Why The Climate Change Policy Is Stuck In A Revolving Door

New Daily - Rob Burgess

Round we go again with yet more discussion papers on climate policy. Photo: AAP

The government’s climate change policy review, announced on Monday, will give anyone interested in the issue a powerful sense of déjà vu.
The review will look at whether Australia’s carbon emission targets are being met, and whether the “lowest cost of abatement” is being achieved.
Significantly, the government is ruling out both a return to a nationwide carbon pricing scheme, and any increase on the current 2020 renewable energy target, which it cut last June from 41,000 GWh to 33,000 GWh.
Beyond that, the review’s terms of reference look better suited to 2007 – the year John Howard asked the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Peter Shergold, to draw up plans for an emissions trading scheme.
It’s as if the Gillard government’s emissions trading scheme, erroneously dubbed a ‘carbon tax’, had never been designed, legislated, operated and then repealed.

Point of difference

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg wants “to hear from experts”.

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg is trying to differentiate his Direct Action suite of policies as a “sector-by-sector” approach, stressing he will pay particular attention to the “impact of policies on jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households and regional Australia”.
But hang on, that’s exactly what the Gillard government’s ‘Clean Energy Futures’ package did too.
It has specific carve-outs and compensation packages for sectors such as steel, aluminium and food processing, and left petrol off the list of carbon sources altogether.
Mr Frydenberg told the ABC he would engage in “close engagement with business and the community, beginning with consultation on a discussion paper”.
Again, it’s like being back in 2007, when the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia – perhaps the nation’s least partisan think tank – hosted an international debate between US economists Dr Robert Mendelsohn and Dr Robert Shapiro and Australians Professor Warwick McKibbin and Brian Fisher.
Back then, the main difference in opinion was over whether a carbon tax, an emissions trading system, or a hybrid of the two would be the cheapest way to change the nation’s power consumption habits.
And none of those economists would have called for a ‘standing Green Army’ to plant trees and fix other environmental programs – an Abbott government policy that looks set to be torn up at the next budget, to the chagrin of Mr Abbott himself.

Polluted politics
In the aftermath of Tony Abbott’s devastating campaign against the ‘carbon tax’ between 2011 and 2013, the cheapest way to cut emissions has become a political impossibility.
That said, one form of emissions trading ­– in which the price of permits to pollute are set by an auction process – is back on the table.

The carbon tax was a hot topic for Australia. Photo: Getty

It will reportedly be considered only for big electricity generators – which sounds uncannily like the plan Labor took to this year’s federal election.
Overall, the politics of carbon reduction has become a farce, with Mr Frydenberg telling the ABC on Monday: “We want to hear from the experts, as to the lowest cost of abatement.”
But experts thrashed out those arguments a decade ago! They published pivotal reports such as the Stern Review in the UK, or the Garnaut Review in Australia.
Economist Ross Garnaut tackled what he called the “diabolical” policy problem, by creating Labor’s carbon price-setting mechanism, which included some of the carve-outs listed above.
Moreover, 80 per cent of the revenue raised by that policy was returned as tax cuts and pension/benefit increases – resulting, as noted last week, in a per capita impost on Australians of around $34 per year.

Abbottalypse now
Now, following the Abbott government’s repeal of that package, we have Direct Action – a package centred on the Emissions Reduction Fund, in which the government pays companies, via the cheapest tenders, to stop polluting.

An emission trading scheme for large electricity generators is reportedly back on the table.

So far it has boasted of a low cost per tonne for reducing emissions, overlooking the fact that such an ‘auction’ was always going to buy up the lowest-cost forms of abatement first.
By definition, the higher cost abatement plans will have to be purchased down the track – costing taxpayers more, and more and more, as Mr Abbott might have put it.
That’s why economists have stressed that emissions trading, or even a real carbon tax, is superior. The price doesn’t just keep going up.
But instead of trusting to either of those two approaches, we’ve ended up with a government that wants to “hear from experts” (again) to created a sector-by-sector plan (again), weigh up the impact on “jobs, investment, trade and households” (again) and consult with business and communities (again).
Déjà vu doesn’t begin to describe the revolving door this policy area has now been caught in for a decade.

Links

• Carbon price for power generators back on the table
• Here’s the reason why South Australia lost all of its power
• Tony Abbott slams Malcolm Turnbull over Green Army axing
• Garnaut Climate Change Review

'One Of The Dumbest Things I've Ever Heard': Coalition Conservatives Furious Over Climate Review

Fairfax -James Massola | Adam Morton

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces a fresh outbreak of party disunity over climate policy, with backbench MPs questioning the government's timing, scope and tactics after a formal review of the Direct Action plan was finally announced.
Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg on Monday launched the long-awaited review - which controversially promises to look at whether to introduce an emissions intensity scheme for electricity generators, which is a type of carbon price - though he emphasised a focus on household electricity prices and energy security.

Carbon review divides government
Cory Bernardi gives voice to government divisions over a proposed carbon intensity trading scheme in the electricity sector. Courtesy ABC News 24

Energy and business leaders immediately issued a plea to the Coalition and Labor: end a decade of destructive politics and come up with a shared national plan to cut emissions over coming decades, including some sort of carbon price.
Most were open to that being an emissions intensity scheme, which would set a baseline for how much carbon dioxide a power station could emit for every unit of power generated, penalising those that breached their limit and rewarding cleaner models that emitted less.
And as debate about the climate review began, it emerged Tony Abbott's signature "green army" policy, which used young unemployed people on landcare projects, is to be axed, prompting a furious rebuke from the former prime minister.
Fairfax Media spoke to 10 Coalition MPs on Monday about the prospect of an emissions intensity scheme for the electricity sector and all of them were scathing at the prospect of what is, in effect, a carbon price being re-introduced in Australia, regardless of the relative cost.
An emissions intensity scheme puts a hard limit on how much a plant can emit for every unit of electricity it generates. Initially, there could be no cost to generators that stayed within their limit, but those that emitted more than allowed would need to buy carbon permits - representing emissions cuts elsewhere - to offset the breach.
Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi, freshly returned from three months at the United Nations in New York, said transitioning to an emissions intensity scheme was "one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It is not in the Australian national interest for the government to chase policies that ingratiate it with the Greens.

Questioned the advantage of a carbon trading scheme: Liberal MP Craig Kelly. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

"To get back on the right economic track, we need the cheapest electricity in the world."
West Australian MP Andrew Hastie said his overriding concern was the cost of living for families and asked: "Why would we unilaterally, economically disarm [by adopting a price on carbon]?"

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg.  Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

South Australian MP Tony Pasin said that given the current economic climate, "the government should be doing all it can to put downward  pressure on the cost of electricity generation to reduce the power bills of hard-working Australians".
NSW MP Craig Kelly said it was fair enough for Mr Frydenberg to leave "everything on the table" as the review was undertaken but then added: "I do not see how any form of carbon trading scheme would put us at a national competitive advantage".

"It is not in the Australian national interest": Senator Cory Bernardi. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Another MP, who asked not be named, said he was "scratching his head" why the government had released the review - and opened up a new political fight - just three days after securing year-ending wins in Parliament.
"There is very real concern among colleagues that this goes down a track we were promised we would not go down."
As conservative MPs marked a line in the sand over carbon trading and Labor and the Greens criticised the government's review, Australian Energy Council chief Matthew Warren, representing the bulk of generators, said the most important thing for the industry was a policy that would withstand changes in government.
"We'd go for almost anything that has a substantial chance of succeeding and garners bipartisan support, because we can build on it," he said.
Mr Warren said a decade of uncertainty on climate and energy policy had driven away investment, leaving a system "now materially degrading before our eyes".
He said the energy industry wanted some form of carbon price linked to a clear emissions target that extended beyond 2030 - something the review will consider - to trigger investments in new power stations that would last decades.
Australian Industry Group chief Innes Willox said the country could only play its part in tackling climate change at lowest cost if investors believed policies would survive.
"Bipartisanship on climate and energy is the only way forward. The alternative is costly failure," he said.
The Climate Institute said the country had a clear choice: between a review that set Australia on a pathway to zero emissions, or continued the policy chaos of the past 10 years.
Deputy chief executive Erwin Jackson said the goal must be a policy framework that was capable of decarbonising the electricity system well before 2050. It must include some form of carbon price, but that alone would not be enough as experience had taught that any scheme would be a political compromise.
The Climate Institute supports a phased retirement of Australia's remaining 24 coal plants to set a clear timeframe of when new plants would be needed. Mr Jackson said it would reduce the need to subsidise renewable energy and help ensure energy security.
Frank Jotzo, from the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy, said an emissions intensity scheme would be a second-best option after an economy-wide carbon price, but support for it in public debate reflected that Australia was "cobbling things together" after year of political disagreement.
He cautioned that allowing the use of international carbon credits to help meet Australia's climate targets would not be enough to drive the change needed in the power sector, given the credit price was often low, and did not reflect other steps being taken in Europe and China to cut emissions.
He noted the terms of reference did not include a re-examination of the 2030 emissions target, of a 26-to-28 per cent cut below 2005 levels, but said there would be a global stocktake under the Paris deal under which Australia would be expected to strengthen its goal.
"That would indicate that will be considered later," he said.

Links

• Turnbull says he's never supported a carbon tax 
• Power prices, energy security, emissions cuts - and carbon pricing - on the table in climate review
• What the climate policy review means
• 'Dismayed' Tony Abbott slams Turnbull government for axing Green Army
• Coalition conservatives furious over climate review

Google's Satellite Timelapses Show The Inconvenient Truth About Our Planet

The Guardian - Jonathan Jones

Google's new Timelapse project allows you to see how anywhere in the world has changed in the last 32 years; from evaporating lakes to exploding cities, it's a document of recklessness

Lake Poopó, Bolivia … composite of images taken from Google's timelapse tool. Composite: Google

The image of the Earth from space is so seared into human consciousness that it is hard to conceive what it was like to live without the picture of our planet as a blue sphere that we all now carry in our minds.
The first photographs of the Earth's surface seen from 100 miles were taken in 1947. By 1968, the famous Earthrise image photographed by the crew of Apollo 8 framed our planet as a beautiful oasis in black space. Today, stunning and intensely informative pictures of the Earth's surface are being taken from space constantly: so comprehensively, for so long, that Google has now created timelapses that show three decades of change.
It induces anxiety to watch, in just a few seconds, a desert in Saudi Arabia turn into a vast agribusiness complex, a lake in Bolivia vanish or cities grow spectacularly in China.

Google timelapse of Chongqing, China.

History has become a car crash in speeded-up motion. We can see, in these timelapse satellite videos, how the Earth is being torn apart by human acts. We can also see, in timelapse videos of Arctic ice, great glaciers melt before our eyes. Yet, are human beings capable of assimilating such global perspectives or is our consciousness tragically limited to a pre-space age, even pre-Copernican mentality? Are people only capable of acting on immediate, personal and local concerns, even though images from space can show us the bigger picture?
This is one of the real problems of our time. The new vistas on Earth opened up by Apollo 8 in 1968 may seem to have sunk into the very fabric of human consciousness, but it also seems that we can watch any number of videos of expanding cities and vanishing ice without becoming globally conscious.

Google timelapse of Lago Poopó, Bolivia.

Extreme scepticism about climate change has proved a vote winner for Donald Trump. Specifically, Barack Obama's environmental policies have been accused of creating a "war on coal". Pennsylvania miners were not happy to accept that their traditional jobs were doomed for the greater good. All the images of climate change, the timelapse videos of a crumbling Earth, the crash of glaciers, don't apparently mean anything compared with the direct experiences people have in their own neighbourhoods. If a truth is inconvenient, ignore it.
If you want to experience, directly, the gap between imagination and reality, science and common sense, that threatens our ability to act rationally to save the planet, just consider your smartphone. Walking down the street, I can see myself move on the screen of my phone, in a real-time, real-life link between myself and a network of satellites. Yet do we go around pondering this magic? No, and perhaps it even seems naive to do so. We just use the app to check how far we are from the meeting or pub we're trying to get to.

Google timelapse of north-east Greenland.

We are now a species in space, our lives as well as the health of our planet scanned by satellites. Globalisation is not abstract but a scientific reality that is made visible in these timelapse images of our changing world. Yet that knowledge somehow does not get into the depths of our psyches. The GPS in our smartphones and cars is an unfortunate metaphor for a crushing failure of human imagination. We literally refuse to engage with the dazzling global and extra-global nature of modern life. It's all too complex, apparently.We are mentally imprisoned, unable to soar in our minds to see the Earth as a satellite can see it. And it's killing us.

Links

• First Pictures of Earth From 100 Miles in Space, 1947
• Earthrise
• Google Earth Engine
• Extreme Ice Survey