23/01/2021

(AU) Analysis: Australia Feels Global, National Heat For 2050 Zero-Emissions Goal

Reuters

Pressure from Joe Biden’s new green-leaning U.S. administration and Australian states could see Canberra set a goal to become carbon-neutral by 2050, climate experts said, urging stronger policies to phase out fossil fuels and push sustainable farming.

Australia’s reliance on coal-fired power makes it one of the world’s largest carbon emitters per capita. Green groups have long lobbied the federal government to wean itself off fossil fuels, especially after devastating bushfires last year.

India's Adani has been notified the Queensland Government has given approval for the Carmichael coal mine. © Reuters

Suzanne Harter, a climate campaigner at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the likelihood of a carbon-neutral aim being set ahead of the U.N. climate summit in November will increase as pressure builds for more ambitious climate action.

“There is a chance the prime minister will bow to domestic and international pressure and seek to avoid further embarrassment on the global stage by announcing a net-zero goal before November,” Harter told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“Based on commitments Australia has already made under the Paris Agreement, the terrible impacts of global heating on Australia and the pressing need for policy certainty, the government should already have set this target,” she added.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement to tackle global warming, Australia pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26% by 2030 versus 2005 levels.

But according to analysis by research coalition Climate Action Tracker, Australia’s current climate policies are “insufficient”, and it has continued to signal its support for the coal industry.

Late last year, Australia said it would achieve its 2030 emissions target without counting old carbon credits - but that shift was not enough to secure it a speaking slot at a “climate ambition summit” held to mark the Paris deal’s fifth anniversary.

Australia is seen as a regional laggard on climate by some green groups, who cite pledges for zero-emissions by mid-century made in recent months by China, Japan and South Korea.

Nikola Casule, head of research and investigations at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said Australian states and corporations were setting an example for leader Scott Morrison to adopt a national policy of net-zero emissions by 2050.

“All Australian states and territories have made the commitment, as well as more than 100 Australian businesses and organisations, and our biggest trading partners such as China - net-zero by 2060 - Japan and South Korea,” he said.

Price To Pay

Setting a target to cut planet-heating emissions to net zero by 2050 is an economic necessity in a rapidly decarbonising world, said Casule, irrespective of clear and pressing environmental imperatives to avoid dangerous global warming.

With the United States set to rejoin the 2015 Paris accord soon after Biden took power on Wednesday, his government would again use its global influence to accelerate the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy, Casule said.

There may be a “price to pay for nations that fail to decarbonise their economies”, he added.

Bill Hare, CEO at think tank Climate Analytics in Australia, agreed that the United States under Biden could be expected to ratchet up political and economic pressure on climate laggards.

“Australia will be firmly in the sights of the Biden administration,” he said, adding Washington would likely work to build an alliance for action with the European Union, Britain, Japan and others.

Australia could help meet the most ambitious 1.5 degree-Celsius warming limit in the Paris Agreement by ditching its fondness for natural gas and transforming its transport sector, Hare said, noting the country had no emissions standards for cars.

Presently, Australia’s energy consumption is dominated by fossil fuels, with coal providing about 40%, oil 34% and gas 22%, according to government data.

Switching the energy sector to 100% renewable sources over the next decade is feasible, Hare added, although few - if any - policies exist to cut emissions from the agriculture industry.

Non-energy farming emissions could be lowered through manure management, improved livestock feeding practices, more efficient fertiliser use and changing consumer diets, Hare said.

The federal government’s language on climate has shifted in the last six to 12 months, noted Martijn Wilder, co-founder of climate advisory and investment firm Pollination in Sydney.

The government is already doing an enormous amount towards decarbonising the economy, he said, citing investment in technology and clean energy, a detailed strategy on hydrogen, promotion of renewables and a carbon-offsetting programme.

It also has to cope with a handful of influential members in its ruling coalition who oppose strong action on climate change, he said, adding that the government now accepts it cannot fund new coal-fired power capacity.

“While it is very easy to criticise the federal government as doing nothing, some of its policies are world-leading,” Wilder said.

“It is managing internal politics but it’s just a matter of time before some sort of (emissions) commitment is made.”

Links

(AU) ACT Budget: $300m Climate Change Initiatives Unveiled

Canberra Times - Andrew Brown

Interest-free loans for household solar panels, fees waived for electric vehicles and $100 million for a big Canberra battery have been unveiled as part of a suite of climate change initiatives by the ACT government.

The measures are just some of a $307 million package, announced ahead of the upcoming ACT budget, to be spent during the next five years.

ACT Emissions Reduction Minister Shane Rattenbury. Picture: Karleen Minney

The largest of the initiatives include a $150 million Sustainable Household Scheme fund.

The fund will provide loans of up to $15,000 for households to meet upfront costs of rooftop solar panels, household battery storage, zero-emission vehicles or efficient electric appliance.

A further $100 million will be spent in the next five financial years to deliver big battery storage for Canberra's energy grid, supplying at least 250 megawatts.

Registration fees will also be waived on zero-emission vehicles from May 2021 for the first two years of registration.

Energy and Emissions Reductions Minister Shane Rattenbury said the measures were the next steps to ensure the ACT meets its target of net-zero emissions.

"Having declared a climate emergency, we're doing what it takes to cut greenhouse gas emissions and support the ACT community to withstand the impacts of the climate change we're already experiencing," Mr Rattenbury said.

"This budget commits major new investment to help Canberrans live more comfortably and sustainably, tacking the biggest pieces in our emissions puzzle with a focus on phasing out fossil-fuel gas and transforming ACT transport to be zero emissions."

A further $50 million has been allocated to improve building efficiency and sustainability for social and public housing, along with low-income owner-occupiers and low-performing rental properties.

Energy retailers will be also be mandated to provide customers with a reference bill for a typical energy customer and notify customers of plans that would reduce bill rates.

A $5 million fund will also be established to support community clubs to make energy efficient upgrades to energy and water systems, while $885,000 will be spent to phase out fossil fuel gas.

A specialised office of the coordinator general will also be set up to coordinate government efforts for climate projects.

"The budget supports the ACT's nation-leading efforts to phase out fossil-fuel gas, in line with our commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2045," Mr Rattenbury said.

"It prevents gas connections in new suburbs and offers no-interest loans to upgrade to efficient electric appliances.

"Importantly, the $50 million vulnerable household energy support initiative will also help reduce energy bills, and improve energy efficiency in public housing, rental properties and for low income owner-occupiers."

Links

(USA) Supreme Court Hears Dispute With Big Implications For Climate-Change Litigation

Washington PostRobert Barnes

A gas flare from the Shell Chemical petroleum refinery lights up the sky in Norco, La., in August 2019. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

There is likely to be a titanic legal battle one day between local governments and the fossil-fuel energy companies that officials blame for the climate-change damage they say their cities have suffered.

But the warm-up act at the Supreme Court on Tuesday was the kind of argument only a lawyer could love.

BP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore could answer the important question of where a showdown should occur: in state courts, which plaintiffs such as the city consider a more hospitable setting, or in federal court, where the multinational oil and gas companies feel their chances are better.

But the technical question before the court Tuesday was even narrower. It was not about whether an appeals court had been right in saying the case belonged in state court, but whether the appeals court considered all of the arguments raised by the companies.

Climate change itself got only a passing reference, and there was no attempt to ascertain whether the companies should be liable for it.

But Washington lawyer Kannon K. Shanmugam, representing the companies, said the Supreme Court could move the process along by directing that federal court is where such cases should be heard.

He said there are more than 20 cases such as Baltimore’s in courts around the country. “There is something profoundly counterintuitive about the notion that these cases, which seek relief for injuries caused by worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, should be litigated in state courts under the laws of different states,” Shanmugam said.

The Justice Department agreed with the companies, although lawyer Brinton Lucas said the government was not necessarily urging the court ultimately to reach that decision in the case at hand.

Victor M. Sher, a San Francisco lawyer representing the city of Baltimore, said state courts were better suited to consider the kinds of allegations the city has made.

“The conduct complained of is fraud, deception, denial, and disinformation,” Sher said, and those “are traditional state foci and traditional state remedies.”

In July 2018, Baltimore officials filed suit in Maryland state court against 26 multinational oil and gas companies. They said the companies produced, marketed and sold fossil fuel products they knew to be dangerous to the climate and engaged in a “coordinated, multi-front effort” to conceal a link between fossil fuel use and climate change.

The city wants compensation for the related injuries, such as higher sea levels and the damage caused by more dramatic storms, floods, droughts and heat waves.

The companies said the case should be heard in federal court. They cited a range of reasons, but a federal district judge disagreed with all of them and remanded the case to state court.

What happened next forms the crux of the Supreme Court case. As a general rule, a district judge’s decision remanding a case to state court cannot be appealed. But there are a couple of narrow exceptions: when the suit involves federal officers or when it is about civil rights litigation.

The Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed that the federal district judge was right to dispose of the companies’ arguments about federal officers. It said federal law did not give it authority to rule on the other reasons.

There is a disagreement about that reading of the law in the appeals courts, and that is what the Supreme Court took the case to settle.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said it was a “close call” but that a previous Supreme Court ruling by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to go against what the city was arguing.

“And, you know, it’s never good to be on the wrong side of Justice Ginsburg opinions, but particularly on a jurisdictional issue,” Kavanaugh said. (At the same time, he paused to say that Maryland’s court system is “very strong and has an excellent reputation.” His mother was a Maryland judge.)

There’s a chance the court could split evenly on the question. Only eight justices heard the case, because Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. recused, most likely because of stock ownership in two of the companies.

Although none made a formal request, some environmental groups had called on Justice Amy Coney Barrett to sit out the case as well because her father was a longtime lawyer for Shell, one of the companies sued.

At her confirmation, Barrett said that as an appeals court judge, she had recused from some cases in which Shell was a party. But at the appellate level, Barrett could be replaced by another judge. That is not an option at the Supreme Court.

As has been her custom in her short time on the court, Barrett asked tough questions of both sides. But she resisted Shanmugam’s suggestion that the court decide more than the very narrow question of whether the appeals court should consider all of the companies’ arguments.

She asked: “Don’t you think it would be fairly aggressive for us” to take on more than that?

Shanmugam said the court will have to decide the broader questions eventually.

Links