21/08/2018

Australia Wilts From Climate Change. Why Can’t Its Politicians Act?

New York TimesDamien Cave

A lone tree near a water trough in a drought-stricken paddock on the outskirts of Walgett, in New South Wales, Australia, in July. Credit David Gray/Reuters
SYDNEY, Australia — Mile after mile of the Great Barrier Reef is dying amid rising ocean temperatures. Hundreds of bush fires are blazing across Australia’s center, in winter, partly because of a record-breaking drought.
The global scientific consensus is clear: Australia is especially vulnerable to climate change.
And yet on Monday, Australia’s prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, abandoned a modest effort to reduce energy emissions under pressure from conservatives in his party. And on Tuesday, those same conservatives just missed toppling his government.
What on earth is going on?
Australia’s resistance to addressing climate change — by limiting emissions in particular — is well documented. If Mr. Turnbull is turned out of office, he will be the third Australian prime minister in the past decade to lose the position over a climate dispute.
Despite the country’s reputation for progressiveness on gun control, health care and wages, its energy politics seem forever doomed to devolve into a circus. Experts point to many reasons, from partisanship to personality conflicts, but the root of the problem may be tied to the land.
Australia’s prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and foreign minister, Julie Bishop, on Monday at a news conference in Canberra. Credit Sean Davey/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Coal was discovered in New South Wales in 1797, less than a decade after the First Fleet of British settlers arrived. Within a century, the country was producing millions of tons of it.
Now, Australia is regularly listed as the largest coal exporter in the world, accounting for 37 percent of global exports.
Large mining companies like Rio Tinto and BHP have long wielded enormous power in Australia. Separately and through industry associations like the Minerals Council, they frequently host luxury events with senior politicians. Their businesses bring in more money than just about any others in Australia, and they tend to wildly outspend any group that challenges them politically.
Total campaign contributions are extremely hard to track in Australia — a lack of transparency that serves big business well — but in the narrow band of reported spending, coal industry lobbyists poured roughly $3.6 million ($5 million Australian) into campaigns last year as the energy debate intensified.
Four of the country’s main environmental groups — Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Environment Victoria and the Sunrise Project — spent just $135,000 combined ($183,000 Australian).
“If you look at lobby lane, who is always around, it’s the Minerals Council by a country mile,” said Susan Harris Rimmer, a law professor at Griffith University. “I don’t think people understand how dominant it’s been here.”
Coal awaiting shipment at the Abbot Point coal terminal in Queensland. Australia exports vast amounts of coal, and mining companies wield enormous power. Credit David Maurice Smith for The New York Times
“The Europeans think we’re crazy,” she added. “Who’s got more solar, who’s got more tidal power than us? It just goes to show the strength of that particular group.”
The trend of hyper-partisanship has not helped. Just as climate and energy issues in the United States create a toxic divide, with many on the right opposing anything the left supports — including well-established science — any mention of emissions control tends to create an anaphylactic reaction among Australian conservatives.
The arguments differ. Some make a case for free markets, despite subsidies granted to fossil fuel companies, or they say action works only when all nations act. Others, like Mr. Turnbull’s opponents this time, emphasize local priorities such as reduced energy prices for consumers.
The reaction to emissions management nonetheless tends to be universal, at least on the far right.
“Conservatives just see red when anything like a price or tax on carbon is introduced,” said Bruce Wolpe, the chief of staff for Julia Gillard, the former prime minister who passed such a plan only to see it dismantled after losing an election to Tony Abbott. “That has become as powerful a driver here as it is in America.”
Researchers collecting coral samples from Rib Reef, part of the Great Barrier Reef, in Queensland. Credit David Maurice Smith for The New York Times

Scientists all over the world have become increasingly disappointed in the country’s climate policies.
Under Mr. Turnbull, a former investment banker and a moderate, the Australian government has increased its support for fossil fuel extraction projects, failed to meet goals set under the Paris climate agreement, and shied away from challenging the consumption status quo even as the Great Barrier Reef bleaches toward oblivion.
Dr. Darren Saunders, a cancer biologist in Australia, spoke for many in a popular tweet that said, “It’s incredibly hard to describe how utterly sad it feels to be a scientist and dad in a country being dictated to by a small group of science-denying clowns putting their own short term political gain over the long term public interest.”
Some climate scientists were only a bit less emotional and argumentative.
“The scientific community in Australia is unified in knowing that climate change is a problem and will become a bigger problem,” said James W. Porter, a professor of ecology at the University of Georgia, specializing in the biology and ecology of coral reefs. “The government of Australia, on the other hand, has the same problems as the government in the United States and other developed countries, in that some conservative politicians don’t want to believe in facts.”
What are some of those facts?
JoĆ«lle Gergis, a climate scientist and writer at the University of Melbourne, said in an email that the public and the politicians in Canberra, the nation’s capital, ought to consider what they are failing to address.
Cattle at an empty dam in June in a drought-affected paddock near Gunnedah, in the northwest of New South Wales. Credit David Gray/Reuters
Australia’s climate has now warmed by 1 degree Celsius since 1910, she said.
“This makes our climate even more extreme than it otherwise would be,” she said. “Our droughts are getting hotter, our heat waves have become more intense and our bush fire season is now extending into winter.”
The bleaching and damage to roughly half the Great Barrier Reef “is not a natural disaster,” she added. “It is one of the clearest signals that our planet is warming.”
Farmers see their own problems looming, and even those undecided about the cause of the drought are fed up with the political bickering.
“It’s another example of politicians looking after themselves and not looking after the country,” said Charles Alder, the chief executive of Rural Aid, a group that helps drought-affected farmers.
At some point, those who study climate change argue, policymakers will fall in line with public demands. One recent poll found that 59 percent of Australians said “global warming is a serious and pressing problem” about which “we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.”
When and if the moment comes, Dr. Gergis said, “bipartisan climate change policy will be a defining moment in Australian politics.”

Links

Turnbull Just Showed What Happens When 'Ideology And Idiocy Take Charge Of Energy Policy'

The Guardian*

The PM had seemed to recognise that you can’t have an energy policy without a plan to cut emissions. No longer
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at a Snowy Hydro power station in 2017. Photograph: Alex Ellinghausen/AAP 
A note to our prime minister: you can’t have an energy policy that assumes that climate change does not exist.
By dumping the commitment to take emissions targets to the federal parliament the PM is signalling climate change is not real. This leaves the rest of us paying the price for another political capitulation on cleaning up our power sector.
Some parts of the government don’t believe in climate change. Their ideological ties to the coal-based power systems built 40 to 50 years ago has scuttled every attempt to develop credible climate change energy policy over the past 10 years, leaving us where we are now.
In the real world, climate change continues. We look out our windows or watch our TV screens and see droughts spreading, bushfires raging and heatwaves becoming more and more extreme.
In the boardrooms of power companies, directors see new renewable energy capacity outstripping investments in fossil fuels on a global scale.
In 2017 new global capacity in solar photovoltaic (PV) alone exceeded new capacity of coal, gas and nuclear energy combined. These same investors understand that the cost of clean energy is falling dramatically. Even here in Australia, renewable energy is now the cheapest form of new power generation, despite what the coal lobby might say.
Investors are also aware that it is only Trump’s America that has threatened to withdraw from the Paris agreement on climate change. Other major emitters continue to move forward: China, India and the European Union are on track to meet their Paris commitments early and overachieve them by a significant margin.
In short, if you were a private investor in the power sector you would be sacked for spending billions of dollars on new electricity capacity under the assumption that climate change did not exist and that renewable energy was not the cheapest form of new generation.
This is what our prime minister on Monday asked power sector investors to do: to throw out good due diligence and hope that the fantasies being propagated of the hard-right rump of government become reality. Ridiculous.
As a result of Turnbull’s proposal, companies will continue to face higher financing costs for new electricity projects as investors charge them a premium to insure against changes in policy. Old, crumbling power stations will stay open longer, increasing the risk of abrupt closures and equipment malfunctions, making our power system less reliable. Power prices and pollution will be higher than they need to be.
This is not a new story. In 2007 John Howard’s support for an emissions trading scheme was informed by analysis that showed that policy uncertainty would cost consumers $2bn to $4bn due to high power prices.
Similar analysis was performed as part of the development of the Gillard government’s clean energy future package. Most recently, the chief scientist’s review of energy policy last year identified that the lack of a plan to deal with climate change was costing consumers and undermining reliable electricity supply. How many times do we need to be told?
With a plan to cut emissions the national energy guarantee might have achieved the holy grail in energy and climate policy. With the right emissions target, it could unlock billions of dollars in clean energy investment.
The mechanism would see energy companies forced to favour clean sources of power over dirty ones and allow investors in the power sector to plan and invest in replacing our ageing and inefficient coal fired power stations.
While it is not a perfect policy (none ever are), until Monday, it fundamentally recognised that you can’t have an energy policy without a plan to reduce emissions. No longer.
As the prime minister said just a week ago we know “very well what happens when you allow ideology and idiocy to take charge of energy policy.” Well, that is what just happened (again).

*Erwin Jackson is senior climate change and energy advisor with Environment Victoria. Erwin has nearly 30 years’ experience tracking climate policy in Australia and around the world.

Links

'Chaos And Confusion': Labor-Led Jurisdictions Blast Turnbull Over Emissions Backdown

FairfaxPeter Hannam

Labor-led jurisdictions have criticised the Turnbull government's abrupt ditching of the emissions component of the National Energy Guarantee, saying the move essentially ends the scheme as a national policy.
"There was chaos and confusion when I walked into cabinet," Anthony Lynham, Queensland's Energy Minister, said on Monday. "There was a new energy policy when I came out."
The states and territories are currently assessing legislation intended to support the reliability component of the scheme.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull addresses the media at Parliament House as he dropped the emissions component of the National Energy Guarantee. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

The Commonwealth government had been preparing the emissions target until Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull formally announced on Monday that it would drop the pollution component in order to focus on bringing down prices alone.
Lily D'Ambrosio, Victoria's Climate and Energy Minister, said it's not clear what the states are meant to be considering: "I'm not sure [Prime Minister] Malcolm Turnbull knows what the NEG is anymore - or if it still exists."

Policy is 'dead'
Shane Rattenbury, the ACT's Climate Change minister who is also a Greens MP, said Monday's announcement signalled "the NEG is dead".
“The federal government has now completely capitulated on emissions and climate change, and abandoned the Paris climate change commitments," he said.
Mr Rattenbury said it was "murky" as to what the jurisdictions were being asked to approve. "They are obviously trying to cherry-pick some part of [the NEG]" that may affect what's left.


The focus of the National Energy Guarantee has shifted from including emissions targets to suppressing the ongoing climb of energy prices. 

Fairfax Media sought comment from Coalition-led state governments, each of which had been ready to sign off on the scheme as presented to them at a Council of Australian Governments energy council meeting earlier this month in Sydney.
A spokeswoman for NSW Energy Minister Don Harwin said the Berejiklian government "supports the reliability component of the National Energy Guarantee to provide certainty, drive new investment and put downward pressure on energy prices for consumers".
"The emissions reduction goal is a matter for the federal government," she said.



The Abbott government pledged to cut 2005-level emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030, a target the Turnbull government adopted. Under the energy guarantee, the electricity grid supplying eastern Australia was to have reduced emissions by a "par" level - or 26 per cent - before that aspect of the policy was dropped.
Tasmania said it remained upbeat about overall energy policy, including backing from Canberra for the state's pumped-hydro potential, known as the "Battery of the Nation" projects, and another high-voltage link to the mainland.
“We continue to work cooperatively to achieve these outcomes," Tasmania's Energy Minister Guy Barnett said.

'Propping up'
Queensland Energy Minister Mr Lynham underlined the uncertainty surrounding who would be the country's leader.
"There could be a new PM when I walk out of caucus," Mr Lynham said, adding "our government is focussed on pushing down power bills, not propping up a leader".
At this stage, none of the Labor-led jurisdictions - any of which could veto what remains of the energy policy before them - has rejected cooperation with the Turnbull government.
"We'll carefully consider whatever energy policy emerges out of the infighting going on up in Canberra," Ms D'Ambrosio said.
For their part, Treasurer Scott Morrison and federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg stressed the focus of the energy policy would now be on driving power prices down.
"The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission estimates that for average customers on an inflated standing offer, the savings for residential customers from moving to the new default offer could range between $183 and $416," they said in a statement.
"We also think that small businesses have the right to the same protections and support.
"The ACCC estimates that savings for the average small to medium sized business on a standing offer could range between $561 and $1457."

Links