Huffington Post - Cam Klose & Charlie Wood, 350.org Australia
Australia's
fossil fuel industry has suffered vast losses in public and corporate
support, its destructive activities rightfully condemned by the
community. Yet, despite this, the Federal Government - the same one that
has repeatedly called for an end to the 'age of entitlement' -
continues to prop up this polluting and, increasingly, economically
unviable industry.
With the Federal Budget due to be released on Tuesday and the
election set for July, the coming weeks will shed some light on the
positions of both major parties in regards to the fossil fuel industry,
and whether they are willing to break free from its dirty and corrupting
influence.
Unfortunately, the signs are not looking great.
We know that
mining for coal, oil and gas across Australia is destroying local
communities, particularly indigenous communities.
Australians from the Hunter Valley, the Pilliga, the Darling Downs
and along the Reef Coast in Queensland have seen the country they love
dug up, poisoned, and left tarnished by the ugliness of such industries.
All the while compromising the health of residents, before being
abandoned once the resources are gone.
Once a small
but vocal minority of people speaking out against mining corporations,
the actions of these communities have now become a veritable and diverse
movement of people. They are united by their anger and frustration at
the injustice brought upon them by the fossil fuel industry with their
Government's complicity.
People are
rightly asking: why are governments putting the destructive fossil fuel
sector above communities? And they are pressing on the big question:
why, when we know what climate devastation fossil fuels bring, are will
still digging them up, exporting them, and burning them at record
levels?
Currently, it
seems that neither of the major political parties have the backbone to
stand up to an industry that flows rivers of gold into their coffers.
And therein lies the problem.
Next week the Government will hand down its third budget, crucial in the context of the upcoming election.
Budgets are
often portrayed as mere fiscal documents that outline the health of an
economy by reporting on revenue and spending, which distills into the
ever-pursued surplus or the loathsome deficit. In reality however,
budgets are political manifestos that embody the ideologies, values and
priorities of a government, indicated by how funds are accrued and
allocated.
As a signatory
to the recent Paris Accord, the Australian Government has a
responsibility to take meaningful action on climate change. We are
currently run by a Government of mainly-white-men Government, who are
pretending climate change doesn't exist and have no vision. Leaving us
adrift without a meaningful climate policy and no vision to tackle the
greatest challenge of our generation.
The Government
currently spends billions of public dollars every year subsidising
fossil fuel mining in Australia. It is confounding to consider that so
much taxpayers' money is handed over to multinational corporations so
they may further pollute our environment.
In this
profoundly undemocratic arrangement, public money paid in subsidies
directly funds the destruction of communities, farmland and scarce water
supplies. Meanwhile, polling shows that the majority of Australians
want this fossil fuel gravy train halted and for the country to
transition to a completely renewable energy future.
Right now, there is unprecedented energy and desire among the community to put a stop to the folly of the Government.
Next weekend,
thousands of Australians will risk arrest and fines by peacefully
protesting at the world's largest coal port in Newcastle as part of Break Free From Fossil Fuels, the largest ever global movement of actions to shut down the world's most dangerous fossil fuel projects.
By putting
their bodies on the line to stop the export of dangerous coal, these
brave community members hailing from all walks of life will demonstrate
to our Government that they want to see an end to fossil fuels and a
transition to a clean energy future. Farmers, grandparents, pacific
islanders, faith leaders, business people and politicians will stand
side by side to create a strong, united voice to deliver this message.
Australia is
proving to be an embarrassment and a laggard in the global fight against
climate. As our governments continue to pander to their small coterie
of fossil fuel donors facilitate them to extract coal, oil and gas to
export, the rest of the world is moving away from the dirty energy of
centuries passed: aware that the only way to avoid dangerous global
warming is to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
In the face of
such enormous challenges, the sad truth is that we cannot look to our
political leaders for guidance on this issue; the influence of fossil
fuel lobby groups over both parties is too strong.
The Coalition
will continue to prop up the dying industry with subsidies, wedded to
the dirty donations. Meanwhile, the ALP does not provide a viable
alternative as it, too, is too compromised to take the necessary action
to keep fossil fuels in the ground. The climate policy released by Labor
this week kind of ignores the biggest contributing activity to climate
change: the extraction, export and combustion of fossil fuels.
On closer
inspection, however, we can find leadership on climate change all around
us. We can look to the leadership of the traditional owners suing
multinational mining corporation Adani for breach of native title. We
can look to the leadership of Victorian town of Yackandandah, which has
pledged to transition to a 100% renewable energy source, or to that of
the 20 Australian local councils that have sworn off fossil fuels.
While we may
not be able to rely on our Government, we can take heart from these
inspiring grassroots actions. Australians are participating in a global
movement that is gaining momentum: that of ordinary people taking a
stand against powerful corporations and government corruption to demand
that our land, resources and communities be protected from harmful
climate change.
As in all
struggles for justice, activists must force the reluctant ruling class
to respond, as power and profit are never given up freely.
The May budget
might not be cause to celebrate, but the real power is bubbling beneath
the surface, and the voice of the people is only becoming stronger.
02/05/2016
Phasing Out Fossil Fuels For Renewables May Not Be A Straightforward Swap
The Conversation - Anthony James | Josh Floyd*
To have any chance of preventing dangerous climate change,
the world needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero or even
negative by mid-century. Many experts suggest this means we need to completely phase out fossil fuels and replace them with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
Several studies have concluded that 100% renewable energy supply systems are technically and economically feasible. This informs the widespread view that fossil fuels can be more or less "swapped out" for renewables, without significant economic consequences.
We are strongly sympathetic to the need for a rapid global shift away from fossil fuels. But new modelling conducted independently and made publicly available by my colleague at the Understandascope, Josh Floyd, suggests that such a transition may face significant challenges.
Future energy
Analyses of how to get to 100% renewable energy typically look at how future energy sources can supply enough energy to meet a given future demand.
This is what's known as an "energy balance". The high-quality work of Mark Diesendorf and his colleagues on the transition of Australia's electricity supply to 100% renewables typifies such modelling.
But this approach doesn't tell us what will happen to overall energy supply during the transition.
This new modelling suggests a significant decline in availability of overall energy services during the transition phase. This reflects the increased energy demand associated with the transition task itself.
Such an energy "trough" would significantly impact the economy during the transition. This has flow-on consequences for how to maintain the massive renewables roll-out.
What are net energy services?
To investigate what might happen to energy availability during transition, the model looks at "net energy services" at a global scale.
Net energy services are the total work and heat that energy sources – for instance solar photovoltaic (PV) systems or petroleum – make available to end users, minus the energy services required to provide that supply.
Petroleum requires energy services to find, produce, transport and refine it. Solar PV systems require energy services for mining raw materials, manufacturing, installation, replacement and so on. The net services are what remains available for all other purposes, such as heating buildings and moving goods and people.
A rapid, large-scale energy transition creates extra demands for energy services. This demand will compete with other economic activity.
The speed of transition matters
To start with, the model assumes that fossil fuels are phased out over about 50 years. Biomass, hydro and nuclear contributions are assumed roughly to double.
The model then attempts to maintain the net energy services to the global economy at the maximum level before the fossil fuel phase-out. To do this it uses electricity from onshore wind turbines and large-scale solar PV plants, buffered with lithium ion batteries.
The findings show that the faster the transition rate, the greater the energy services required by the transition task, and the lower the services available for other uses.
This is because of the time lag between energy investments and returns. It is exacerbated for sources where up-front energy investment is a relatively high proportion of the total life cycle, particularly so for solar PV.
A 50-year fossil-fuel phase-out represents a relatively modest transition rate. Even so, in the model's baseline scenario, net energy services decline during that transition period by more than 15% before recovering.
And that recovery is not certain. The model doesn't consider how this decline in energy services might affect the transition effort. If less energy services are available, then energy transition will come at the expense of other economic activity. That may impact the collective will to continue.
The cost of transition
In the model's baseline scenario – phasing out fossil fuels over 50 years – wind and solar plants need to be installed at eight to ten times current rates by 2035.
Financially, this corresponds with capital investment in wind and solar PV plants plus batteries of around US$3 trillion per year (in 2015 dollars) and average lifetime capital cost in the order of US$5 trillion to US$6 trillion per year.
For comparison, in 2014 the International Energy Agency forecast global investment for all energy supply in 2035 at US$2 trillion per year.
This implies that total expenditure on energy supply will increase its share of world spending, reducing scope for other expenditure. Compounding the decline in energy services during transition, this has potential to apply contractionary pressure to the global economy. This has implications in turn for financing and maintaining the political will for the renewables rollout.
What if it were possible to roll out renewables even faster? This could reduce the depth and duration of the decline, but not eliminate it. Again, due to the time lags involved, accelerating deployment in the short term takes energy services away, rather than adding them.
What does this mean?
Of course, this is "just" modelling. But good models can tell us a lot about the real world. If this modelling is right, and energy services fall and costs rise, we'll have to complement building cleaner energy supply with other approaches.
The other key aspect of transition that we have control over is how much energy we expect to use. Usually discussions of transition focus on maintaining energy supply sufficient for a growing economy much like we see today – just with "clean" energy. But this is changing.
Growing numbers of analysts, business leaders and other prominent figures are calling for broader cultural change, as it becomes clearer that technological change alone is not enough to avoid climate catastrophe and myriad other consequences of energy-intensive consumer societies.
This is about more than efficiency. It is about a shift in our collective priorities and how we define progress, wellbeing and quality of living. Reducing energy demand within these redefined aspirations will markedly improve our prospects for successful transition.
*This article was co-authored by Josh Floyd, advisor on energy, systems and societal futures at independent research and education organisation the Understandascope, and founding partner of the Centre for Australian Foresight.
Links
Despite the benefits of going renewable, it may be harder to get there than we thought. Indigo Skies Photography/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND |
Several studies have concluded that 100% renewable energy supply systems are technically and economically feasible. This informs the widespread view that fossil fuels can be more or less "swapped out" for renewables, without significant economic consequences.
We are strongly sympathetic to the need for a rapid global shift away from fossil fuels. But new modelling conducted independently and made publicly available by my colleague at the Understandascope, Josh Floyd, suggests that such a transition may face significant challenges.
Future energy
Analyses of how to get to 100% renewable energy typically look at how future energy sources can supply enough energy to meet a given future demand.
This is what's known as an "energy balance". The high-quality work of Mark Diesendorf and his colleagues on the transition of Australia's electricity supply to 100% renewables typifies such modelling.
But this approach doesn't tell us what will happen to overall energy supply during the transition.
This new modelling suggests a significant decline in availability of overall energy services during the transition phase. This reflects the increased energy demand associated with the transition task itself.
Such an energy "trough" would significantly impact the economy during the transition. This has flow-on consequences for how to maintain the massive renewables roll-out.
What are net energy services?
To investigate what might happen to energy availability during transition, the model looks at "net energy services" at a global scale.
Net energy services are the total work and heat that energy sources – for instance solar photovoltaic (PV) systems or petroleum – make available to end users, minus the energy services required to provide that supply.
Petroleum requires energy services to find, produce, transport and refine it. Solar PV systems require energy services for mining raw materials, manufacturing, installation, replacement and so on. The net services are what remains available for all other purposes, such as heating buildings and moving goods and people.
A rapid, large-scale energy transition creates extra demands for energy services. This demand will compete with other economic activity.
The speed of transition matters
To start with, the model assumes that fossil fuels are phased out over about 50 years. Biomass, hydro and nuclear contributions are assumed roughly to double.
The model then attempts to maintain the net energy services to the global economy at the maximum level before the fossil fuel phase-out. To do this it uses electricity from onshore wind turbines and large-scale solar PV plants, buffered with lithium ion batteries.
The findings show that the faster the transition rate, the greater the energy services required by the transition task, and the lower the services available for other uses.
This is because of the time lag between energy investments and returns. It is exacerbated for sources where up-front energy investment is a relatively high proportion of the total life cycle, particularly so for solar PV.
A 50-year fossil-fuel phase-out represents a relatively modest transition rate. Even so, in the model's baseline scenario, net energy services decline during that transition period by more than 15% before recovering.
And that recovery is not certain. The model doesn't consider how this decline in energy services might affect the transition effort. If less energy services are available, then energy transition will come at the expense of other economic activity. That may impact the collective will to continue.
The cost of transition
In the model's baseline scenario – phasing out fossil fuels over 50 years – wind and solar plants need to be installed at eight to ten times current rates by 2035.
Financially, this corresponds with capital investment in wind and solar PV plants plus batteries of around US$3 trillion per year (in 2015 dollars) and average lifetime capital cost in the order of US$5 trillion to US$6 trillion per year.
For comparison, in 2014 the International Energy Agency forecast global investment for all energy supply in 2035 at US$2 trillion per year.
This implies that total expenditure on energy supply will increase its share of world spending, reducing scope for other expenditure. Compounding the decline in energy services during transition, this has potential to apply contractionary pressure to the global economy. This has implications in turn for financing and maintaining the political will for the renewables rollout.
What if it were possible to roll out renewables even faster? This could reduce the depth and duration of the decline, but not eliminate it. Again, due to the time lags involved, accelerating deployment in the short term takes energy services away, rather than adding them.
What does this mean?
Of course, this is "just" modelling. But good models can tell us a lot about the real world. If this modelling is right, and energy services fall and costs rise, we'll have to complement building cleaner energy supply with other approaches.
The other key aspect of transition that we have control over is how much energy we expect to use. Usually discussions of transition focus on maintaining energy supply sufficient for a growing economy much like we see today – just with "clean" energy. But this is changing.
Growing numbers of analysts, business leaders and other prominent figures are calling for broader cultural change, as it becomes clearer that technological change alone is not enough to avoid climate catastrophe and myriad other consequences of energy-intensive consumer societies.
This is about more than efficiency. It is about a shift in our collective priorities and how we define progress, wellbeing and quality of living. Reducing energy demand within these redefined aspirations will markedly improve our prospects for successful transition.
*This article was co-authored by Josh Floyd, advisor on energy, systems and societal futures at independent research and education organisation the Understandascope, and founding partner of the Centre for Australian Foresight.
Links
Federal Election 2016: Labor's Billion-Dollar Hole In Renewable Energy Funding
Fairfax - Peter Hannam
Labor faces "a litmus test" of its support of renewable energy after it emerged that a Shorten government would book $1 billion of the savings cut from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency by the Coalition.
The Abbott government's 2014 budget cut $1.3 billion from the agency's funding but its subsequent attempts to axe ARENA failed in the Senate.
Last month, the Turnbull government pledged to spare ARENA but
would end its ability to make grants to develop new renewable energy.
However, until its act is amended by parliament, ARENA's remaining funding profile - including almost $57 million in 2016-17 - remains intact.
Under Labor's election policies on climate action released last week, it promised to spend $206.6 million over four years on emerging concentrated solar thermal technology that uses mirrors or lenses to focus energy and boost electricity output. It also promised $98.7 million for community power networks.
Mark Butler, shadow environment minister, declined to say whether Labor would support or introduce legislation amending ARENA to lock in the $1 billion cut.
"Any legislation required to enable the Prime Ministers' cuts to ARENA is an issue at this stage for the government," Mr Butler told Fairfax Media.
Mr Butler implied more outspoken criticism to Turnbull's plan for ARENA - to retain ARENA but mainly to administer $100 million in annual loans - might have helped his argument within shadow cabinet to keep more funding.
"We were very surprised by the supportive noises from ARENA and the broader sector when this change to ARENA's role and the cut to ARENA's funding was announced, he said.
Groups, such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, welcomed aspects of the government's plan while saying they were "disappointed" by the end of grant funding by ARENA.
However, John Grimes, head of lobby group Australian Solar Council, said Labor was "trying to squib it".
"The irony is that it will be a Labor government, if it has the majority, that would give life to the attacks on ARENA from the Abbott and Turnbull governments," he said. "This is a litmus test of the conviction of the Labor Party on this issue."
The Greens said Labor's reduced ARENA support was "deeply concerning", adding it would "fight tooth and nail" to stop both major parties' cuts.
"It's appalling that either the Coalition or Labor would propose ripping over $1 billion from clean energy research and innovation, right when the rest of the world is surging ahead, and when clean energy promises to create thousands of jobs," said Greens deputy leader Larissa Waters.
ARENA funding underpins key research programs such as new solar cells being developed by the University of NSW that use relatively abundant elements to generate electricity.
ARENA's
new board met for the first time last Wednesday and is understood to
have sought clarification about the absent funds in Labor's platform.
Until the act is amended, the board must pursue the "true and proper purpose" of its establishment by the Labor Gillard government to increase the supply of renewables and assume its $1.3 billion remains, said former ARENA chairman, Greg Bourne.
"All governments signal their will but not all governments get their way," Mr Bourne said.
Labor's election plan attacked the Turnbull government for removing ARENA's grant funding "to support the next big idea". It also pledged to work with the new board based on the agency's "original intent".
The Turnbull government says ARENA will have $130 million to offer grants, although $100 million is already earmarked for large-scale solar plants.
Under the Coalition's proposed Clean Energy Innovation Fund, projects would need to repay loans carrying an interest rate 1 per cent above the government's long-term borrowing rate.
As reported by Fairfax Media, the move prompted more than 60 leading scientists to write to the PM decrying the government's decision last month to end grants from ARENA.
Kane Thornton, head of the Clean Energy Council, said it was "critical" that ARENA and its partner body, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation "continue in the future with the necessary capability and funding in the form of debt, equity and capital grants for a range of exciting new technologies".
Links
Labor faces "a litmus test" of its support of renewable energy after it emerged that a Shorten government would book $1 billion of the savings cut from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency by the Coalition.
The Abbott government's 2014 budget cut $1.3 billion from the agency's funding but its subsequent attempts to axe ARENA failed in the Senate.
The outlook for Australia's support for renewable energy remains unclear. Photo: Bloomberg |
Under Labor's election policies on climate action released last week, it promised to spend $206.6 million over four years on emerging concentrated solar thermal technology that uses mirrors or lenses to focus energy and boost electricity output. It also promised $98.7 million for community power networks.
Mark Butler, shadow environment minister, declined to say whether Labor would support or introduce legislation amending ARENA to lock in the $1 billion cut.
Ivor Frischknecht (right), head of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, at a launch last year of a study into using batteries to bolster solar power. Photo: Jay Cronan |
"Any legislation required to enable the Prime Ministers' cuts to ARENA is an issue at this stage for the government," Mr Butler told Fairfax Media.
Mr Butler implied more outspoken criticism to Turnbull's plan for ARENA - to retain ARENA but mainly to administer $100 million in annual loans - might have helped his argument within shadow cabinet to keep more funding.
"We were very surprised by the supportive noises from ARENA and the broader sector when this change to ARENA's role and the cut to ARENA's funding was announced, he said.
Mark Butler, Labor's shadow environment spokesman. Photo: Andrew Meares |
"The irony is that it will be a Labor government, if it has the majority, that would give life to the attacks on ARENA from the Abbott and Turnbull governments," he said. "This is a litmus test of the conviction of the Labor Party on this issue."
The Greens said Labor's reduced ARENA support was "deeply concerning", adding it would "fight tooth and nail" to stop both major parties' cuts.
"It's appalling that either the Coalition or Labor would propose ripping over $1 billion from clean energy research and innovation, right when the rest of the world is surging ahead, and when clean energy promises to create thousands of jobs," said Greens deputy leader Larissa Waters.
ARENA funding underpins key research programs such as new solar cells being developed by the University of NSW that use relatively abundant elements to generate electricity.
PM Malcolm Turnbull and Environment Minister Greg Hunt at the launch of the Clean Energy Innovation Fund in March. Photo: Don Arnold, Getty |
Until the act is amended, the board must pursue the "true and proper purpose" of its establishment by the Labor Gillard government to increase the supply of renewables and assume its $1.3 billion remains, said former ARENA chairman, Greg Bourne.
"All governments signal their will but not all governments get their way," Mr Bourne said.
Labor's election plan attacked the Turnbull government for removing ARENA's grant funding "to support the next big idea". It also pledged to work with the new board based on the agency's "original intent".
The Turnbull government says ARENA will have $130 million to offer grants, although $100 million is already earmarked for large-scale solar plants.
Under the Coalition's proposed Clean Energy Innovation Fund, projects would need to repay loans carrying an interest rate 1 per cent above the government's long-term borrowing rate.
As reported by Fairfax Media, the move prompted more than 60 leading scientists to write to the PM decrying the government's decision last month to end grants from ARENA.
Kane Thornton, head of the Clean Energy Council, said it was "critical" that ARENA and its partner body, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation "continue in the future with the necessary capability and funding in the form of debt, equity and capital grants for a range of exciting new technologies".
Links