04/05/2016

ANU Experts Comment On ALP Climate Policy

Climate Change Institute

Wind Farm, ANU Climate Change Institute Experts Alert
Image: Russell Smith on flickr
Let's hope that climate change policy will stop being a political football between the two major parties.
The Australia Labor Party has announced a new climate change policy ahead of the federal election.
The policy outlines higher emissions cuts, a return to limited carbon trading, and a move to 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
ANU has experts available for comment.

Professor Ken Baldwin, Director, ANU Energy Change Institute
"The recent signing of the Paris CoP agreement in New York was backed by calls for more rapid and concerted action to reduce damaging climate change. Labor has responded by proposing a much-needed acceleration of Australia's emissions reductions to 45 per cent by 2030 via two essential mechanisms: placing a price on carbon through an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and regulating to achieve 50 per cent renewable electricity by 2030.
"In order to undertake the huge investments needed in emissions reduction technology, industry needs long-term certainty in government policy. By creating decadal renewable electricity goals and a well-understood ETS framework, Labor is helping to provide this certainty.
"However, unless there is bipartisan support for an ETS and for renewables, then this certainty will be thrown into disarray. The Coalition and Labor need to work together - not in opposition - otherwise Australia faces international isolation and economic disadvantage by being left behind in this global challenge."

Professor Mark Howden, Director, ANU Climate Change Institute
"The Labor Party climate change action plan provides a comprehensive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions so that Australia can play a significant role in meeting the global targets agreed in Paris in December last year.
"But Labor's plan is completely absent of any elements on adaptation - it has only one side of the climate change equation. Climate adaptation is another string to the innovation bow and it will bring major economic, social and environmental advantages if done well.
"To acknowledge the need for climate adaptation does not undermine the positive options in Labor's Plan for reducing emissions. It is simply a practical and pragmatic response to the realities of change as it unfolds.
"A comprehensive climate change plan that delivers fully to the national interest will have both sides of the climate change equation: emission reduction and adaptation."

Associate Professor Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy ANU Crawford School of Public Policy
"Labor has provided a comprehensive statement of policy intent. There is now a chance for a serious contest of ideas and proposals, with quite some detail on the table early in the election campaign. Let's hope that climate change policy will stop being a political football between the two major parties.
"The plan's focus on electricity sector transition is well taken. At ANU we have contributed to this debate, and our proposal for a market-based mechanism for exit of coal-fired power stations is taken up in the policy.
"Labor's idea of a stand-alone emissions trading scheme for the power sector is similar to what the government may intend. It is not economically optimal, rather it is fashioned to deal with the difficult politics of the issue. The emissions trading scheme for the broader economy seems geared to help meet the strong national emissions targets through industry-funded purchases of international permits. Before 2020 however the emissions trading scheme would be ineffective and heavy industry would have little incentive for action.
"Fifty per cent renewables by 2030 is possible but would require massive investment. The big open question is what a Labor government would do to get there. This would be left for a review. The government has also announced a climate change policy review for 2017 - perhaps another sign of a gradual convergence at least on some issues."

Dr Paul Burke, ANU Crawford School of Public Policy
"Emissions trading schemes offer a cheap way to reduce emissions. Moving towards emissions trading would be a positive step on the road to decarbonising Australia's economy.
"The plan includes some fresh thinking, such as the idea for an industry-funded mechanism for the retirement of existing coal-fired generators.
"Labor has signalled that their approach would have a quite heavy reliance on emissions offsets, both international and local. There is a good reason why offsets are cheap: they can be of low quality. It would be preferable to move to a system with a more limited role for offsets.
"Australia's climate policy has been politicised and messy. Hopefully a transition to emissions trading is an idea that can win support from all sides of politics."

Professor Andrew Blakers, ANU College of Engineering and Computer Science
"The electricity sector is properly the main focus since it is the largest emissions sector - and will grow to 60 per cent of emissions as cars are electrified and gas heating is displaced by electric-driven heat pumps. Wind and photovoltaics (PV) constitute one quarter each of new generation capacity installed worldwide each year, and constitute all new Australian generation capacity. Costs are now the same as for new-build gas and coal power stations.
"The ALP goal of 50 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 is unambitious - current deployment rates of about one gigawatt (GW) per year each of wind and photovoltaics gets us there. Doubling the current deployment rate to two GW per year each gets us to 80 per cent renewable electricity - and a halving of total greenhouse gas emissions.
"The importance of renewable energy R&D needs emphasis. The Government's new policy severely curtails grants from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which will have the effect of severely damaging Australian renewable energy R&D and education."

Link

The Time Has Come To Turn Up The Heat On Those Who Are Wrecking Planet Earth

The Guardian

Hundreds of environmental activists invaded the UK's largest opencast coal mine in south Wales on Tuesday.
Global direct action began with hundreds of environmental activists invading the UK's largest opencast coal mine in south Wales on Tuesday. Photograph: Kristian Buus for the Guardian
An interesting question is, what are you waiting for?
Global warming is the biggest problem we've ever faced as a civilisation — certainly you want to act to slow it down, but perhaps you've been waiting for just the right moment.
The moment when, oh, marine biologists across the Pacific begin weeping in their scuba masks as they dive on reefs bleached of life in a matter of days. The moment when drought in India gets deep enough that there are armed guards on dams to prevent the theft of water. The moment when we record the hottest month ever measured on the planet, and then smash that record the next month, and then smash that record the next month? The moment when scientists reassessing the stability of the Antarctic ice sheet have what one calls an 'OMG moment' and start talking about massive sea level rise in the next 30 years?
That would be this moment—the moment when 135 children have drowned in Thailand trying to cool off from the worst heatwave on record there. The moment when, in a matter of months, we've recorded the highest windspeeds ever measured in the western and southern hemispheres.
For years people have patiently and gently tried to nudge us onto a new path for dealing with our climate and energy troubles—we've had international conferences and countless symposia and lots and lots and lots of websites. And it's sort of worked—the world met in Paris last December and announced it would like to hold temperature increases to 1.5C or less. Celebration ensued. But what also ensued was February, when the planet's temperature first broke through that 1.5C barrier. And as people looked past the rhetoric, they saw that the promises made in Paris would add up to a world 3.5C warmer—an impossible world. The world we're starting to see take shape around us.
So there's a need to push harder. A need, as it were, to break free from some of the dogma that's surrounded this issue for a very long time. Yes, we need to have "everyone work together." Yes, we need a "multi-faceted, global effort." But you know what we really need? We need to keep oil and gas and coal in the ground, keep it from being burned and adding its freight of carbon to the global total.
Which is why, from one end of the planet to the other, people are taking greater risks this month. In one of the biggest coordinated civil disobedience actions the world has ever seen, frontline communities and climate scientists and indigenous people and faith leaders and just plain people who actually give a damn will be sitting down and sitting in and standing pat—blocking, at least for a few hours, those places where the coal and oil and gas currently reside, in the hopes of helping keep them there.
In Australia they'll be taking to kayaks at the world's largest coal port in Newcastle, and in Brazil it's the fracking onslaught they're opposing. In Vancouver they'll be surrounding a new proposed oil terminal on the coast, and in Indonesia they'll be outside the presidential palace in Jakarta. Coal will be the target in the Philippines and Turkey and the UK; oil in Nigeria; gas in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado—on and on around the planet, a swell of people saying the time has come.
The time has come to turn up the heat on the small band of companies and people still willing to get rich off fossil fuel, even though it's now utterly clear they're breaking the planet.
The time has come to show that we understand we're in this together across borders and boundaries.
The time has come to take action commensurate with the scale of the problem. Yes, risking arrest is harder than signing a Facebook petition. But experience has shown it can often work—that's what kicked the fight against the Keystone pipeline into high gear, turning it into the highest profile defeat of the oil industry in a generation. That's what made it impossible for Shell to keep drilling in the Arctic, and for Adani to find the funds they need to build Earth's biggest coal mine.
Not everyone can do it—there are regimes that are too authoritarian for anyone to dare even peaceful civil disobedience of this kind. But for those of us who still live in places theoretically committed to freedom, it's time to put that privilege to use. The planet is well outside its comfort zone—that's what it means when whole ecosystems are obliterated in a matter of days. Which means its time for us to be there too.

Links

Budget 2016: Government Pledges $171m For The Great Barrier Reef

Fairfax

The federal government will spend $171 million on ensuring water quality at the Great Barrier Reef.
The federal government will spend $171 million on ensuring water quality at the Great Barrier Reef.
KEY POINTS
  • Doubt over the long-term future of the Emissions Reduction Fund
  • $56 million over four years for marine reserves
  • Climate Change Authority unfunded beyond next 2017
  • $171 million for the Great Barrier Reef
Reflecting international alarm over the coral bleaching epidemic that has struck the Great Barrier Reef, the government has made good on its promise to spend $171 million on ensuring water quality, with most of that  drawn from the National Landcare program.
About $56 million has been set aside over four years for the marine reserves program, details of which the government is yet to announce.
Commercial and recreational fishers, tourism operators and conservationists have been engaged in fierce debate over how Australia's most sensitive marine areas should be used, and the funding will help affected commercial fishers adjust to the new arrangements, which have not been announced.
The budget confirms the independent Climate Change Authority established by Labor is not funded to operate beyond 2017.
No detail was provided over the future of the government's key climate policy, the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, beyond 2029. About $1.2 billion has already been spent on carbon abatement projects.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt said: "The Turnbull government is committed to preserving our natural environment for future generations."

Links

CSIRO Should Delay Deep Job Cuts Until 'Thorough Review', Senate Committee Finds

Fairfax

CSIRO should halt the implementation of deep job cuts including to climate science programs until a "thorough review" of the process, a Senate committee investigating the agency found.
The scientific research agency announced in early February that it would slash 350 jobs - before re-hiring a similar number over the next two years - to shift CSIRO's focus to growth areas.
Criticism from home and abroad prompted CSIRO to trim the scale of the cuts to 275 out of about 5000 staff. Last month, it also announced plans for a special climate science centre of 40 researchers, and halved the planned cuts of climate scientists from up to 96 to about 45.
Listing: CSIRO's RV Investigator hits rough weather in the Southern Ocean. Photo: Pete Harmsen

The inquiry's report, tabled late on Tuesday just prior to the release of the budget, found "powerful evidence" that the proposed cuts to climate scientists would have "far-reaching consequences" for Australia because of CSIRO's decreased climate measurement capability.
It also found that the loss of jobs in the Land and Water division, now expected to be about 70, was "directly contrary" to the plan outlined by chief executive Larry Marshall to shift resources away from detecting climate change to adapting and mitigating it.
"The committee believes that cuts to CSIRO's climate change adaptation work evidences a hasty and ill-advised attempt to reduce CSIRO staffing numbers," the report said.
Larry Marshall, chief executive of CSIRO, confers with deputy Craig Roy at one of the Senate committee hearings in April. Photo: Andrew Meares

The committee, dominated by Greens and Labor senators, recommended that the CSIRO board delay implementing the cuts. It also called on the Turnbull government to halt the process "in light of the upcoming election".
In a dissenting report, government senators rejected the report's findings, calling the inquiry "a blatantly wasteful use of scarce Senate resources".
A spokesman for CSIRO said the agency would respond after "careful consideration" of the report. "We know it is a difficult time for staff and CSIRO will continue to communicate and consult with staff and other interested parties."
Janet Rice, Greens senator from Tasmania, told the Senate on Tuesday that it was clear from the evidence provided "the CSIRO board was not actively involved at all" in the cuts.
Kim Carr, Labor's shadow minister for science, also emphasised the limited involvement of the board, noting that one member had replied in an email, 'I don't think I approve'.
Most of the board had not joined when a so-called deep dive process to discuss the cuts was held, he said.
Senator Carr also said there was "very strong evidence of negligence" on the part of Science Minister Christopher Pyne, who had contended from the start the cuts were a matter for CSIRO as an independent agency to implement.
Mr Pyne was "hiding behind the legal fiction of independence" of the agency, Senator Carr said, adding he would intervene to halt the cuts if this party took office after the upcoming elections, expected to be held on July 2.
A spokesman for Mr Pyne said CSIRO was "an independent statutory agency governed by a board of directors".
"Advice from the CSIRO is that there will be no net job losses overall across the agency," the spokesman said. "There has been no changes in government funding to the CSIRO. Any suggestion that this was a result of changes to the CSIRO budget is incorrect."
CSIRO chairman David Thodey gave evidence to the inquiry in camera, and without CSIRO managers accompanying him. His comments do not feature in the committee's final report.

Links