Friday marks an important day in Australia's efforts to settle on climate action but those hoping chief scientist Alan Finkel has puzzled out a durable and effective solution are likely to be disappointed.
Debate this week has focused on the means of how to achieve a cut in pollution, whether by a so-called clean energy target or an alternative route. But quite where the various rules and new mechanisms will take us in terms of carbon cuts has largely been sidelined.
Labor moves to end climate change policy wars
The federal opposition is indicating it may back a plan for cleaner energy through a low emissions target, a move which could bring to an end 10 years of climate policy wars.
The review recommends the electricity sector merely meets the 28 per cent cut in 2005-level emissions by 2030 pledged to the Paris climate accord by the Abbott-Turnbull governments.
Given the electricity sector is widely viewed as the industry best placed to make substantial - and relatively low cost - pollution cuts, Finkel's target is underwhelming. Instead, he recommends the government by 2020 prepare a whole-of-economy strategy for 2050 with no specifics other than "it may be appropriate" for governments to ask the sector do more than 28 per cent.
The result is a report that is as much a roadmap for politicians to get out of the energy and climate mire rather than one that serves Australia's climate goals - and what other nations expect of us.
The problem with the 28 per cent figure - which the government says Finkel chose himself - is the electricity sector has always been expected to lead the reduction event both in Australia and almost every other nation.
If that's all the power sector delivers, Australia will get nowhere near the 2030 Paris goal it has promised because other parts of the economy are much harder to tackle especially without an economy-wide carbon price.
 |
| The electricity sector is no longer expected to punch above its weight. Photo: Joe Armao |
Its concentrated nature and competitive renewable energy alternatives make the transition to a low-emissions future also among the cheapest pathways.
That's why major international bodies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the International Energy Agency model swifter falls in energy sector emissions than Finkel has used when calculating how to keep global warming to less than two degrees above pre-industrial levels. (See IEA chart below.)
The revelation that Finkel set such a low mark was met with disbelief from some climate experts. Responses ranged from "you must have heard wrong" or "this is absolutely catastrophic - Australia is basically saying good bye to the Paris target".
Typical was Bob Ward, a policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
"Most of the emissions reductions achieved so far by the UK have been in the power sector...[and] the same is true for emissions cuts in the United States," Mr Ward said.
"Making cuts in other sectors will be harder, and in transport, for instance, reducing emissions through the introduction of electric vehicles will depend on a supply of low-carbon power," he said. "It is difficult to see how Australia could follow a radically different path to cutting its emissions by 2030."
 |
| Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel has presented his electricity market report to the COAG leaders meeting in Hobart on Friday. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen |
Proof that Australia may reduce its climate ambitions will need to await the government's fuller Review of Climate Policies due later this year. Still, after Donald Trump's recent decision to pull the US out of the Paris accord, it's natural global interest will focus on other countries wavering in their commitment.
Power play
In Finkel's defence, the terms of reference limited his focus "to develop a national reform blueprint to maintain energy security and reliability".
Still, he could have picked from the Climate Change Authority's special review last year of the electricity sector. Relative to 2015 levels (which were slightly lower than in 2005), that review modelled falls of 69-74 per cent to 2030.
Those briefed on Thursday suggested Finkel had taken a thoughtful approach with a keen eye on what was politically feasible.
That's why his report backs a clean energy target rather than an emissions intensity scheme given a tentative tick in Finkel's preliminary report. The Turnbull government stamped on that latter concept within days of its release in December.
Finkel decided on something that had a fighting chance of bipartisan support, one person said of the final report. Anything more ambitious would fail because of likely opposition within the federal coalition.
Another state's delegate was not overly worried about the 28 per cent target saying it was important to set up the architecture for the transition out of coal, and have the option of ramping it higher later.
Whether that plan wins support of a sceptical federal opposition and the Greens remains to be seen.
Another sought Finkel's suggestions for other sectors, such as transport and agriculture - where government policy is largely absent. The scientist is understood to have said that wasn't his instructions.
That broader study could be Finkel's next job, one of those briefed joked to Fairfax.
Links
- The man who could bring peace to Australia's climate wars
- The Finkel review explained: what's in it, and why you should care
- Finkel climate review outlines Clean Energy Target
- 'Pinch year': Power price surge set to knock out smaller energy retailers
- Bill Shorten offers 'olive branch' to Malcolm Turnbull on climate
No comments:
Post a Comment