(The Guardian) Plans Of Four G20 States Are Threat To Global Climate Pledge, Warn Scientists

The Guardian - Robin McKie | Toby Helm | Fiona Harvey

‘Disastrous’ energy policies of China, Russia, Brazil and Australia could stoke 5C rise in temperatures if adopted by the rest of the world

Massive wildfires have gripped the US. Photograph: Josh Edelson/Getty

2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) Glasgow November Quick Guide 22-23 July G20 ministerial meeting, Naples Energy and climate ministers of G20 countries meet under Italy’s presidency of the G20 to discuss progress on decarbonisation. The International Energy Agency will present its forecast that the world’s annual carbon dioxide output will reach a record high in 2023 because governments have invested only 2% of the global rescue funds for Covid-19 into clean energy. 25-26 July COP26 ministerial meeting Alok Sharma, the UK president of the COP26 talks, has invited ministers from more than 40 countries to discuss pathways to an agreement at COP26, in an effort to resolve some of the outstanding issues. Patricia Espinosa, UN climate chief, will issue a plea to governments to come up with strong national plans for cutting emissions this decade. 9 August Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The world’s authority on climate science will publish the first part of its next major comprehensive assessment. It is expected to heighten scientific warnings that the world could be headed for a series of “tipping points” that will lead to catastrophic and irreversible heating, with devastating consequences if greenhouse gas emissions are not urgently curbed. 14-30 September UN general assembly UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres will make the climate crisis and the road to COP26 a key priority for the annual UN meeting. This could be the moment when China comes forward with its plans for COP26. President Xi Jinping surprised the world when he used last year’s UNGA to announce a net zero target for 2060. He may decide to set out a new target for China’s 2030 emissions. 30-31 October G20 Italy is co-host of COP26 alongside the UK, and holds the revolving presidency of the G20 group of the world’s leading economies, including industrialised and developing countries. All eyes will be on the leaders of the G20 countries in a last-ditch attempt to forge consensus ahead of Glasgow. 1 November COP26 begins in Glasgow

A key group of leading G20 nations is committed to climate targets that would lead to disastrous global warming, scientists have warned.

They say China, Russia, Brazil and Australia all have energy policies associated with 5C rises in atmospheric temperatures, a heating hike that would bring devastation to much of the planet.

The analysis, by the peer-reviewed group Paris Equity Check, raises serious worries about the prospects of key climate agreements being achieved at the COP26 summit in Glasgow in three months.

The conference – rated as one of the most important climate summits ever staged – will attempt to hammer out policies to hold global heating to 1.5C by agreeing on a global policy for ending net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.

The EU and UK have outlined emission pledges that could bring the world close to these aspirations.

However, those of China, Russia, Brazil and Australia – which remain reliant on continued fossil-fuel burning – would trigger temperature rises of 5C if followed by the rest of the world.

This dramatic discrepancy reveals a deep division over the energy and environment policies of the world’s richest nations.

“Without more ambition from China, Brazil, Russia and Australia, COP26 will fail to deliver the future our planet needs,” warned Tanya Steele, chief executive at WWF.

The stark difference between the climate plans of different G20 nations – who together are responsible for 85% of all global carbon emissions – was underlined last week in Naples, when a meeting of member states’ energy and environment ministers ended with the group failing to agree on a package of commitments to tackle climate change.

“The G20 is failing to deliver,” said the online activist network Avaaz.

The G20 meeting had been viewed as a critically important staging post leading up to COP26 and its failure to find common ground underlines the crucial differences that divide nations in the group and indicate it is not going to be easy to secure a meaningful accord in Scotland.

This point was backed by Yann Robiou du Pont, the lead researcher for the Paris Equity Tracker analysis.

“The research underlines what many of us fear: major economies are simply not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis and, in many cases, G20 countries are leaving us on track [for] a world of more heatwaves, flooding and extreme weather events.”

A world that would be 5C hotter than it was before the Industrial Revolution, when fossil-fuel burning began in earnest, would be one in which a quarter of the global population would face extreme drought for at least one month a year; rainforests would be destroyed; and melting ice sheets would result in dangerous sea-level rises.

In addition, loss of reflective ice from the poles could cause oceans to absorb more solar radiation, while melting permafrost in Siberia and other regions would release plumes of methane, another pernicious greenhouse gas. Inevitably, temperatures would soar even further.

By contrast, scientists say that if temperature rises can be kept below 1.5C, then the worst impacts of climate change could be prevented – though they also point out that temperatures have already risen 1.2C, leaving the world facing very tight margins to avoid the worst impacts of global warming over the next 30 years.

The extent of the climate crisis has also been highlighted this month with extreme weather events causing devastation across the world: deadly floods have swept through Germany, Belgium and China, while massive wildfires have gripped the US and Siberia. Global warming has been implicated in every case.

100 days to COP26: protesters urge Boris Johnson to take climate talks seriously. Read more

“Ahead of COP26, we now need to see action and we owe it to the most vulnerable countries to rally together. Failure to deliver on our commitments is not an option and we must not be found wanting,” said Alok Sharma, the former UK business secretary who is now president of COP26.

Sharma last week was strongly critical of countries such as “big emitters” Russia and China who must do more to tackle climate change, he warned.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nearly 200 countries committed to submit new climate plans every five years with a goal to limit global warming to well below 2C, aiming at 1.5C, compared to pre-industrial levels. However, earlier this year, the United Nations issued a “red alert” over current climate plans, warning they were “nowhere close” to meeting the Paris goals.

The International Energy Agency recently said that if the world was to stay within 1.5C of warming, all further development and exploration of new fossil fuel sources should cease from this year.

President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, John Kerry, told the Observer that the US was carefully considering the implications of the IEA report. “I know that people are very heavily aware of the need to shift our programmes and policy [in a way that] really robustly embraces that,” he said.

“Everybody in the world need to be working on this. We need to think differently. We should be pushing hard in a different direction [from fossil fuels].”

He said Biden was also working to ensure the US and China were aligned on the need to stay within 1.5C.

“The first thing [Biden] hopes about China is that China recognises the reality of where we all are, and where China is, and what we need to do to get this job done. China is a global leader with a special responsibility to make sure we are all meeting [climate goals]. We want to find common ground.”

He said there were no plans for a US-China summit, such as President Barack Obama conducted with China’s President Xi Jinping ahead of the Paris conference, but said such a meeting was “not out of the question”.

He added: “A lot of conversations with China have not yet arrived at agreement.”

Links

• Paris Equity Check
• Australia: 2100-warming as a function of national 2030-emissions
• 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) - Wikipedia
• CO2 emissions: nations' pledges 'far away' from Paris target, says UN
• The world gallops to Glasgow while Australia trundles the other way
• Australia faces carbon tariffs without big ambitions: Mark Carney
• US urges Australia to adopt ‘more ambitious climate goals’ as pressure mounts on Morrison to act
• Crunch time looming for Morrison on climate as the world looks to Australia to act

(AU SMH) Renewables Drive Australian Emissions Lower As Wind Records Blown Away

Sydney Morning Herald - Peter Hannam

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions extended their declines into the first three months of 2021, driven lower by a roaring renewable energy sector that set fresh records during this past windy weekend.

According to independent consultants Ndevr, modelling shows national emissions totalled 119.77 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MT CO2-e) in the March quarter. That was 2.9 million tonnes lower than the previous three months, and 7.5 million tonnes – or almost 6 per cent – down from a year earlier.

Blowing up a storm: record levels of wind energy generation this week in Australia. The rise of renewables is delivering the bulk of emissions reductions in Australia. Credit: Dominic Lorrimer

The figures, which precede official numbers due by August 31, show renewable sources of electricity such as wind, solar and hydro exceeded 30 per cent of the National Electricity Market (NEM) in the March quarter.

The increase alone shaved off 1.4 MT CO-e from the nation’s emissions tally, with the total now below 40 MT CO-e, or about a third of the total.

“Renewables are the big driver,” Matt Drum, Ndevr’s managing director, said. “Transport also dropped off, and remains relatively low because of COVID”, especially the aviation sector.

Increasing renewable generation
and reducing electricity emissions
Source: Ndevr Environmental

EmissionsAustralian emissions fall again
due to renewables and COVID-19

The rising proportion of electricity generated by renewables has more than compensated for the trend towards higher emissions from sectors such as heavy industry, particularly the LNG sector. 

Large polluters, such as Orica, are showing signs of “serious investment” in large-scale emissions reduction activity that should nudge that sector lower too. “It’s not just noise and fluff. We’re starting to see it on the ground,” Mr Drum said.

Australia’s emissions trajectory is likely to come in for closer scrutiny ahead of the global climate summit planned for Glasgow in November.

The Morrison government has so far resisted signing up to a goal of carbon neutrality – where any greenhouse emissions are nullified by offsets elsewhere – by 2050.

Australia will also likely come under pressure to raise its near-term ambition of cutting 2005-level pollution by 26-28 per cent by 2030.

Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor was approached for comment on Ndevr’s projections.

Electricity emissions decrease while transport
and stationary emissions trend upwards

Source: Ndevr Environmental

The struggling coal-fired power sector, beset by problems such as an explosion at a plant in Queensland in May and more recent floods in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, should also extend the slide in emissions from the power sector, Mr Drum said.

In another sign of renewables’ advance, wind energy smashed generation records three times in less than a week, according to Dylan McConnell, an energy expert at the University of Melbourne.

Last Tuesday, wind farms generated 5.899 gigawatts for the NEM, a record that endured until Saturday evening when generation exceeded 6GW for the first time, climbing to 6.12GW.

That peak, though, lasted barely 24 hours, with wind turbines notching a fresh record of 6.428GW at 8.05pm (AEST) on Sunday evening.

Renewable Energy cracked 14GW a couple of hours ago too ... pic.twitter.com/unntxxewtz

— Dylan McConnell (@dylanjmcconnell) July 25, 2021

 All-up renewables were providing about 14GW of power to the NEM during Sunday, meeting more than half the demand. “[It’s] not quite a record, but getting close,” Dr McConnell said.

That power came in handy after Alinta’s Loy Yang B tripped on Saturday night, temporarily knocking 580-megawatts of capacity out.

The renewables sector, meanwhile, will launch on Monday its first national campaign to draw attention to its expansion with an eye to the next federal election.

Photovoltaic modules ready to be installed at a solar farm on the outskirts of Gunnedah in northern NSW. Credit: Bloomberg

Future Power
What's a 'just transition' and can you switch
to green energy without sacking coal workers?

The Renewable Energy Is Here Now campaign aims to highlight the contribution already made by the sector but also the potential for much larger emissions reductions including supplying 100 per cent of power.

“We know most Australians support renewable energy, but the climate debate has meant that a minority of loud voices have misled the public, resulting in some Australians feeling uncertain about a future powered by clean energy,” Kane Thornton, chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, said.

“This campaign is about ensuring all Australians are certain about the facts and feel part of the exciting transition already taking place.”

Links

• “No more yeah, buts”: Renewable ad campaign to combat myths and misinformation
• Japan revises 2030 targets, plans to double renewables and cut fossil fuels
• Australia’s largest gas and coal export partner slashes demand
• 2 in 3 coal jobs are destined for the scrap heap, a new report suggests, as the energy transition becomes inevitable
• Unions call for more offshore wind support
• Fossil fuel subsidies labelled ‘reckless’ as renewables hit new highs
• Government credit agency gave 80 times more money to fossil fuels than renewables over last 11 years

(AU ABC) How The Carbon Tax Has Come Back To Haunt The Australian Government

ABC - Ian Verrender

The ill-fated Australian carbon tax lasted just two years but data suggests it had an immediate impact. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)

It was an off-the-cuff comment after a few drinks, delivered with a belly laugh from a then-senior minister a few years back.

"The difference between Labor's policy and ours is that Julia Gillard introduced a scheme where big polluters paid Australian taxpayers. Tony changed it so that Australian taxpayers pay big polluters," the minister said.

That policy, of course, was the carbon tax.

10 years of climate policy inertia

Ten years ago one man's plan blew apart Australia's two great parties irrevocably just as they teetered toward consensus on climate change, the most divisive issue of the Australian political century. Read more

Introduced in 2012 by the Gillard government, it was dumped by the Abbott government as soon as it came to power and replaced with a more than $3 billion taxpayer subsidy, doled out to applicants that promised to cut carbon emissions.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

But the joke now is on us and the tragedy is that it will cost us dearly.

Australian businesses are about to be whacked with a carbon tax.

Not by Canberra, but by Brussels and Washington with the increasing possibility that Ottawa, Tokyo and even London may follow suit, free trade agreements aside.

In the third turn of the wheel, Australian polluters will end up paying foreign taxpayers just for the privilege of exporting their goods.

It's a development that will hurt profits, cost jobs, and hit our export volumes and ultimately the tax take of our own government.

En masse, much of the developed world has begun mulling the idea of putting a price on carbon emissions.

They've also woken to the idea that there's no point introducing a carbon price at home if renegades like Australia don't follow suit.

So, to level the field, goods from any country without a carbon price, such as Australia, will be hit with a carbon tax.

Where did this come from?

It's all happened within the space of a few weeks.

One minute, the European Union was announcing its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and the next, the United States began making similar noises.

Trade Minister Dan Tehan was aghast.

It's 'time to rethink our sea-change
and tree-change dreams'

Scattered housing in "at risk" areas must be replaced with sustainable resilient community models, according to researchers. Read more

"Australia is very concerned that the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is just a new form of protectionism that will undermine global free trade and impact Australian exporters and jobs," he said.

The only problem with that argument is that Australia explored the very same option back in 2012 during the carbon tax's brief life.

It was recognised then that corporations may simply shift production offshore to avoid the impost.

Oddly, despite the rapid deterioration in relations between Canberra and Beijing, our largest trading partner may end up as one of our biggest allies in this brewing storm.

For while Beijing just last Friday launched the world's largest carbon market, many believe that at best it will be ineffective and, at worst, a sham.

Its national carbon market has far too many credits, so its carbon price is way too low — around one 10th the EU carbon price.

Not only that, big energy users like steel are excluded.

Unless prices rise dramatically, there is little likelihood of any shift in behaviour or impact on emissions and the fear is that the entire strategy is little more than an artifice.

Why price carbon anyway?

Many decisions in our life come down to price.

Even when money isn't involved, we often calculate whether the benefits of embarking on a certain course of action outweigh the potential costs.

What’s a carbon tariff and why
is Australia getting savaged over it?

Pressure is mounting on Australia to come up with a serious climate change policy, or pay millions for our emissions. Read more

When it comes to public policy, we learned long ago that if you want to change behaviour, say to limit the health impact of smoking, one of the easiest ways to do that is to tax goods and services — in the case of smoking, tobacco.

The higher the tax, the fewer individuals will smoke, and the less likely people will take up smoking at all.

That has a double impact on government finances.

The government brings in more revenue, at least until people give up.

More importantly, the health system costs less to run, as a harmful health factor is eliminated.

In the early 1980s, when scientists first twigged that carbon emissions were harming the environment, a group of American economists from Harvard argued that climate change was a cost that was not being recognised.

Not only was it barely visible, the real damage was only likely to be seen in generations to come, way beyond the normal investment horizon.

The fossil fuel industry railed against the proposal of a carbon tax in the US. (AP: Ben Margot/File)

Back then, they argued that a tax on carbon emissions from all sources was the most efficient way to deal with the problem and, for a while, Washington was in agreement.

It didn't take long, however, for the fossil fuel industry to take up arms against the proposal.

That's when Republicans shifted stance.

Instead of a tax, they preferred a complex market-based trading system that put a price on carbon.

The end result is that the US has never introduced a national system although various US states have carbon prices.

That's all about to change.

Here at home, there was agreement on both sides of the House that a carbon price was needed.

In 1997, then-prime minister John Howard grappled with ways to deal with carbon emissions but took almost a decade before he finally announced an emissions trading scheme in 2006.

Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007 on a platform of addressing climate change but his emissions trading scheme initiative disintegrated under the weight of political bickering between his government, the Coalition and the Greens.

From then on, climate change became toxic as then-opposition leader Tony Abbott flicked the switch from science to ideology.

Does a carbon tax work?

There's an easy answer to that.

The ill-fated Australian carbon tax lasted just two years.

But as the graph below indicates, it had an immediate impact.

Annual CO2 emissions in Australia between 1900 and 2019.

(Supplied: Global Carbon Project; Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre)

Emissions dropped almost immediately after it was introduced as businesses moved to technologies that emitted less.

That price signal had an impact.

When it was dumped in 2014, carbon emissions began to rise again almost immediately.

Emissions have since levelled, possibly because of the shutdowns of some large coal-fired power stations during the past two years.

While economists believe carbon taxes are the preferred way to price emissions, politically they've been a hard sell.

No-one likes paying more tax.

According to the World Bank, about 45 countries are covered by a carbon price but few use a carbon tax.

Even the Gillard government's carbon tax was due to revert to a market-priced trading system similar to Europe's.

There's no such reluctance, however, when it comes to whacking a tax on foreigners, as we are about to discover.

What industries will be affected by the border taxes?

Mark Carney, the former head of the Bank of Canada and more recently the Bank of England, delivered a blunt assessment of our prospects last week at a conference organised by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors.

Now the United Nations special envoy on climate change and finance, Mr Carney said the world was trending towards enforcing climate policy through trade action and Australia needed to ramp up its response.

The EU legislation is still in a rough form but will include aluminium, iron, steel, cement, natural gas, oil and coal.

The immediate impact of the carbon border taxes is unlikely to inflict major damage on Australia.

Japan plans to reduce its coal imports and the EU will tax coal higher. (Flickr: eyeweed)

Europe takes just 3 per cent of our total exports and, while our sales to the US are substantially higher, they're not carbon intensive.

The biggest problem will arise if the US imposes carbon border taxes on Chinese made goods.

As our biggest export destination, particularly for iron ore, any action against the Middle Kingdom will have an immediate impact on us.

Given the rapidly escalating tensions between the superpowers, that is highly likely.

Then there is our second biggest trading partner.

Japan late last week announced it was radically revising its emissions target ambitions and announced an accelerated plan to decrease imports of coal and LNG, two of our biggest exports.

The federal government has long been opposed to any form of carbon pricing and has yet to even commit to net zero emissions by 2050.

But the events of the past few weeks may force its hand.

Otherwise, it risks being caught on the wrong side of history at great cost to the economy.

Links

• 'Many things will happen, mostly bad': The blast from the past that shows how long we’ve ignored climate change
• Climate Council throws down gauntlet to Australia: Decarbonise by 2035 or pay the price
• EU's 'bold move' could spell trouble for Australian commodities
• Carbon pricing in Australia - Wikipedia
• EU carbon border tax is a warning to Australia: cut emissions or lose exports
• What does the EU’s carbon tariff proposal mean for Australia?
• Australia slams EU carbon tax, describing it as 'protectionist'
• Corporate Australia sets its own carbon price amid global dash to net zero
• Coming soon: The carbon taxes that cannot be repealed
• Australia lifted fossil fuel subsidies more than any G20 nation, says BNEF