Malcolm Turnbull Climate Plan To Deliver Only One-Seventh Carbon Cuts: The Climate Institute

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

Paris climate talks: what you need to know
Leaders from nearly 200 countries are meeting in Paris in December for the United Nation's Climate Change Conference to try and agree on a climate treaty, discuss how we can keep global warming below two degrees.

The centrepiece of the Turnbull government's climate policy will deliver only about one-seventh of Australia's post-2020 carbon reduction goals, according to analysis by The Climate Institute.
The $2.55 billion Emission Reduction Fund (ERF) – which may swell to almost $5 billion by 2030 – will likely deliver about 355 million tonnes of carbon abatement, based on the price paid in the fund's first auction, the group said in a report.

Malcolm Turnbull has maintained the climate goals of predecessor Tony Abbott. Photo: Luis Ascui

After the second auction results were released on Thursday, The Climate Institute updated its calculations based on a lower price per tonne of $12.25. The ERF budget would account for 377 million tonnes, or about 15 per cent of Australia's total abatement, based on the average price of $13.12 over the two auctions.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has maintained the climate goals of his predecessor Tony Abbott. These project a 5 per cent fall in Australia's 2000 emissions by 2020 and about 19 per cent out to 2030.
Based on government projections, the goals imply Australia will need to cut emissions by a cumulative total between 2015 and 2030 of 2.5 billion tonnes – or about seven times the ERF's likely abatement, The Climate Institute said.

The Turnbull government's main climate policy covers just one-seventh of pledged emission cuts, the Climate Institute says. Photo: Fairfax Media

With the second auction paying out $557 million, the total spending now exceeds $1.21 billion. As with the first auction, most of the projects - totaling about 93 million tonnes of carbon - involve land sector projects, such tree planting, savannah burning or carbon farming.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt said in April the first auction "clearly prove[s] that the Coalition's climate change policy is delivering real and significant abatement – just as we always said it would".
A spokesman for Mr Hunt said there is "no doubt that the ERF is incredibly effective".
Wind turbines in California: The Climate Institute said Australia's post-2020 targets should be much higher if nations are to keep global warming to within 2 degrees of pre-industrial limits.

Wind turbines in California: The Climate Institute said Australia's post-2020 targets should be much higher if nations are to keep global warming to within 2 degrees of pre-industrial limits.

"The results speak for themselves," he said. "Our system is delivering massive emissions reductions."
"We welcome the fact that the Climate Institute – an organisation that for a long time has been highly critical of the ERF and a supporter of a carbon tax/emissions trading system – is now finally beginning to acknowledge some of the 'important strengths' of the [fund]," the spokesman said.

Temperatures rise
The Climate Institute said Australia's post-2020 targets should be much higher if nations are to keep global warming to within 2 degrees of pre-industrial limits.
The UK's Met Office said on Monday that the mean global temperature in the first nine months of 2015 was 1.02 degrees above the 1850-1900 average – passing the symbolic 1-degree milestone for the first time.
"We've probably got 1.5 degrees [of warming] locked in," John Connor, chairman of the Climate Institute, said.
A fairer target for Australia would be to aim for 4.7 billion tonnes of abatement by 2030, of which the ERF would deliver just 7.5 per cent, the Climate Institute said.
The current target may itself be hard to keep because the government is relying on payments to polluters or those storing carbon with little restraint on the rest of the economy to curb emissions, Mr Connor said: "We are not sending a broad-based signal to emitters in the economy that they have to take responsibility".

Emissions 'going the wrong way'
Mark Butler, the Opposition spokesman for climate change, said Direct Action would probably perform even worse than The Climate Institute predicts.
Almost three-quarters of the first auction went to existing projects, some as much as 10 years old, Mr Butler said, citing the Clean Energy Regulator.
"They were simply handing over money to projects that were already in the system, and were already delivering abatement that had been counted," Mr Butler said.
"Every piece of analysis I've seen says that Direct Action will not even constrain emissions, let alone reduce them," he said. "Emissions are actually going the wrong way."
Greens deputy leader Larissa Waters said weak baseline rules meant most big polluters would find ways to increase emissions without penalty.
"The so-called safeguard mechanism, which is meant to cap pollution, is set so high that it is meaningless – it is only safeguarding the Liberal party's big mining donors," Senator Waters said.
The Climate Institute report said Direct Action had its uses but only "as a buttress not a pillar" of climate action. Other policies could include allowing companies to trade pollution permits between them – effectively setting up a carbon price – as well as stricter vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
The Greens have legislation before parliament to raise car standards "so there is no need for the delay to 2017 for the government to merely consider this – these standards can be implemented immediately", Senator Waters said.

The Elephant in Paris – Guns and Greenhouse Gases

Common Dreams - Nick Buxton

Though the Pentagon itself warns about the coming dangers posed by a warming planet, there is evidence that many players in the corporate-military-security industrial nexus are already seeing climate change not just as a threat but an opportunity. (Photo: Stephen Melkisethian/flickr/cc)

There is no shortage of words in the latest negotiating document for the UN climate negotiations taking place in Paris at the end of November – 32,731 words to be precise and counting. Yet strangely there is one word you won’t find: military. It’s a strange omission, given that the US military alone is the single largest user of petroleum in the world and has been the main enforcer of the global oil economy for decades.
The history of how the military disappeared from any carbon accounting ledgers goes back to the UN climate talks in 1997 in Kyoto.  Under pressure from military generals and foreign policy hawks opposed to any potential restrictions on US military power, the US negotiating team succeeded in securing exemptions for the military from any required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Even though the US then proceeded not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the exemptions for the military stuck for every other signatory nation. Even today, the reporting each country is required to make to the UN on their emissions excludes any fuels purchased and used overseas by the military.
As a result it is still difficult to calculate the exact responsibility of the world’s military forces for greenhouse gas emissions. A US Congressional report in 2012 said that the Department of Defense consumed about 117 million barrels of oil in 2011, only a little less than all the petrol and diesel use of all cars in Britain the same year. Deploying that oil across the globe to the fuel-greedy hummers, jets and drones has become a growing preoccupation of NATO military strategists.
But the responsibility of the military for the climate crisis goes much further than their own use of fossil fuels. As we witnessed in Iraq, the military, the arms corporations and their many powerful political supporters have consistently relied on (and aggressively pushed for) armed intervention to secure oil and energy supplies. The military is not just a prolific user of oil, it is one of the central pillars of the global fossil-fuel economy. Today whether it is in the Middle East, the Gulf, or the Pacific, modern-day military deployment is about controlling oil-rich regions and defending the key shipping supply routes that carry half the world’s oil and sustain our consumer economy.
The resulting expansion of conflict across the globe has consumed ever-increasing levels of military expenditure: in 2014, global military expenditure reached $1.8 trillion dollars. This money is a huge diversion of public resources that could be invested instead in renewable energy as well as providing support for those most affected by climate change. When the UK government in 2014 allocates £25 billion to the Ministry of Defence but only £1.5 billion to the Department of Energy & Climate Change, it is clear where its priorities lie.
Ironically despite their role in the climate crisis, one of the loudest voices calling for action on climate change is coming from the military. US Military Head of Pacific Command Samuel Locklear III is typical of a growing chorus of military generals identifying climate change as the major security challenge of this century. The generals have been echoed by politicians. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has argued that, “Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing our world. And it is not just a threat to the environment. It is also a threat to our national security, to global security…”
This could seem a welcome development. After all who would not want one of the most powerful forces on your side in tackling humanity’s greatest ever challenge? But there is a good reason also to be cautious of who we jump into bed with. A close look at military climate change strategies reveals that they are all about securing borders, protecting supply-routes for corporations, controlling conflicts around resources and instability caused by extreme weather, and repressing social unrest. They turn the victims of climate change into ‘threats’ to be controlled or combated. There is certainly no examination of the military’s own role in enforcing a corporate capitalism and fossil-fuel economy that has caused the climate crisis.
In fact, there is evidence that many players in this corporate-military-security industrial nexus are already seeing climate change not just as a threat but an opportunity. Arms and security industries thrive on conflict and insecurity and climate change promises another financial boon to add to the ongoing War on Terror. British arms giant BAE Systems was surprisingly open about this in one of their annual reports saying “New threats and conflict arenas are placing unprecedented demands on military forces and presenting BAE Systems with new challenges and opportunities.” An Energy Environmental Defence and Security (E2DS) conference in 2011 jubilantly proclaimed that “the aerospace, defence and security sector is gearing up to address what looks set to become its most significant adjacent market since the strong emergence of the civil/homeland security business almost a decade ago.”
One of the critical lessons for climate change movements in recent years has been an understanding that simply pressurising politicians to do the right thing will not deliver effective change. Instead we must target, delegitimise and undermine the corporations that are blocking change. As climate change impacts start to hit home, we must now widen our focus to stop these same forces now disturbingly seeking to profit from the consequences of climate change. As the Paris climate talks take the global stage, it’s time to draw attention to the military elephant in our room and demand that adaptation to climate change is led by principles of human rights and solidarity, rather than militarism and corporate profits.

Coal From Carmichael Mine 'Will Create More Annual Emissions Than New York'

The Guardian -  Lenore Taylor

Australia Institute calculations show average annual emissions from burning coal from Adani’s proposed mine would be more than many countries and big cities

Smog covers midtown Manhattan. The Carmichael coalmine’s annual emissions are projected to be 20% more than New York City. Photograph: Adam Rountree/AP

Coal from Adani’s proposed $16bn Carmichael project will create annual emissions similar to those from countries like Malaysia and Austria and more than New York City, according to calculations designed to highlight the scale of the mine’s environmental impacts.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has launched another legal action against the federal government’s renewed approval for the mine – this time on the grounds that environment minister Greg Hunt failed to consider its impact on climate change and therefore on the Great Barrier Reef.
Progressive thinktank the Australia Institute has sought to illustrate just how big those emissions will be. It says the average annual emissions from burning the coal from Carmichael – 79m tonnes of CO2 – is more than the annual emissions from Sri Lanka, more than Bangladesh with its population of 160 million, about the same as those from Malaysia and Austria and only slightly less than the annual emissions from Vietnam.
Compared to annual emissions from cities, it says Carmichael’s emissions will be three times the average annual emissions from New Delhi, double those from Tokyo, six times those of Amsterdam and 20% more than New York City.
“As the international community prepares for the Paris talks, the world’s climate change abatement efforts rely on leaving the bulk of coal resources in the ground,” the institute says.
Under international negotiations, emissions are calculated in the country where they occur, not the country where the fuel is sourced, but the conservation movement is arguing against the development of major new coalmines on the grounds that they are incompatible with the globally recognised threshold of limiting warming to two degrees.
The previous successful court challenge, which forced Hunt to re-examine his approval for Adani, was on technical grounds, because he had failed to consider its impact on two species. Hunt reapproved the mine.
The new challenge is a test case for the minister’s obligations to consider the climate change impacts on the Great Barrier Reef from burning the mine’s coal.
Hunt insists the project has been approved in accordance with the law, and that 36 strict conditions have been imposed, including on groundwater monitoring, protecting local fauna and funding research for conservation in the Galilee Basin.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act requires the minister to consider the principles of ecological sustainable development when assessing projects of national environmental significance, but it is not clear whether this could include the consideration of the climate change impact on the reef of the emissions from the coal when exported and burned.
There have been previous decisions in the federal court where decision-makers were required to take into account these so-called “scope three” emissions.
After the original legal action, the former Abbott government tried to rush through laws preventing such challenges, arguing they were “lawfare” and tantamount to economic “sabotage.” That bill was deferred after Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister, but the new challenge has prompted Queensland Liberal National party senator Matthew Canavan to call for it to be brought forward.
ACF president Geoff Cousins has said the aim of the litigation is to stop the mine.
The ACF application refers to article four of the world heritage convention, which dictates Australia “do ‘all it can to the utmost of its resources’ to identify, conserve, present and transmit to future generations the outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area” – and that this must be the “primary purpose” of management of the area.
It says Hunt “made an error of law” by characterising emissions from transport by rail, shipping and then the burning of the Adani coal overseas as “not a direct consequence of the proposed action”.

India’s Fast-Moving Energy Transition: $100 Billion in Renewables Investments So Far This Year

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis - Tim Buckley

A Crush of Deals With State-Owned Enterprises, Leading Power Companies, Billionaires, Major Firms and Utilities



Investments worth more than $100 billion over the past eight months are driving an unprecedented shift to renewable energy in India.
The trend is detailed in a report we just posted—India’s Electricity Sector Transformation—that charts the accelerating influx of global capital into India as the country moves toward its goal of installing 175 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2022.
Just a few months ago, global financial markets reflected investor skepticism around whether good intentions and big promises could be turned into concrete actions. The figures we see today speak for themselves, and the $100 billion in firm commitments signed and sealed include deals with state-owned enterprises, leading Indian power companies, a number of Indian billionaires new to the power sector and major global renewable-energy firms and utilities.

Here’s a rundown of what’s happening:

• Four of the world’s largest solar manufacturers are advancing plans to build Indian solar manufacturing capacity (Trina Solar, JA Solar, Hanwha Q CELLS, LONGi).
• Three of the world’s top renewable energy utilities are acquiring top Indian renewable project-development firms (EDF Energies Nouvelles, ENEL Green Power, ENGIE);
• Four of North America’s top solar-development companies are accelerating project development in India (Sky Power of Canada, First Solar, SunEdison and SunPower);
• Numerous leading Asian innovators and utilities are targeting Indian renewables (Foxconn of Taiwan, SoftBank of Japan, Sembcorp of Singapore, CLP Group of HK);
• Major Indian energy sector conglomerates are initiating multiple new investment programs in renewables (Adani Power, Tata Power and Reliance Power);
• Several of India’s wealthiest companies are entering the power markets to invest in renewables (Aditya Birla Group, the Dilip family, Bharti Enterprises, Jindal Steel and Power);
• Global development banks and leading equity investors are providing innovative green finance (International Finance Corp, the World Bank, KfW of Germany, Asia Development Bank, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, GE, Goldman Sachs, Actis Capital).

October 2015 alone saw more than a dozen major deals in India’s renewable-energy sector. Among them:

• Sany Group, China, announcing plans to invest $3 billion by 2020;
• Chint Group, China, announcing plans to invest $2 billion by 2020;
• The new SoftBank/Foxconn/Bharti joint venture signing its first $2 billion memorandum of understanding in Andhra Pradesh for 3 gigawatts of renewables;
• The German government pledging €1.5 billion over five years to support India’s solar energy expansion through a German-Indian solar partnership.
• The November 2015 SunEdison solar auction win of 500MW at Rs4.63/kWh (US7.1c) set a record low solar price, 10% lower than the previous record low a few weeks earlier, Buckley said.

It’s all in line with Energy Minister Piyush Goyal’s repeated assertion that India’s reliance on thermal coal imports is not sustainable.
The consequences for imported thermal coal are stark, and what’s occurring in India today reinforces the fact that the seaborne thermal coal market is in structural decline. There is quite simply no rational economic case for imported coal in India, and the speed of renewable energy developments is now undercutting even domestic fossil fuels.
The smart money on India today is in renewables.

Link

• Full report

Collapsing Greenland Glacier Could Raise Sea Levels By Half A Metre, Say Scientists

The Guardian - Ian Sample

Huge Zachariae Isstrom glacier has begun to break up, starting a rapid retreat that could continue to raise sea levels for decades to come

Scientists say the Zachariae Isstrom glacier has now become detached from a stabilising sill and is losing ice at a rate of 4.5bn tonnes a year. Photograph: Christoph Horman/imagico.de

 A major glacier in Greenland that holds enough water to raise global sea levels by half a metre has begun to crumble into the North Atlantic Ocean, scientists say.
The huge Zachariae Isstrom glacier in northeast Greenland started to melt rapidly in 2012 and is now breaking up into large icebergs where the glacier meets the sea, monitoring has revealed.
The calving of the glacier into chunks of floating ice will set in train a rise in sea levels that will continue for decades to come, the US team warns.
“Even if we have some really cool years ahead, we think the glacier is now unstable,” said Jeremie Mouginot at the University of California, Irvine. “Now this has started, it will continue until it retreats to a ridge about 30km back which could stabilise it and perhaps slow that retreat down.”
Mouginot and his colleagues drew on 40 years of satellite data and aerial surveys to show that the enormous Zachariae Isstrom glacier began to recede three times faster from 2012, with its retreat speeding up by 125 metres per year every year until the most recent measurements in 2015.
The same records revealed that from 2002 to 2014 the area of the glacier’s floating shelf shrank by a massive 95%, according to a report in the journal Science. The glacier has now become detached from a stabilising sill and is losing ice at a rate of 4.5bn tonnes a year.
Eric Rignot, professor of Earth system science at the University of California, Irvine, said that the glacier was “being hit from above and below”, with rising air temperatures driving melting at the top of the glacier, and its underside being eroded away by ocean currents that are warmer now than in the past.
“The glacier is now breaking into bits and pieces and retreating into deeper ground,” he said. The rapid retreat is expected to continue for 20 to 30 more years, until the glacier reaches another natural ledge that slows it down.

UC Irvine glaciologists aboard the MV Cape Race in August 2014 mapped for the first time remote Greenland fjords and ice melt that is raising sea levels around the globe. Photograph: Maria Stenzel/UC Irvine

 The scientists recreated the history of the glacier from aerial radar, gravitational measurements and laser profiles, and from radar and optical images taken from space. The combined data reveal the changing shape, size and position of Greenland glaciers over the past four decades.
To the north of Zachariae Isstrom, the scientists studied a second large glacier called Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden. Together, the two glaciers drain a region of nearly 200,000 sq km, amounting to 12% of the Greenland ice sheet. Were both to melt, they would contribute a full metre to global sea levels.
The monitoring showed that Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden glacier was also melting rapidly, but retreating more slowly than Zachariae Isstrom along uphill terrain. If the thinning continues at today’s pace, the scientists believe the ice shelf will become vulnerable to break up in the near future.
The bleak assessment of the glaciers’ retreat comes only months after Nasa launched an urgent six year project called Oceans Melting Greenland, aptly contracted to OMG, to understand the processes that drive the loss of Greenland ice.