27/04/2016

New Climate Science Centre Doesn’t Make Up For CSIRO Cuts: Experts

The Conversation - James Whitmore

CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall has announced a new climate research centre. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas
Hobart will be home to a new climate science research centre in plans announced by the CSIRO. The centre, which will focus on climate measurement and modelling, will be staffed by 40 climate scientists and guarantee research for ten years. In February 2016, CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall announced broad job cuts at the organisation. The latest announcement reduces the total job losses from 350 to 275.
Around 75 positions will still be lost within the CSIRO's Oceans and Atmosphere division, which is responsible for climate science, from around 420 full-time staff.
The cuts were widely criticised by climate scientists in Australia and overseas.
The new centre will be housed within the Oceans and Atmosphere division. It will be overseen by a new National Climate Science Advisory Committee, including experts from the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, answering to federal Industry Minister Christopher Pyne. Environment Minister Greg Hunt will help establish the committee.
Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, who has previously urged CSIRO to ensure climate science is maintained, has welcomed the announcement.
CSIRO research fellow John Church said the new centre was "a step forward from where we were a few weeks ago".
"But it's only 40 people so it's significantly less than we had previously. I don't see how that few people are going to deliver on what Australia's requirements are," he said.
Church said the ten-year research guarantee was longer than most CSIRO research cycles.
"I would hope that with such commitment maybe it will be possible to grow the areas over that time frame," he said.
He also welcomed co-ordination across the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and universities under the advisory committee.
However, Matthew England, a researcher at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at UNSW Australia, said he was "worried about the very small size of the centre".
"Forty staff is woefully low in number. Equivalent centres overseas house five to ten times this number, even in nations not nearly as vulnerable to climate change as Australia is. [It is] great to set up a centre – now we need it to house real capacity.
"CSIRO management needs to get realistic about what this centre needs and how important it is for the nation," he said.
Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, also at UNSW Australia, said there were "small positives" but "it seems like they've [CSIRO] basically rebranded what they were doing in the first place".
"They're just shuffling people around. I fail to see how they can operate a national climate centre with just 40 staff."
Cuts to other CSIRO divisions, particularly land and water, would also affect climate science, she said.
But she welcomed a commitment to maintain CSIRO support for ACCESS, the model used to develop climate projections and weather forecasts for Australia.
She called for a national government-funded centre separate from the CSIRO, perhaps modelled on the UK Hadley Centre, which works alongside the UK Met Office.
Steven Sherwood, director of the UNSW Climate Research Centre, said the cuts still represent a decrease in research investment. He said the UK Met Office generated at least A$6 of economic benefit for the UK per dollar spent on it.
"So, from a broad perspective, we appear to be downsizing an activity that was probably already underfunded even from a purely economic perspective."

Links

Labor Proposes Two Emissions Trading Schemes Costing $555m

The Guardian

Opposition maintains ambitious targets but aims to minimise cost to households and defers details until after election
Power lines in early morning fog near the brown-coal-fuelled Hazelwood power station in Melbourne.
Power lines in early morning fog near the brown-coal-fuelled Hazelwood power station in Melbourne. Labor has proposed a scheme for retiring the highest polluting power stations early. Photograph: Hamish Blair/Getty Images
Labor is proposing two emissions trading schemes – one for big industrial polluters and an electricity industry model similar to one once backed by Malcolm Turnbull – in a climate policy that trumps the Coalition's ambition but minimises the hit on household power bills and leaves important detail to be determined post-election.The policy will cost $555m over four years, with $300m earmarked to help regions and industries facing upheaval in the transition to a cleaner economy. As Australia's greenhouse emissions from electricity generation continue to rise, Labor's policy promises to speed the shift to renewables, through a radical plan under which power generators would be forced to pay for the closure of a competitor's dirty brown-coal fired plant and also through an electricity-industry specific "intensity based" trading scheme, similar to the kind of scheme many in business expect will be created post-election after a review of the Coalition's Direct Action plan. But the policies have been cautiously crafted – and some crucial details deferred – to avoid a repeat of the anti-carbon tax campaign waged by the Coalition in the past.
The intensity-based scheme would require generators with an emissions intensity above an electricity industry wide baseline to buy "credits" from those below it – effectively penalising polluting power stations and rewarding clean ones.
The idea was most recently proposed by the Australian Energy Market Commission in a submission to the Coalition government, with the AEMC stating that it could operate "without a significant effect on absolute price levels faced by consumers." The plan is similar to the model originally proposed by Turnbull in 2009 when he was opposition leader, and to the sort of scheme that could evolve from existing Coalition policy if the government "ratchets up" the baselines, leaving open some prospect of bipartisanship in the bitterly-contested policy area.
Australian National University academics first proposed the second-part of Labor's policy – the radical scheme under which big brown-coal generators, near the end of their operational life, would submit bids for how much money they would need to receive in order to shut straight away and deal with the community and employment fallout, with the cost of the winning bid spread across all the other generators in the market, who would enjoy higher prices because of their competitor's closure.
The academics estimated the scheme could cause a one-off rise of between 1% and 2% in retail power bills, but subsequent modelling by Reputex found the impact could be even lower – between 0.2% and 1.3%.
Labor is hedging on the third aspect of its policy to force change on national electricity generation – the possibility of an extension to the renewable energy target – saying it remains committed to to its 50% renewable generation target by 2030 but would consult on what extra policies might be needed to achieve it, with a further RET not the favoured option.
With the costs of "gold plating" investments in poles and wires now washed through the electricity market, residential power prices are forecast to fall in coming years, meaning Labor is likely to argue that any minor cost increases from its policies will be barely noticed.
The ALP is also taking a highly cautious approach to reducing emissions from heavy industry, proposing a two-stage ETS and deferring decisions on details.Between 2018 and 2020 a "cap" would be imposed on big industrial emitters, but those exposed to international competition exceeding the cap would be allowed to meet their entire liability by buying international permits, currently priced at less than $1 a tonne. This means the cost would be minimial.
After 2020 the scheme would morph into a more traditional ETS, but Labor says it will consult on the details. Agriculture, road transport and refrigerants will be left out of the first phase of the scheme.
The Labor leader, Bill Shorten, who will unveil the policy with his environment spokesman, Mark Butler, on Wednesday, said that unlike the Coalition, Labor accepted climate science and was prepared to avoid the high costs of inaction.
"We do not consider climate change a question of 'belief', we know it is an economic and environmental reality ... The cost of inaction, to our economy and the environment, will be profound. This is not a price Labor is prepared to make the next generation of Australians pay," he said.
Labor's policy would also:
  • Establish a legal "trigger" so the commonwealth government can prevent runaway land clearing, particularly in Queensland, which is threatening to undo Australia's emissions reductions elsewhere. The trigger is likely to be included in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The New South Wales premier, Mike Baird, is also poised to unveil a winding back of land clearing restrictions.
  • Continue the life of the Climate Change Authority, with $17.4m extra funding
  • Offer $90m to help local communities shift to cleaner power generation
  • Double Australia's energy productivity by 2030, compared with the Coalition's promise to increase in by 40%.
  • Accept the target of "zero net pollution" by 2050. The Coalition has committed to it by the end of the century.
  • Stick with the target of reducing emissions by 45% by 2030 based on 2005 levels – as recommended by the Climate Change Authority, compared with the Coalition's pledge of a reduction between 26% and 28%.
  • Provide an extra $200m to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency
  • Remove restrictions on the investment mandate of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation imposed to appease Coalition senators opposed to wind farms.
When Labor first committed to the 45% reduction several Coalition frontbenchers, including the environment minister, Greg Hunt, said Labor's plan would cost the economy $600bn. That claim was discredited by the leading economist Warwick McKibbin, in modelling done for the government, who found that a 45% reduction in emissions would result in a loss 0.12% of Australia's gross domestic product, compared with 0.7 % for the Coalition's target. $600bn is about 2% of Australia's GDP.
Most experts believe Direct Action has little chance of meeting Australia's long term greenhouse commitments. The Coalition has said it will review the policy next year.

Links

China Curbs Plans for More Coal-Fired Power Plants

New York TimesMichael Forsythe

Residents living near a coal-fired power plant in Shanxi, China, wear masks for protection from air pollution. Credit Kevin Frayer/Getty Images



HONG KONG — Coal-fired power plants have propelled much of China's economic rise for decades, helping make the nation the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Even with economic growth slackening, and other energy sources taking hold, new coal plants have been added.
Now Beijing is trying to slow things down.
In guidelines released on Monday, China halted plans for new coal-fired power stations in many parts of the country, and construction of some approved plants will be postponed until at least 2018.
The announcement, by the National Development and Reform Commission and the National Energy Administration, means that about 200 planned coal-fired power generators — those seeking approval and those approved but not yet under construction — may not be completed, said Lauri Myllyvirta, who analyzes China's energy production for Greenpeace.
The total of 105 gigawatts of power those plants would have been able to produce is considerably more than the electricity-generating capacity of Britain from all sources.

More Plants, but Less Coal
Although China is by far the largest single consumer of energy from coal, and the country continues to build new coal-fired plants at a rate not seen in a decade, coal consumption in China is beginning to decline. On Monday, China announced new measures that would halt the planned construction of about 200 new coal-fired power plants.










"That's a big chunk of power," said Bob Hodge, a coal specialist with IHS Energy, a consulting firm. "It's a lot of power. It's a heck of a lot of power."
Electricity generated from fossil fuels like coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists say is causing the earth's temperature to rise. Leaders from 175 countries, including China, gathered in New York on Friday to sign the Paris climate accord, which aims to halt and eventually reverse the rise in carbon emissions, keeping the increase in global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
China, by far the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, is aiming to reach a peak in carbon emissions by 2030. A recent economic slowdown, policies to discourage coal-fired power plants near big cities, and a huge investment in wind and solar energy capacity helped reduce coal use in China last year.
But even as coal becomes unpopular in China, the country's biggest state-owned electricity generators are adding new coal-fired power plants at a pace not seen in a decade, said Mr. Myllyvirta of Greenpeace, which is acknowledged as an authoritative analyst of China's energy production. Such plants add to existing overcapacity, he said.
A coal miner in Liaoning Province, China. An economic slowdown, policies to discourage coal-fired power plants, and a huge investment in wind and have helped reduce coal use in China. Credit European Pressphoto Agency



The announcement does not stop projects already under construction, which amount to about 190 gigawatts of new coal-fired power generation, he said.
"It's definitely a positive step, but it's not even enough to prevent the overcapacity from getting worse," Mr. Myllyvirta said.
While the curbs on new coal projects, if rigorously enforced, may help China meet its long-term goals on climate change and air pollution, the primary motivation for the move appears to be short-term economic considerations.
In the face of the slowest economic growth in a quarter-century, electricity demand has fallen so sharply in China that some coal-burning power plants are operating only 40 or 50 percent of the time. Construction of wind turbines and solar panels has also eaten slightly into the market share of the coal plants.
A coal-powered station in Shanghai. China is discouraging such plants near big cities and is pushing renewable energy sources, but its overall number of coal plants continues to grow. Credit Johannes Eisele/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images



Yet in China's highly regulated power industry, market signals are weak, and planning and construction of new power plants had continued apace, pushed forward by local governments eager for the construction jobs and expanded tax base. With its new decrees, the central government seems to be trying to halt the development of power plants that might well be underused if they were built.
Mr. Hodge, the consultant at IHS Energy, said that as of two weeks ago, there were 1,200 new coal-fired plants on the drawing boards in 59 countries, mostly in Asia, and China was the single largest contributor.
"In my opinion, if they needed the power, they would build them," he said of China. "I think if you are Beijing, and you don't need the power, you can delay them until you might need them. They are not scrapping them."
The guidelines, dated March 17, state that 13 provinces and regions, including top coal producers like Shanxi and Inner Mongolia, as well as the southern economic powerhouse of Guangdong, should "strictly control" new capacity, delaying the approval of new projects until after 2017. A slightly longer list of provinces — 15, with considerable overlap — were told to put off construction of approved projects that had not yet broken ground.
A coal plant in Shanghai. Electricity generated from fossil fuels like coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions. Credit Johannes Eisele/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images



In both instances, an exception has been made for projects aimed at the "people's livelihood," a phrase that was not explained but may include measures like providing steam heat to homes in wintertime.
The government announcement also calls for an acceleration of the closing of outdated coal-fired plants that use older, dirtier technology. But China is adding about 1 gigawatt in coal-fired capacity a week, Mr. Myllyvirta said, as companies that have easy access to loans from state banks build new plants.
That is in stark contrast to the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon emitter, where it has become increasingly difficult to build new coal-fired plants under the Obama administration.
Last year, almost 14 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity was retired in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration in Washington. At the same time, there are only six new coal-fired plants on the drawing boards in the United States through at least the next five years, with a total capacity of less than 2 gigawatts, according to the agency.
In China, however, as coal prices drop, the big state-owned electricity generators are benefiting because highly regulated electricity prices have not fallen in tandem.
Because of the political power of the coal industry and the falling price of coal, larger percentages of wind- and solar-generated electricity are not being put on the grid, a phenomenon called curtailment. To combat this, the Chinese government has recently issued a directive for operators of coal-fired plants to pay operators of wind and solar plants whose electricity is not used, the Paulson Institute, a policy group focused on China and based in Chicago that was founded by the former Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson, wrote last week.

Links