01/03/2019

Australian Headlines Are Designed To Scare People Into Not Acting On Climate Change

The Guardian - 

As we head into another cycle of climate change politics beware the economic doomsayers
 Whenever Australia starts to have a serious conversation about addressing climate change headlines appear in newspapers of an economic apocalypse. Photograph: folkeandersen.com/Alamy Stock Photo/Alamy Stock Photo
Whenever Australia starts to have a serious conversation about addressing climate change, headlines appear in newspapers of an economic apocalypse. This happened again in the Australian this week based on work by a long-standing economic modeller of climate policy, Brian Fisher.
So, what do economic modelling exercises tell us of the impact of reducing Australia’s contribution to global warming, and more importantly, what do they not? Should we cower in fear of action or embrace the inevitable change and manage the human and economic costs of transition?
Firstly, economic modelling results are not predictions. They are based on hypothetical future worlds. Economists try to capture the dynamics of economic systems in their models to understand the relative impact of different policy options. This means they are always wrong because economists can’t predict the future. Economic modellers are not the crystal ball gazers we read about in fantasy books.
Leading energy commentator and founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Michael Liebreich, sums this up nicely. His graph shows what US government energy models have been projecting over the years compared with what is happening in the real world. Over and over again models have failed to capture how fast the cost of clean energy has been falling and the scale at which it would be deployed.
This does not mean the economic models are not useful, it just means they should be used to test the relative impact of different policy options and not be presented as predictions of the future. They have a long history of overestimating the costs of environmental regulations because people and markets can innovate faster than they often expect.
Secondly, the way economic modelling results are presented is very important. Industry groups in particular like to attach themselves to particular results and scream that thousands of jobs will be lost, or wages will be slashed. This is designed to scare people into not acting on climate change by making them feel insecure in their lives. The headlines in the Australian did just this.
It is also dishonest because they also don’t clearly put the results in the context of the broader change in the economy. (David Gruen, one of Australia’s top economic officials gave a great speech about this in 2008 to illustrate how long this silliness has been going on.)
To illustrate my point, the economic impacts Fischer has projected for different emissions targets are in the same ballpark of those projected for work commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade a few years ago. This work also presented results in a similar way to the Australian. However, what is also showed is that the economy, jobs, income, etc continued to grow regardless. We keep getting richer and have more jobs, we just do so at a slightly slower rate.
Thirdly, because Australia exports a lot of coal and other emissions-intensive products to other countries, what they do matters an awful lot to the Australian economy. As other nations reduce emissions, demand for these products falls regardless of what we do. It has been established for some time that a significant part of the economic impacts of climate change on Australia comes from things we can’t control and this is generally presented in the results (see here for an example). While he does not report this, Brian Fisher knows this because he spearheaded economic analysis in the 1990s that was targeted at convincing Japan, one of our major coal markets, it would be too costly for them to reduce emissions.
Lastly, whenever these headlines are blasted across the papers one point is always lost: these results don’t include the cost of climate change itself. This summer, we have again seen a glimmer of what climate change will mean for Australia. Recent economic analysis indicates the benefits of limiting global warming far outweigh the cost of doing so, in one case by 70-1 (a good summary is here). (Again, this is something Fisher has considered in the past as he once said it would be cheaper to move people from the Pacific and put them in condos on the Gold Coast than act on climate change.)
So, as we head into another cycle of climate change politics in Canberra, beware the economic doomsayers and the threats from industry groups that credible action will be a “wrecking ball” to the economy. To be glib, no one said saving the Earth would be free. Acting on climate change will have costs but the costs of not acting will be far, far larger. Better that we come together and manage a fair and effective transition than continuing to delay and pay a much, much greater bill later.
  • Erwin Jackson is director of policy at Investor Group on Climate Change.
Links
at No comments:

'Everyone Loves Solar': Climate Action Heats Up As NSW Election Issue

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

NSW voters, including conservative ones, want the state government to step up action on climate change, including boosting renewable energy, two separate polling sets show.
A statewide Essential survey conducted February 6-11 for the Nature Conservation Council of 544 respondents found 51 per cent were more likely to back a party boosting clean energy and 18 per cent less likely. Among those identifying as Liberal or National supporters, the ratio was 43 per cent in favour and a quarter against.
Solar farms are rolling out at a record rate and voters would support much larger levels of renewable energy, surveys have found. Credit: Rolfo Brenner

Three separate uComms surveys for Greenpeace, each of more than 600 respondents conducted in marginal seats of Ballina, Coogee, and Penrith, found higher support for renewable energy.
In Penrith, for instance, 60 per cent of Liberal voters said they were more likely to support a party investing in renewables and 30.7 per cent less likely. In Coogee, 52.1 per cent of Liberal voters were more likely to back a party with such policies, and 38.6 per cent against.
In Ballina, 65 per cent of National supporters agreed rooftop solar and batteries would cut household power bills for homeowners and renters, while 32.8 per cent disagreed.
The polling comes amid another torrid period of extremes. NSW smashed heat records in January, with temperatures almost six degrees about average and two degrees above the previous record set in bushfire-scorched January 1939.
Much of the state remains in severe drought – with 2019 off to a dry start amid rainfall levels typically less than a fifth of normal levels – sending reservoir levels tumbling and contributing to a series of mass fish kills and algal bloom outbreaks in the Darling and other rivers.
While climate scientists have yet to determine the role climate change is having, the background warming of more than a degree over the past century across Australia is raising the likelihood of heatwaves. Climate models also point to a long-term drying trend across southern Australia, including NSW, with more to come.

'No policy'
The onus to demonstrate action to tackle climate change appears to fall heavier on the Coalition if the polling and last December's federal byelection for the Sydney seat of Wentworth are any guide, Kate Smolski, chief executive of the Nature Conservation Council, said.
"Voters deserted the Liberals in Wentworth over climate change, and [this month's] poll shows that it's a statewide phenomenon," Ms Smolski said.
"This is bad news for the Berejiklian government, which after eight years of Coalition rule still doesn't have a climate change policy or a renewable energy target."
Liberal ministers declined to comment to the Sun-Herald, but Niall Blair, the deputy Nationals leader who has lately been at the frontline facing communities hit by drought and fish kills, has been outspoken about the need to act on climate.
"Many people in our communities are really seeing something they haven't seen before," Mr Blair said. "They can clearly see what's happening on their own properties."
Labor is banking of wooing voters with its plan to add 7 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity and expand the take-up of solar panels by half a million homes.
"That's the biggest roll-out of renewable energy in Australian history," Adam Searle, Labor's climate and energy spokesman, said.
If implemented, clean energy's share would triple to 40 per cent by 2030 from less than 13 per cent now, he says.

The other two-thirds
But the energy sector accounts for roughly a third of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. While both major parties have an ambition to achieve carbon neutrality in NSW by 2050, they have offered few policies.
By contrast, the Greens plan to introduce a carbon change bill, including a broad carbon price, to reach the net-zero emissions goal by 2040.
"We need targets with teeth if we are going to actually decarbonise," Cate Faehrmann, Greens environment spokeswoman, said. "That is why I have developed legislation which sets binding targets to reach net-zero emissions by 2040 and gives ordinary citizens the power to prosecute government ministers who are not serious about meeting these targets."
Jeremy Buckingham, the former Greens and now independent MP, said policies are needed to tackle emissions from agriculture, industry and transport.
"Everyone loves solar panels, so we get policies focused on popular renewable energy, but with only a few years left to act, we need comprehensive policies to decarbonise all sectors rapidly, even if they are politically challenging," he said.

Links
at No comments:

New South Wales Energy Sector Is “Ageing And Unprepared”

RenewEconomy - 


Climate Council Report key findings: 

New South Wales was once a world leader on climate action, but over the past five years it has become a laggard. 
  • New South Wales introduced the world’s first emissions trading scheme in 2003, which over 10 years reduced greenhouse gas pollution by an estimated 144 million tonnes. The scheme concluded in 2012. 
  • Over the past five years South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania have led the country on renewable energy progress, while New South Wales has consistently remained at the back of the pack. 
  • New South Wales used to have strong emissions reduction targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution but these targets were dropped; the state planned to introduce a renewable energy target, but it was never implemented.
New South Wales is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than any other state or territory and continues to rely on heavily polluting coal and unreliable gas power stations. 
  • New South Wales has Australia’s oldest coal fleet and is home to five operating coal power stations; collectively they produced 82% of the state’s electricity in 2017. 
  • It is risky to rely on old coal power stations because they become increasingly unreliable with age. 
  • New South Wales has excellent wind and solar resources; however, they account for just 6% of the electricity generated in New South Wales. 
Current climate policies in New South Wales are inadequate, although local councils are stepping up in the face of state government inaction.
  • New South Wales does not have a comprehensive policy or target to encourage new renewable energy generation, nor does it have policies to enable the state to reach its net zero emissions target in 2050. 
  • In the past 12 months the state has taken some positive steps to encourage renewable energy and storage technologies, further action is required. 
  • There is massive potential in New South Wales for new jobs and investment in a renewable energy future. 
  • Local councils like Lismore, Newcastle and Musswellbrook are all leaders on climate action. 
New South Wales is highly exposed to the impacts of climate change.
  • Climate change, driven by the burning of coal, oil and gas, is already affecting New South Wales. 
  • Extreme heatwaves led to a 10% increase in both deaths and ambulance callouts in New South Wales between 2005 and 2015. 
  • Damages from extreme weather events cost New South Wales $3.6 billion per year and this figure is likely to rise as these events, driven by climate change, become more frequent and severe. 
  • The cheapest and fastest way for New South Wales to reduce its greenhouse gas pollution would be to progressively replace the state’s coal power stations with renewable energy like wind and solar, with storage.
A new report from Australia’s Climate Council has revealed how, years on from once being a world leader on climate action, the state of New South Wales is now lagging far behind the rest of the country and is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than any other state or territory as it continues to rely heavily on coal and gas power generation.
New South Wales history as a climate leader is long in the past now – it introduced the world’s first emissions trading scheme all the way back in 2003 which, according to estimates, reduced greenhouse gas pollution by 144 million tonnes over 10 years before concluding in 2012.
The state also used to boast strong emissions reduction targets, but these targets have since been dropped.
Further, NSW had once planned to introduce a renewable energy target, another promise which was simply left by the wayside.
In the end, therefore, New South Wales has no comprehensive policy or target to encourage new renewable energy generation and it also has no policies in place to push towards reaching its net zero emissions by 2050.
All this policy inaction and ineptitude over the past decade has led to the state generating more greenhouse gas emissions than any other state or territory in Australia, as it continues to rely heavily on coal-fired and gas power generation.
This is further highlighted by the fact that New South Wales is home to the oldest coal fleet in the country – five operating coal power stations that, collectively, produced 82% of New South Wales’ electricity in 2017.
Resulting from an over-reliance on old fossil fuel-powered generation technologies is a lack of policies to support the development of more wind and solar projects in NSW beyond 2020, creating tremendous risk that the state will be caught short as coal-fired power stations are closed or fail unexpectedly during extreme weather events.
“NSW has an energy system stuck in the dark ages, and as soon as the heatwaves hit, the old coal clunkers have a tendency to fall over like dominoes,” said Climate Councillor and former president of BP Australasia, Greg Bourne.
“NSW has Australia’s largest and oldest coal fleet. It’s risky business to rely on coal power stations which become increasingly unreliable with age. Last year they broke down more than 20 times.”
New South Wales is already affected by extreme heatwaves which have led to a 10% increase in both deaths and ambulance call-outs between 2005 and 2015, and damages from extreme weather events have now begun to cost the state $3.6 billion annually – a figure likely to only increase in coming years, driven by climate change-related extreme weather events which will become more frequent and severe.
“From sea level rise affecting coastal towns, to extreme heat in western Sydney and increasing bushfire risk across the state, climate change is a major threat in NSW,” Bourne continued.
“NSW once had a vision to protect communities from worsening climate change. It established the world’s first emissions trading scheme in 2003 but dropped it nine years later.
The state once had strong targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but these were ditched too.
“States like Victoria, Queensland and South Australia are surging forward, leaving NSW far behind. South Australia is on track to reach 73% renewable electricity in less than two years, while across Australia, almost 10,000 new jobs are being created in the renewable energy industry.”
The lack of action is further compounded by the state’s excellent wind and solar resources, but which only contribute 6% of the electricity generated
“Despite having excellent wind and solar resources, renewable energy in NSW accounts for just 6% of the electricity generated, compared to South Australia which has 4%,” said Climate Councillor and energy expert, Professor Andrew Stock.
“In the past 12 months, NSW has made progress on renewables and storage technologies, but much more needs to be done if we are going to tackle climate change.
“Whichever party is elected to lead NSW at the upcoming election, it will need to step up,” he said.
This political failure is further underscored by the fact that 83% of the New South Wales public supports the development of more renewable energy, and over twenty local councils are supporting new solar farms to help residents reduce their power bills.
Given the potential for wind and solar generation in New South Wales, the lack of policy action to develop new renewable energy fails to capitalise on the massive potential for new jobs and investment.

 Links
at No comments: