16/02/2021

(AU) Australia's Lack Of Effort On Climate Change Is Going To Cost Us

The Guardian - 

Australia is deeply exposed to carbon border tax adjustments due to our lack of action in reducing emissions

‘Australia looks like becoming totally isolated from the G7 and internationally on climate change.’ Photograph: Luis Ascui/Getty Images

Author
Bill Hare, a physicist and climate scientist, is the managing director of Climate Analytics.

Global momentum is building on increasing climate action to meet the Paris agreement’s 1.5C limit, with all countries under pressure to increase their 2030 emission reductions ahead of the next United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow this year. 

But Australia appears to be going backwards. Now another issue has arisen from its inaction: border taxes.

Climate change is firmly on the G7 agenda. Along with two other countries, India and South Korea, Australia has been invited to join the G7 process this year under the presidency of the United Kingdom. 

With many large countries, including the US, the EU, China, Japan, South Korea, looking at deeper emission reductions – the whole question of how to deal with those who are not moving as fast to decarbonise is naturally rising to the surface.

The instrument of choice in the international policy community has long been carbon border tax adjustments, constructed in such a way as to be World Trarde Oranisation-compatible and which add to the cost of imports from climate-laggard countries into those that are pressing ahead.

Australia is deeply exposed to carbon border tax adjustments due to its export fundamentals, exporting commodities that have a high carbon content either intrinsically or in the course of their production. 

Our top three importers of coal and LNG – Japan, South Korea and China – have net zero goals for mid-century. These countries are moving ahead with policies to achieve this and they account for about 75% of the value of these commodities exported.

Fundamentally, Australia is most exposed to border taxes due to its lack of action. Despite the government’s rhetoric and repeated statements that it will meet its weak targets at a canter, the numbers are there for everyone to see, and they are not good. 

Exacerbating this exposure is the bizarre and debilitating character of the governing parties’ positions on climate change. Discussions of a net zero 2050 position for Australia have quickly led to calls for mining, agriculture and other energy-intensive sectors to be excluded, with the range of exclusions extending from about 12% up to about 33% of Australia’s national emissions.

There are multiple countries pushing ahead with or considering border tax adjustments and an increase in the likelihood that these countries will coordinate either bilaterally or even informally within the G7 context. 

All of the G7 countries – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States – are actively considering, either alone or within regional groupings such as the European Union, carbon border tax adjustments.

The UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, is well-known to be pushing for a border tax adjustment approach to be discussed and possibly agreed this year. The Biden administration is actively working in concepts for carbon border tax adjustments for the US, as is Canada.

By far the most advanced in this area is the European Union. The EU parliament’s vote on Friday to endorse a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) has serious implications for Australia, not least because it could well end up extending to other major Australian export markets. 

The proposed EU measure could see exporters in countries without a price on carbon – like Australia – having to pay some kind of charge to export goods into the region.

While such carbon border charges have been discussed before, the European Commission’s proposal was greeted this time with much more acceptance. 

 Now the EU has increased its Paris agreement 2030 target to a 55% reduction of emissions below 1990 levels, and committed to net-zero by 2050. It is looking to level the playing field for its industry with countries failing to contribute to the climate mitigation effort and hence free-riding on global efforts.

There are questions around whether it would be an actual tax: exporters to the EU could, for example, be obliged to buy EU emissions allowances under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. However, it still has a way to go before it would be enacted, not least because it would need to fit into a large overhaul of the EU climate change governance laws currently under way.

Australian carbon markets experts, RepuTex, has calculated that the effect of the CBAM on Australian exporters could mean that by 2030 they would have to pay €56-89 (A$88-139) per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions – based on the volume of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions used in making and shipping their products.

And now that Biden’s “all of government” policies on climate change are beginning to take shape, it is not unreasonable to expect that the US could join in an alliance with the EU on carbon border charges. Equally, Johnson, under pressure to introduce a carbon price now that the UK is out of the ETS, could also join that club. 

China is in the process of setting up ETS systems across the nation and is likely to establish an economy-wide carbon pricing scheme that could be aligned with the EU ETS mechanism long before the US has one. Although it may seem a long shot now, this would also bring China within a border tax adjustment system. 

For those paying attention and listening, China’s officials and diplomats have been quietly asking and thinking about how this might work, in particular how to avoid destructive competition in this area as opposed to constructive cooperation.

Australia is, sadly, the global poster child for a lack of effort. Its 2030 target, translated into a comparable baseline to the EU, would be a reduction of just 8-11% below 1990 levels, compared with the EU’s 55% target. The government’s “technology neutral” approach has translated into increased support for the fossil fuel industry.

Federal climate policies have gone backwards – investments into renewables have dropped, and the government is promoting a carbon-intensive, gas-led recovery entirely inconsistent with the Paris agreement. Most recently, the government’s electric vehicle policy transmuted into an anti-EV policy called the Future Fuels Strategy, with the bizarrely appropriate acronym FFS. 

There is no price on carbon anywhere in the Australian system today, and each time the Morrison government goes near any climate policy, the result has been to weaken it, to advantage the fossil fuel industry.

It could all have been very different. Australia did once have a carbon price mechanism, set up under the Gillard government in 2012, and that would have ratcheted up over time, increasing the price on carbon and driving fossil fuel emissions out of Australia’s energy mix. But it saw its demise just two years later when the Senate voted through Tony Abbott’s “pledge in blood” to “axe the tax”.

Australia looks like becoming totally isolated from the G7 and internationally on climate change and the Morrison government’s attempt to fight a large movement towards border tax adjustments linked to carbon intensity is a symptom of this. 

Our leaders need to focus on adopting a real net zero goal by 2050, backed by legislation, with Paris-compatible 2030 targets well north of 50% reductions.

It would be foolish, ultimately futile and damaging for our country to continue down our current path.

Links

at No comments:

(AU) Australian PM Faces Pressure On Climate Policy But Has To Deal With Resistance In His Ruling Coalition

Straits Times - Jonathan Pearlman

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has steered clear of any move to put a price on carbon emissions. PHOTO: EPA-EFE


 A long-time opponent of strong action on climate change, Mr Morrison has recently shown a willingness to move - albeit gradually - towards a net zero emissions target.

Earlier this month, he signalled to being open to adopting a zero emissions target - a course embraced by growing numbers of major economies but resisted by the ruling coalition in Australia.

Addressing the National Press Club earlier this month, Mr Morrison did not commit to a firm target but stated: "Our goal is to reach net zero emissions as soon as possible, and preferably by 2050."

This was a significant change for the prime minister, who famously once brought a lump of coal into Parliament to mock the opposition Labor party's push to curb pollution.

Australia is one of the world's biggest carbon emitters per capita and is currently not on track to meet its 2030 emissions reduction targets, even though many analysts believe these targets are inadequate. 

Despite Mr Morrison's recent change in rhetoric, he faces fierce opposition within his own ranks. Several MPs from the National party, the rural-based junior member of the coalition, have responded by calling for new investment in the coal sector and for the mining and agriculture sectors to be shielded from any moves to adopt new emission reduction targets.

A prominent Nationals MP, Mr Barnaby Joyce, threatened last week to vote against the government if it tries to introduce measures to meet a 2050 target. He expressed concern that farmers may have to pay for methane emissions from cattle and other livestock, which account for some 10 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions.

"I want to see what the plan is before I make any decisions about whether we are part of this or not," he told ABC Radio.

Mr Morrison is under pressure to act because Australia's main allies and trading partners have signalled that they want stronger international action on climate change.

New United States President Joe Biden has explicitly vowed to push countries to adopt stronger emissions targets and is convening a summit of global leaders in April to discuss climate change.

The British Prime Minister, Mr Boris Johnson, reportedly plans to use international summits such as the G7 - or Group of Seven advanced economies - to introduce carbon tariffs for emissions-intensive imports from countries with weak climate policies. The European Union is pushing ahead with similar tariffs.

But Mr Morrison's coalition has strongly opposed such moves and indicated it will oppose both Mr Johnson's and the European Union's efforts. Senior unnamed sources cited by the Sydney Morning Herald said Canberra would argue that carbon tariffs undermined proposed free trade deals with both London and Brussels.

"The Morrison government will argue carbon tariffs are not aimed at combating climate change, but rather at economic objectives including protecting local industries such as British and European meat, cheese and wine," the report said.

Despite Mr Morrison signalling that he may embrace a zero emissions target, he has steered clear of any move to put a price on carbon emissions. Instead, he has suggested that new technology would enable Australia to reduce emissions. He was also reportedly considering making any reduction targets voluntary, rather than binding.

Commentators have denounced these plans, saying that specific targets and a price on carbon were the most efficient ways to reduce emissions and to provide certainty to the business community.

But Mr Morrison clearly remains reluctant to commit to a firm stance. He is keenly aware that party infighting over climate policy has led to the downfall of a series of Australian leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Indeed, Mr Morrison's own ascent to the leadership of the Liberal party in 2018 was enabled by the ousting of his predecessor, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, following an internal party dispute over energy policy.

Links
at No comments:

Australia Lagging Behind On Electric Vehicles And Climate Action

Independent Australia - Graeme McLeay

The Federal Government’s electric vehicle policy was released two years ago, but they still cannot bring themselves to call it that, writes Dr Graeme McLeay.

Scott Morrison's Government needs to fully embrace a future of electric vehicles. (image by Dan Jensen)
Author
Dr Graeme McLeay is a retired anaesthetist and a member of Doctors for the Environment Australia.
IT WAS RELEASED as the Future Fuels Strategy and if anyone is in doubt as to whether the Government takes decarbonisation of the economy or climate change seriously, they need look no further than this paper. 

It argues for minimal change and largely ignores the broader issues of public transport, noxious tailpipe emissions and the urgency of the climate crisis.

Health is barely mentioned.

The Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions was established in 2015 and in 2016 the Government released its 'Better Fuels for Cleaner Air' discussion paper which says:
There are proven links between pollutants found in vehicle emissions and a range of human health problems (both short and long term). Air pollutants can have a significant impact on the cardiorespiratory system. Individuals with pre-existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma and allergies, are especially vulnerable to air pollutants.
The effects on human health can include reduced lung function, ischemic heart disease, stroke, respiratory illnesses, and lung cancer. The cost of premature deaths due to outdoor air pollution in Australia in 2010 has been estimated to be up to $7.8 billion.
Presented with this information, the Ministerial Forum, which, it seems, has gone missing. It has done nothing beyond a slight tweaking of fuel standards later this decade.

Most urban air pollution is caused by transport and while pollution controls and engine technology have improved, a growing population and increasing traffic congestion is reversing any gains made in air quality. Standards for air quality are set by the National Environment Protection Council and are under review.

An article in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health reported last year that many people living near main roads are exposed to much higher levels of nitrogen dioxide than official background levels. There is a clear correlation between NO2, a respiratory irritant, and asthma — particularly in children whose small airways make them more vulnerable.

The Future Fuels Strategy discussion paper makes much of individual choice and looks to better inform motorists through the Green Vehicle Guide, but the question must be asked: does your right to drive any vehicle you chose infringe my right to clean air and a safer climate?

One of the most popular vehicles on the market which can be seen most evenings advertised on television is a diesel which meets Euro five standards for noxious emissions, standards which are years behind European and U.S. standards and are at the bottom of the OECD. The same vehicle emits around 200 gms of CO2 per kilometre, or around 3.7 tonnes for every 20,000 km.

“Tradies” and others who have a real need of such vehicles must not be penalised, yet there must be some incentives applied in legislation to favour less polluting vehicles.

The Future Fuels Strategy discussion paper claims that the cost of emissions abatement in subsidising battery electric vehicles is not value for money. Transport experts, such as Jake Whitehead of The University of Queensland, have pointed out the errors in this assessment.

Importantly, the paper fails to account for the emissions from extraction, transport and refining of petroleum, known as scope three emissions, thereby underestimating these emissions by 20 per cent.

There is little consideration of an electricity grid rapidly evolving towards cleaner energy in all states, and the huge uptake of rooftop solar, both of which will work synergistically with electric vehicles to lower emissions and benefit the consumer.

The discussion paper points to the uptake of hybrid vehicles, suggesting these will satisfy demand and enable consumers to adapt to new technology and the Minister for Emissions Reduction and Energy, Angus Taylor, has expressed a clear preference for these cars.

This is little more than an argument for the status quo, and while all low emission vehicles are desirable, for real impact on emissions complete electrification of transport is needed.

Many of the major car manufacturers are going straight to battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and range anxiety is becoming a thing of the past, with fast chargers and BEVs with a range of more than 500 kilometres on a single charge entering the market.

With billions now being spent on road infrastructure, the funding of a vital transition to electrified transport proposed in this paper seems miniscule and little more than a fig leaf to ward off criticism of the Government’s lack of action on the climate emergency.

With the Biden Administration pledging to continue subsidies for electric vehicles and provide extensive charging infrastructure, and Europe and the UK committed to action, Australia is again a laggard.


Links

at No comments: