Lethal Heating: 12/06/16

06/12/2016

Adani Coal Mine Project: Queensland Government Approves Rail Line, Camp

The $22 billion Carmichael coal and rail project has secured approval for a permanent rail line and a temporary construction camp.

Queensland's coordinator-general has given "the latest, and final, secondary approval" for about 31.5 kilometres of permanent track, as well as the 300-bed camp.
The rail section approved will form part of the 389 kilometre heavy haul railway line from the mine in the Galilee Basin to the Abbot Point port.

The coordinator-general has given "the latest, and final" approval for Adani's Carmichael mine. (Supplied: adanimining.com)

The Carmichael mine, which will be Australia's largest coal mine, still needs a water licence approved and hopes to secure a Federal Government loan.
State Development Minister Dr Anthony Lynham said the approval was another milestone for the project.

"Adani has confirmed it will start construction next year," Dr Lynham said.

"North Queensland is about to see a new horizon, because these big projects will be a huge economic stimulus for the north."
Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani and Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk will on Tuesday visit Townsville, about two hours from the Abbot Point port.
A headquarters for Adani's operations is yet to be announced.
The mine will consist of six open-cut pits and up to five underground mines, and will supply Indian power plants with enough coal to generate electricity for up to 100 million people.
The controversial project involves dredging 1.1 million cubic metres of spoil near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which will then be disposed of on land.

Links

Australia Is Blowing Its Carbon Budget, Projections Reveal

The Guardian - Michael Slezak | Nick Evershed

Exclusive: In less than four years the country has ‘spent’ almost 20% of its greenhouse gas allowance to 2050, analysis shows

Australia has emitted about twice what is allowed by the Climate Change Authority’s carbon budget since 2013. Photograph: G Mutlu/Getty Images

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are rising despite global reduction efforts, according to detailed projections made by the consultants NDEVR Environmental.
Australia’s emissions jumped by 2.56m tonnes in the three months to September, putting them 1.55m tonnes off-track compared with commitments made in Paris, and 4.06m tonnes over levels demanded by scientifically based targets set by the government’s Climate Change Authority. Emissions for the year to September are above those for the year to September 2015.

The results mean Australia has emitted about twice what is allowed by the CCA’s carbon budget since 2013. In the three years and nine months to September 2016, the country emitted 19.8% of its share of what the world can emit between 2013 and 2050 if it intends to maintain a good chance of keeping warming to below 2C.
If Australia continues to emit carbon pollution at the average rate of the past year, it will spend its entire carbon budget by 2031. Projected to the current second, the graphic shows how much of the carbon budget has been spent.

The government has failed to report its emissions since the quarter ending December 2015. Last year it released data on Christmas Eve, when it reported a jump in emissions.
The analysis was produced by NDEVR Environmental, which analysed data for all of Australia’s major emissions sources and compared the results with the government’s commitments made in Paris and the cuts recommended by the CCA.
“The national greenhouse gas inventory, it’s six to nine months behind, it doesn’t compare against any targets, and it doesn’t mean a whole lot to a lot of people,” said Matt Drum, director of NDEVR Environmental.
“So we put our backs into it and replicated their report, updating it to the latest quarter. It was no mean feat. We wanted to show how Australia is tracking, not in real time, but as close as we can get.”
The jump in the latest quarter was not unexpected, since it represents increased use of power during winter months, according to Drum. But the analysis suggests Australia’s emissions have not fallen over the longer term either, with emissions over the year to September rising by 1.3m tonnes compared with the previous year.
“Since the carbon pricing mechanism was repealed, slowly but surely carbon emissions have been increasing both in intensity and in volume, so it’s no surprise that overall emissions have started creeping up as well,” Drum said.
The government has not committed to any interim targets before 2030 but the analysis shows that Australia is not cutting its emissions at all – and certainly not at a steady rate that would meet its 2030 targets.
The carbon budget recommended by the CCA, which it described as “equitable and feasible”, was never agreed to by the government, but represents the authority’s view of Australia’s fair share if global warming is to be kept under 2C.
Australia’s emissions did drop steadily from 2005, almost entirely owing to changes in land-clearing laws in Queensland and NSW. Those changes have now been reversed in Queensland and New South Wales has also just made the clearing of land easier. This is expected to cause an increase in emissions which may not yet be reflected in the projections.

The federal government’s primary carbon reduction tool is Direct Action, under which it pays polluters to pollute less through a reverse auction – the emissions reduction fund.
There is no evidence the emissions bought through that fund reduce overall emissions, and many of the emissions the government pays to avoid are unlikely to have occurred anyway.
About 83% of the emissions reduction fund has been spent, with the latest auction attracting relatively little interest from polluting industries, resulting in fewer reductions being offered and a higher price being demanded.
The government has committed to reviewing its climate change policies in 2017 but there have been doubts about how rigorous that review will be since the minister for energy and the environment, Josh Frydenberg, described it as merely a “sit rep” – a situation report.

Links

Time For Some Transparency On The Carbon Emissions Front From Malcolm Turnbull

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The Turnbull government's seriousness about tackling climate change shouldn't be assessed on the well-coordinated dump of details about its planned policy review in 2017 but rather attempts to bury or distort any inconvenient news.
The government has outlined the general terms of the long-flagged review. It's expected to generate a discussion paper in the first half of next year and prompt any changes to its current suite by year's end.

Some big decisions loom for Australia's climate policies in 2017. Photo: Paul Harris

Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has understandably gone on the front foot in announcing the review. The government's existing policies are working, he asserts, and says his government "is committed to adopting a non-ideological approach to emissions reduction to ensure we secure the lowest cost of abatement".
Of course, a "non-ideological approach" would necessarily consider a carbon price, letting the market decide which technology wins at "the lowest cost".
Does anyone believe, though, that the Coalition will drop its opposition to anything that vaguely echoes a "carbon tax"? Even now, conservative backbenchers are mustering for a fight.
Fossil fuels, such as coal, do have a cost to society – which the US government puts at $US11-$US105 per tonne – by worsening global warming, and any fair dinkum review in Australia would look to test that range here.
Agencies that the government might have gone to for an independent assessment of options include the Climate Change Authority set up by the Gillard government.
That agency is still earmarked for abolition by the government, and with its outspoken former chairman, Bernie Fraser, forced out in September 2015, it is expected to play little if any role in the coming review.
How much the review looks at Australia's support for the monster Galilee coal province, and the prospect of many billions of tonnes of new emissions, will be interesting to watch.
New approvals announced on Monday, and the prospect of the government tipping in $1 billion to subsidise its development, suggest that it hopes people will accept that train has left the station.

On course?
The government, meanwhile, will continue to repeat that Australia is on course to beat the nation's 2020 target of cutting 2000-level greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent.
Omitted from the conversation will be the fact actual emissions are – by its own estimates – likely to be about 6 per cent higher, and only drop below the goal thanks to credits built up during the middle years. (See chart below.)

And that's even before the much-maligned Emissions Reduction Fund, including its reliance on native vegetation, gets a look in.
The government, meanwhile, has drawn out the release of the country's current greenhouse gas emissions data. A month ago, the Environment Department said the March quarter numbers were due out "shortly".
Presumably they will show more of the same – an unhelpful rise of emissions as coal burning in the electricity sector continues to rise after the carbon price was scrapped in mid-2014.
An "up arrow" in emissions means further goals, such as the 2030 target of cutting 2005 levels by 26-28 per cent, will be harder to achieve by whatever policies are prompted by the 2017 review.
Just how much harder, the government could be telling us now.
As reported by Fairfax Media, the government has been under pressure to release its longer-term emissions projections, including how much on course we are to hit those 2030 targets .
These are due out by the end of the year. Just how close to the Christmas news dead zone will be watched closely.

Links

Power Prices, Energy Security, Emissions Cuts - And Carbon Pricing - On The Table In Climate Review

Fairfax - James Massola | Adam Morton

The government will review climate policies next year. Photo: Leigh Henningham

The Coalition will consider a form of carbon pricing for power companies as part of a long-awaited review of Australia's climate policies, Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has confirmed.
The review of the Coalition's direct action policy will focus on electricity price rises, energy security and cutting greenhouse gas emissions but will also look at whether to introduce an emissions intensity scheme for electricity generators – a type of carbon price different to the abolished scheme brought in by the Gillard Labor government.

Greenhouse gases: not just a bunch of hot air
From tracing the exact source of CO2 in our atmosphere to measuring the earth's "carbon budget," the scientists studying climate change know a lot more about the greenhouse effect than you might think.

The possible resurrection of carbon pricing is likely to trigger intense internal debate within the Coalition once the review gets under way next year, while environment groups and the federal opposition are likely to claim the terms of reference for the departmental review lack ambition, given the threat posed by climate change to the planet.
Those terms of reference, released by Mr Frydenberg on Monday, also include consideration of a long-term emissions reduction target for beyond 2030 and the use of international carbon permits created through emissions cuts overseas.
They confirm the existing renewable energy target of about 23.5 per cent by 2020, but do not canvass extending the target into the future.
State-based renewable energy targets - such as those in Victoria (40 per cent by 2025), Queensland (50 per cent by 2030) and South Australia (50 per cent by 2025) will also come under scrutiny.
Mr Frydenberg has regularly criticised the higher targets set by state Labor governments as "unrealistic".
The review comes in the wake of several analyses finding the Coalition's direct action policy - built around an emissions reduction fund that uses taxpayer funds to pay for cuts, mostly through tree-planting and better landfill management - is highly unlikely to be enough to meet Australia's current target of a 26 to 28 per cent emissions cut by 2030 compared with 2005 levels.
Direct action does not penalise polluters, and a study found many of the projects that won funding would have gone ahead without taxpayer backing. A "safeguard mechanism", promised to prevent companies from increasing emissions, has been criticised for being full of loopholes.
The review shapes as the sternest test yet for Mr Frydenberg, who will have to balance Coalition tensions between those National and Liberal MPs who question the science of global warming with those who want to see more ambitious targets.

Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg. Photo: Andrew Meares

The debate will come amid a likely dramatic shift in climate policy in the US following the election of Donald Trump, who has said he would abandon the Paris climate deal and has surrounded himself with climate sceptics.
More than 100 countries have ratified the Paris agreement. They include Australia, which confirmed ratification on the day after Mr Trump's election.
In a carefully-calibrated message designed to reassure those Coalition MPs concerned the Turnbull government could take on a green tinge, Mr Frydenberg said the review would balance a "trilemma" of concerns - "energy security, energy affordability and the transition to a lower emissions future".
"We must never forget that there are thousands of Australian families who struggle to meet power bills, and many blue collar workers who feel their jobs in energy intensive industries are now under threat," he said.
"We owe it to them to find the lowest cost way to meet our emissions reduction targets while at the same time ensuring the lights always stay on."
" Our policies to date are working. It is hoped this review will ensure that we remain on track for 2030."
Mr Frydenberg confirmed an emissions intensity scheme, which has been recommended by the Climate Change Authority, would be looked at on a sector-by-sector basis as part of the review.
Some experts have suggested the safeguard mechanism could be adapted into an emissions intensity scheme, which could put a hard limit on how much a plan can emit for every unit of electricity it generates.
Depending on the design, there would be no cost to generators that stayed within the limit, but those that emitted more than allowed would need to buy carbon permits - representing emissions cuts elsewhere - to offset the breach. Those that emitted less would receive permits that they could sell.
The limit would be reduced incrementally over time to make dirtier plants less commercial and encourage investment in cleaner power stations.
Labor indicated before the election it would support this sort of scheme. Experts believe it would be more likely to keep a lid on inevitable price rises than the defunct carbon price.
Several energy and business groups have called for the introduction of a bipartisan national scheme to allow industry to plan investment in the new generators Australia will need.
A discussion paper will be released in February and and the review will be completed next year.

Links