon as to make Australia’s actual emissions (rather
than its targets) look infinitesimal.




And this is while much of the coal actually being burnt in China is
actually exported from Australia, only to arrive back in Australia as
embedded energy in consumables.




China, and to a lesser extent India, were portrayed as rogue carbon
citizens that weren’t making the first move to curb emissions, thereby
absolving Australia and other countries from having to lift a finger.
However, now that China has imposed tariffs on Australian coal, China’s larger scale “negligence” is not so easy to point to.




In a way, India and China represent the two-faced nature of the
Coalition’s climate position. That is, the Coalition officially
subscribes to an acceptance of the science, but then decries any action
on climate change at home as inconsequential if large emitters do not
address their own emissions while promoting fossil fuel in India under
the disingenuous cover of addressing poverty.




In fact, Australia’s position on China, now complicated by the
tariffs, has been patronising in the past. It is true that as the
world’s largest emitter, China has provided convenient apologia for
political elites in countries that have become lethargic about
decarbonisation. To simply suggest that China’s energy infrastructure is
reckless and carbon insensitive might be an easy sell to constituencies
outside of China, but such a view is blissfully ignorant of China’s
reality.




Firstly, it ignores the part that historical concentrations have
played in getting carbon levels in the earth’s atmosphere to 400ppm,
which far outweigh current emissions differentials between nations.




Secondly, the per capita inequities that exist between nations put
China way down the list of offending nations, and Australia well up the
list.




Thirdly, as the “workshop of the world”, China’s energy needs are not
“domestic” in the way we usually think of energy use in industrialised
nations. It is first-world consumers who are placing the largest demand
on China’s energy infrastructure, ensuring that China will remain hungry
for power, wherever it can get it from.




Put simply, China supplies global capitalism, that “monster of
energy” that Friedrich Nietzsche once described, with the unsustainable
consumer commodities that western lifestyles are borrowing from future
generations.




Given that economic growth in China turned it into a freight train
before any nation on earth began to even recognise climate change as a
problem, it has been very hard for China to slow it down.




China has actually been more proactive on climate that many other
nations around the world. While it surpassed the US in C02 emissions in
2007, this year its consumption of coal began to drop for the first time this century. Also, only a few months ago, China signed up to eight partnership pacts with the US to reduce C02 emissions.




In June this year, China joined the UK in calling on all nations to
reveal their plan of action well before the Paris climate summit in late
2015 in a joint statement from British prime minister David Cameron and
Chinese premier Li Keqiang. The two leaders also signed a series of
deals on energy and low carbon technology.




Despite massive growth in electricity consumption and industrial
production, China had managed to slow its emissions intensity between
2005 and 2013 by 28%. To achieve its current target of cutting up to 45%
off 2005 levels by 2020, China’s investment in renewables may be
decisive.




Most of the world thinks of China as the hub for solar PV exports. However, a Global New Energy Development report, released in July, reveals China to have taken top spot from Germany as the leading PV market.



Research and consulting firm GlobalData has also released a report
recently, showing China has overtaken the US as the leading market in
wind power – a capacity set to double in the next five years.




In short, China invests more annually in its renewable energy sector than all of Europe. And unlike market-based economies, China is encouraging electric car use by fostering substantial subsidies and tax breaks to transform private transport path dependence.



These innovations in new technology and renewables are obviously what
China excels in. A more difficult challenge is establishing an
effective national carbon market across its provinces, which is expected
to be rolled out by the end of 2016. As with the renewables comparison,
such a market – if successful – will dwarf the size of the largest
current trading system, the EU. But China must learn from the mistakes
of other start-up markets around the world if it is to be effective.




Domestically, China is making progress on decarbonisation at a pace
that suggests it is serious about the risks of dangerous climate change,
as well as cleaning up the medical issues associated with urban
pollution.




For many nations, the speed with which they need to re-design their
energy infrastructures to avoid the danger associated with two degrees
warming is a challenge they are in denial about. And the lacklustre
performance of recent climate summits is a measure of such denial.




According to a recent report by the Lowy Institute:



China is losing confidence in the UNFCCC’s effectiveness,
and may turn to regional solutions if the next round of negotiations in
Paris in 2015 is not fruitful.


Bloomberg reports
that China (and India) are at least expecting the highest per capita
carbon emitting nations to reform before they participate in UN-led
talks. It is as though the political inertia of global negotiations is
an unwelcome distraction from getting on with practical solutions in
China.




Whereas the Chinese leadership is frustrated by political lethargy at
international levels, the Australian government seems to be very
welcoming of it. Australia was an active participant in sabotaging
efforts in Warsaw in 2013, and has been trying its utmost to keep climate off the agenda at the Australian-hosted G20 Leaders' Summit in November.






Part of this article is adapted from an earlier post for the China Policy Institute at the University of Nottingham.


Sunday 26 October 2014

Australia awarded last place in the Global Green Economy Index - The AIM Network

Australia awarded last place in the Global Green Economy Index - The AIM Network





Australia awarded last place in the Global Green Economy Index














In a mere two years Australia has fallen from a ranking of 4th to 37th in supporting clean energy to combat climate change. Dr Anthony Horton reports.


According to the 2014 Global Green Economy Index (GGEI) report,
Australia’s leadership efforts with respect to climate change has seen
it ranked last out of 60 countries. The index, which was first published
in 2010, measures the green economic performance of each country based
on four components- leadership and climate change, efficiency sectors,
markets and investment and environment and natural capital. According to
the GGEI, Australia’s ranking is largely due to factors including
negative media coverage, “nonconstructive behaviour” in international
forums and overall poor performance in climate change.



In terms of actions that support clean energy and combat climate
change, Australia was ranked 37th, which represents a dramatic fall from
the 4th rank attained only two years ago. To put this rank of 37th into
perspective, developing countries Kenya and Rwanda were ranked 17th and
27th respectively. As a result of Australia’s performance, it was
placed in a bracket with Japan, the Netherlands and the United States as
countries where their perceived green economic performance dramatically
exceeded their actual performance measured by the GGEI. The report
concluded that Australia’s poor result meant that much needed attention
should be devoted to the areas identified above (eg. media coverage,
poor climate change performance), and that as a nation, Australia should
build on its strong performance with respect to markets and investment
(eg. cleantech innovation and commercialisation).



The GGEI report has at least one interesting parallel to the 2014
Global Innovation Index report I discussed in a previous blog, which
ranked Australia highly in terms of expenditure on research and
development (13th) but much lower in terms of knowledge and technology
outputs (31st) and the communication of these outputs (78th). With each
report that is published and as a pattern emerges in terms of the
conclusions and recommendations of these reports, one would think that
it should make our political leaders take notice of the change in how
Australia is perceived as a global citizen, not just the change in how
Australia’s environmental performance is perceived. This is particularly
poignant given that in previous blogs I have discussed technologies
that are being implemented in Australia without Government support
despite proven track records around the world spanning more than 30
years.



See the GGEI report in full here: http://dualcitizeninc.com/GGEI-Report2014.pdf


This article was first published on Dr Horton’s blog http://www.envirocarb.com.au.


Dr Anthony Horton is an Environmental
Professional with extensive knowledge of Western Australian and
Commonwealth Environmental Protection legislation and its application in
the State Government Department of Environment and Conservation and the
mining industry in WA.



Share this:

Friday 17 October 2014

Coal is NOT good for humanity — or Australia

Coal is NOT good for humanity — or Australia








Coal is not only not “good for humanity”, says Lachlan Barker, it is not even particularly good for the Australian economy — especially not in the long term.



THE RIDE IS OVER, TONY



WHEN TONY ABBOTT said “coal is good for humanity” at the opening of a coal mine in Moranbah on Monday, it was somewhat overshadowed by his comical,  bumbling threat to “shirtfront” Russian President Vladamir Putin at the G20.



Senator Larissa Waters from the Greens responded angrily to the Prime Minister’s remark, stating in a press release:



People will be shaking their heads in disbelief at the Prime
Minister’s alarming comment today, and future generations will wonder
how our Prime Minister could be so short sighted.





She added:



While our Prime Minister continues to ignore reality, Australians
understand coal is threatening our very way of life and our planet,
with global warming, sea level rise and acidification and more extreme
weather events.




While our Prime Minister continues to ignore reality, Australians
understand coal is threatening our very way of life and our planet,
with global warming, sea level rise and acidification and more extreme
weather events.




Coal is important in the short term, but only while we transition
to renewable power. Currently operating coal mines can adequately meet
this demand, opening new ones is financial and environmental lunacy.







Another part of this ongoing debate is that the federal and state
governments keep talking as if they are in control of when and if the
coal industry will end. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
future of the Australian fossil fuel industry will be decided by global
financial forces. And the signs are not good for coal.




A story in The Conversation by business academics Professor John Mathews and Hao Tan highlights China’s quest for renewables and paint a picture PM Abbott would do well to comprehend.



Mathews and Tan write that China’s



… latest target is that renewables will have a capacity of 550
gigawatts — over half a trillion watts — by the year 2017. We calculate
that this will exert a major impact in China — enhancing energy
security; reducing emissions pollution; and reducing carbon emissions .…
If it can reach its 2017 target of 550 GW renewables, we calculate that
this would translate into a saving of 45% on current imports of coal,
oil and natural gas.





Added to this, the price of coal is dropping, largely due to oversupply. It will almost certainly drop more – or decrease volume – due to a recent Chinese decision to put an import tariff on Australia’s coal — 3% on coking, and 6% on thermal. In addition, new Chinese restrictions on ash and sulphur content will make some percentage of Australia’s coal unsaleable in China, or mean it will have to be ‘washed’ further, adding to production costs and thereby lowering profit.



As for gas, Australia is currently projected to ship 18 Mt of gas to
China in 2018; the above reduction could see the proposed 18Mt drop to
14Mt or lower.  








China also recently signed a gas deal with Russia to pipe in gas, adding to the threats to Australia’s gas exporting market.



On the small upside for the fossil fuel export industry, our biggest client for coal and gas is Japan.
After Fukushima, Japan has become more wary of nuclear power and, as
such, will rely, in the short term, on importing coal and gas from
Australia — amongst others.




However, Japan has plans to go renewable as well. Currently the major stumbling block is that their power grid is not geared for the intermittent supply from renewables like solar, but they are working on it and, once these problems are solved, Japan plans to have 20% renewable power by 2020, with major consequences for exports to Australia’s biggest coal and gas customer.



So, again, all of this points to the lunacy of opening new coal and gas projects.



Then there’s divestment. This is the practice of removing your investment money from fossil fuels.



The most high-profile example of divestment is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.



Old man J.D. Rockefeller became as rich as Creosus by finding oil and he stumbled upon a lot of it — becoming America’s first billionaire from these finds. Currently the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has divested 7% of its vast wealth from fossil fuels.





Fund president Stephen Heintz says they are making a moral and an economic case:



“The action we’re taking is symbolism, but it is important
symbolism. We’re making a moral case, but also, increasingly, an
economic case.”





The economic case is clearly that there is no longer money to be made
in fossil fuels; the moral case is clearly to protect the environment
upon which we all rely on to live.




The whole divestment idea began in the States at Stanford University. Since the world’s universities are meant to be the cradle of future leaders, this can only auger well for humanity.



Here in Australia, the ball has been set rolling by the Australian National University (ANU).



The ANU has divested $16 million out of fossil fuels from its $1 billion portfolio — which is only a small divestment, but has provoked a storm of anguish from the Federal Government and the coal industry. They won’t be happy to know that Sydney University are also considering making the same move.





Joe Hockey weighed in with a truly idiotic remark, highlighting his ignorance of the very economy he presides over, reportedly saying that the ANU was:



“… removed from the reality of what is helping to drive the Australian economy and create more employment.”




The following are some figures Joe would do well to note. Mining is not driving the Australian economy, services are.



This table from the NSW department of Trade and Industry tells the real story.







Of Australia’s GDP in 2013, 68% came from services, with mining accounting for only 8% of Australia’s GDP in this period.



As for Queensland and Western Australia leading the economic way with
their mining interests, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) says
this is wrong as well, as it tells us:




In 2012-13 New South Wales continued to have the largest sales
and service income at 30.4% ($851.2b) of Total selected industries,
followed by Victoria at 23.8% ($665.5b) and Queensland (19.7% or
$551.6b).






Like he did when he claimed this week that it was “ridiculous” to suggest
Australia was the highest per capita greenhouse gas emitter in the
OECD, this embarrassing numbskull of a treasurer is dead wrong when he
claims mining is Australia’s most important employer — it’s just not.




NSW has 32,400 miners, 0.9% of the state’s work force; Victoria has 15,500 miners, 0.5% of the work force; Queensland has 70,800 miners, 3% of the work force; and Western Australia has 95,800 miners, 7% of the work force — yes, even the ‘mining state’ has only 7% of its employees in the dirt game. 



How can such imbeciles be in charge of this country? How can a
treasurer and prime minister be so ill-informed and make such obviously
false and reckless statements.




It simply beggars belief.



In the movie Point Break, FBI agent Keanu Reeves says to bank robber Patrick Swayze at the end of the film,



“The ride is over."




So to paraphrase, Joe and Tony, “the fossil fuel ride is over”, it’s time you recognised that.





Lachlan Barker blogs at cyclonecharlie88.blogspot.com.au. You can follow him on Twitter @cyclonecharlie8.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License