18/11/2021

(AU NEWS.com.au) An Explainer Of Everything ScoMo Has Said About Australia’s Climate Policy So Far

NEWS.com.au - Kassia Byrnes

A lot is being said about Australia’s climate policy, so here’s an explainer of everything Scott Morrison has said so far.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has revealed a plan for Australia to reach net zero emissions after public criticism.

If you’ve been scratching your head over the last few weeks since the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), you’re not the only one.

Australia’s commitments to climate policy have been vague, to put it mildly, Scott Morrison has been criticised over the issue and it’s caused some damage to Australia’s reputation internationally.

So let’s try and clear things up and take a look at everything that’s been going on.


October 26: ScoMo announces net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
 In a press conference, Morrison announced the Federal Government’s plan to hit net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but the plan was heavily criticised as vague, and it referred to “Australia’s unique way of life” far too many times.

“Australia has already met and beaten our … 2020 targets and indeed Australia will beat and meet our 2030 targets as well,” the PM said.

“Australians want action on climate change. They’re taking action on climate change but they also want to protect their jobs and their livelihoods. They also want to keep the costs of living down,” he said. “And I also want to protect the Australian way of life, especially in rural and regional areas. The Australian way of life is unique.”

The government pledged that by 2030 Australia’s emissions levels would be 26 to 28 per cent lower than 2005 levels, but that could actually be higher.

“We believe we will be able to achieve a 35 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030: that is something we actually think we are going to achieve,” Morrison stated.

Scott Morrison has been criticised over the issue.

It was widely noted that all parts of the plan never actually included any specifics on how these goals would be achieved. Instead, it noted vague future technological advancements that no one has explained further, and promised not to affect the mining and agriculture industries.
At this point ScoMo has promised that Australia will hit net zero by 2050 but it “will not cost jobs, not in farming, mining or gas”, although everyone is confused because he didn’t explain how.

November 1: ScoMo Addresses COP26 summit
Despite news around the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow being somewhat derailed by ScoMo’s alleged lies to France about submarines, our PM did address the summit on November 1.

Despite Australia already having been criticised by Sir David Attenborough himself for their weak 2050 commitments, Morrison refused to formally ramp up Australias 2030 emissions reduction goal, even though he once again claimed that we’d likely hit a 35 per cent emissions cut by then.

The focus of Morrison’s speech was on lowering the costs of low- and no-emissions technologies, also claiming that Australia was hoping to help developing nations do the same.

“It will be our scientists, our technologists, our engineers, our entrepreneurs, our industrialists and our financiers that will actually chart the path to net-zero,” he said.

Again, he was heavily criticised for not providing an actual plan to achieve these 2030 and 2050 goals.

“First the PM tried to pull the wool over Australia’s eyes when he made a net zero by 2050 announcement without modelling, new funding or any new policy – and now he’s trying to do the same with the rest of the world,” said Chief Climate Councillor, Professor Tim Flannery, in a statement following the PM’s speech.
ScoMo more or less repeated the same goals and vague ‘plans’.

November 2: Australia’s Minister for emissions reduction gave a COP26 speech spruiking fossil fuels
A day later, our Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction — Angus Taylor — also gave speech at COP26, that essentially promoted how Australia would be investing even more into fossil fuels. At a climate change conference.

“Let me tell you why this is so important, why a seemingly arcane topic like carbon credits really matters and why our Plan is for net-zero, not zero,” he said. “Australia is the world’s fourth-largest energy exporter — we’ve specialised in the production of energy and emissions-intensive commodities across sectors like mining and agriculture.

“Today, those exports are worth around a quarter of Gross National Income, and they are growing fast … and those exports are a big deal in our Indo-Pacific region, too, with Australia being one of the largest and most reliable suppliers of energy, resources and agricultural products.”

It’s also worth noting that, on top of this, Australia’s pavilion at the conference was sponsored one of the leading oil and gas producers in the APAC region, Santos.
Australia’s Minister for emissions reduction also flew to COP26 to tell people why our country would be investing more into fossil fuels, instead of less.

November 10: Australia ranked last for our climate action policies.
Despite ScoMo’s 2050 net zero carbon emissions commitment, Australia ranked last in the latest Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), with a mark of zero.

Published by German-based group Germanwatch, the CCPI scores 63 countries on their climate action, based on greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy infrastructure, and climate policy.

While we score “very low” in all categories and ranked 55th overall, we were absolutely dead last (and the only country to score zero) in the climate policy category.

The report stated that the “government does not have any policies on phasing out coal or gas, but CCUS [carbon capture, utilisation and storage] and hydrogen are being promoted as low-emissions technologies.

“Even though the renewables electricity is growing, the experts believe that Australia has failed to take advantage of its potential, and other countries have outpaced it.”

While ScoMo may have talked a lot about renewable technologies in his speeches, the report only placed Australia at 49th for the renewable energy category.

“The country’s lack of domestic ambition and action has made its way to the international stage,” the report continued.

“The experts describe that the country’s international standing has been damaged by climate denialism by politicians, refusal to increase ambition, and refusal to recommit to international green finance mechanisms.

“Australia has fallen behind its allies and its inaction even attracted public criticism in the run-up to COP26.”
The latest Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) ranked Australia 55 out of 63 countries for our overall climate actions, and dead last with a score of zero for our climate policy.

November 12: Federal government releases net-zero modelling plan.
After pressure to explain how the government planned to reach its climate goals, the modelling on which Australia’s long-term emissions reduction plan is based was released on a Friday afternoon.

Once again using the catchphrase “the Australian way”, the modelling plan shows that Morrison is taking a “technology not taxes” approach that means Australia will be relying on offsets and unknown technology breakthroughs. At the same time, the gas sector will grow.

However, this technology plan still falls 215 megatonnes short of the 2050 net-zero plan, only reaching an 85 per cent reduction. The remaining cuts will be achieved by buying offsets. and from unexplained “further technology breakthroughs”.

Understandably, the response from climate experts is still less than impressed. Senior researcher at the Climate Council, Tim Bater, says the report “may as well have been written in crayon”.

“The most striking thing about this modelling is that it predicts the government won’t reach its own net zero by 2050 goal,” he continued.

“This is pure spin. A document that has the singular purpose of attempting to legitimise the federal government’s do-nothing approach.”
Morrison releases the modelling for Australia’s net-zero by 2050 plan, but it outlines a plan relying on technology that falls 215Mt short of the goal. The rest of the emission cuts rely on unexplained technology breakthroughs.

November 15: Barnaby Joyce openly mocked COP26 president for getting emotional about climate change.
After COP26 president Alok Sharma had a tearful breakdown during his speech on the final day of the summit, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce openly mocked him, and accused him of faking his concern.

Sharma was announcing that the global climate agreement would be softened due to India’s protest of the original wording when his voice broke.

“May I just say to all delegates, I apologise for the way this process has unfolded and I am deeply sorry,” Mr Sharma told the summit.

“I also understand the deep disappointment but, I think as you have noted, it’s also vital that we protect this package.”

Joyce was asked about the incident on the ABC, and he responded with zero empathy.

“It annoys me that, what is that guy’s name? Chairman Sharma with his gavel – ‘I am crying, I can’t do it’ – he wants to talk about shutting down the coal industry but he never talks about shutting down the oilfields the North Sea,” Mr Joyce said.

“All the corporate billionaires and all the movie stars and chairman Sharma and all the tears as they shut down our industries. But they don’t want to touch their own.”

In the same interview, Joyce said he and the federal government are “happy with our targets, with the negotiations the Nationals had with the Liberals. We said we wouldn’t be changing our 2030 targets.”
Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister mocked the COP26 president for getting emotional during an interview with the ABC, claiming he was faking it.

Also November 15: ScoMo confirms he won’t change Australia’s climate policy.

The COP26 specifically named Australia for our poor climate policies in a final communiqué, and urged us (among other countries) to “revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their nationally determined contributions, as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022”.

While the communiqué is worded as a request, the intent is a commitment to doing better for our planet, and Australia signed it.

Yet, over the weekend of November 13-14, Health Minister Greg Hunt, Foreign Minister Marise Payne, and emissions reduction Minister Angus Taylor all stuck to Australia’s previously stated 2030 goals. The latter two issued a statement claiming Australia’s target was “fixed”.

Speaking the following Monday (November 15), Morrison answered questions about Australia’s confusing position on climate policy by saying the final communiqué was just a “request” and that Australia would be sticking with its original targets of cutting 26-28 per cent of emissions by 2030.

In the same press conference, Morrison once again claimed that despite these official targets, “we are going to achieve a 35 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 … That’s what we’re going to achieve and that’s what actually matters”.

When asked why he wouldn’t just make that the official target, he responded “Because our policy is to meet and beat – that’s what we do.”
As it stands, despite urging from COP26 to do better and unclear modelling for the plan, Australia will be sticking with the original climate policy.
Links
at No comments:

(AU The Conversation) We Need To Design Housing For Indigenous Communities That Can Withstand The Impacts Of Climate Change

The Conversation -  |  |  | 

View of Kalka. Liam Grealy, Author provided (no reuse)
Authors
  •  is Professor, Anthropology and Cultural Studies, University of Sydney
  •  is Lecturer in Architecture, University of Sydney
  •  is CEO of Nganampa Health Council, Indigenous Knowledge
  •  is Research fellow, University of Sydney
Remote Indigenous communities in Australia will experience the impacts of climate change disproportionately to the rest of the country.

Take the Aṉangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands in northwest South Australia, where maximum temperatures are increasing. The summer periods of sustained high temperatures are starting earlier and lasting longer.

A rapidly warming planet provides a significant challenge to design, deliver, and maintain habitable housing across Australia. Yet, few analyses consider Indigenous housing and climate change together.

A new report, Sustainable Indigenous Housing in Regional and Remote Australia, fills this gap.

Exploring sustainable housing for First Nations communities

This new report examines the role of housing in remote and regional communities, given the increasing pressures of climate change. It shows existing and new housing can and should be better maintained for these communities. We found that Indigenous-run tenancy management is part of the solution.

In Gunnedah, we partnered with Gunida Gunyah Aboriginal Corporation, an Aboriginal community housing provider in New South Wales. The houses that Gunida Gunyah manage vary in age and quality, which all housing organisations must negotiate as they assume responsibility for ongoing maintenance.

Unfortunately the legacies of inadequate construction in housing do not belong to the past. What is built or refurbished today could haunt residents for decades. So, will attempts to revive old housing using existing national construction guidelines be enough to ensure future habitability? We used simulation software to understand the impact of climate change, especially of increasing heat, on Indigenous housing. This software considered the effectiveness of strategies for refurbishing existing housing to improve thermal performance and energy efficiency. This simulation was modelled for Australia’s tropical, dry, and hot/mild climate zones.

After 366 simulations, our results showed modifying or refurbishing existing housing and even building new homes to meet recommended standards are not adequate measures for current or future climate changes. Even if existing housing was improved or new housing was built to current national construction code standards, at best, benefits will be short term.

Further, whether houses are old or new, crowding is a critical limitation for “thermal comfort” - the technical term for not too hot, not too cold. So, even if housing was greatly improved on the design front, crowding would cancel out the benefits.

The solution is a combination of better design and construction standards, increased housing and restorative work on existing housing, with well-funded repair and maintenance programs to ensure ongoing function.

Newly built house in APY Lands. Liam Grealy, Author provided (no reuse)

Basic housing needs are not being met

As Healthabitat has long demonstrated, basic needs for householders, such as the ability to wash themselves, wash clothes and bedding, and store and prepare food, requires things to work inside and outside the house.

Decades of data shows the impact of restoring function to health hardware (washing facilities, safe food storage systems, and so on) and reveals the key reasons for housing dysfunction are poor original construction and inadequate repairs and maintenance.

Some governments respond to evidence of poor maintenance by claiming that the rent they can collect is not enough to cover the expenses involved, or that the record-keeping systems for showing what needs to be repaired are at fault, especially in remote areas.

However, our case material from the APY Lands shows the holy grail of proactive and planned maintenance of housing is perfectly doable and can generate savings.

A preventive maintenance program is economical. It minimises major hardware failures, bundles work orders (so more is fixed in less time) and reduces travel costs.

By spending three-quarters of its maintenance budget for APY Lands housing on planned works, and working closely with the Indigenous community-controlled Nganampa Health Council, Housing SA keeps repair and maintenance travel expenses for APY Lands housing to under 11%.

This contrasts with national research revealing travel costs consume up to 96% of per-unit costs for emergency repairs in Indigenous housing, leaving only 11% to 37% of budgets for planned repairs and maintenance.

Greater national funding is needed for better housing designs, related construction and ongoing maintenance work to provide year-round seasonal comfort and protection, and to alleviate crowding in residences.

Australia could lead the way in meeting these needs, but first the policy challenge to meet housing, health, heat, and climate change together must be openly acknowledged.

This is the path to achieve climate mitigation rather than forced migrations. Housing, health, maintenance, and climate must be thought about together, to enable people to stay on or near their Country and sites of connection now and into the future.

Links
at No comments:

(AU The Age) ‘A Real Hail Mary’: Experts Say Net Zero 2050 Plan Fails To Account For Billions In Climate Costs

The Age - Mike Foley

There is no mechanism to guarantee cuts to carbon emissions in the federal government’s plan to reach net zero by 2050, which relies instead on voluntary action by industry, prompting warnings that global warming will cost nearly $600 billion by 2030 without greater climate action.

University of Melbourne professor of environmental economics Tom Kompas estimates climate change will cost the economy at least $584 billion by 2030 and $762 billion in 2050 under the current trajectory for a 2-degree rise in average global temperatures on pre-industrial levels.

The Black Summer fires are estimated to have cost the economy $110 billion. Credit: Nick Moir

The government’s plan to reach net zero by 2050 is guided by a mantra of “technology, not taxes”, which rules out limits on greenhouse gases or a carbon price and assumes industry will reduce its global warming contribution of its own accord.

Each Australian would be $2000 better off by 2050, according to the government’s modelling released on Friday, but this figure does not include the financial costs of global warming.

Climate policy
The modelling included only the benefits from committing to net zero – such as growth in critical minerals to build renewable energy or a reduction in borrowing costs for foreign capital.

But 86 per cent of a panel of 58 top local economists selected by the Economic Society of Australia last month backed an emissions reduction target coupled with a carbon price as the most efficient method to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Economist and Climate Council spokesperson Nicki Hutley said on Tuesday it was a “real Hail Mary” policy from the government that assumed voluntary action from industry to curb its emissions and did not factor in the economic impacts of warming.

“Any good modelling includes a cost-benefit analysis, but they have excluded the costs of failing to act on climate change, such as health, damage to property from weather events or economic distortions,” Ms Hutley said.

Despite the federal government’s claim carbon taxes would damage the economy, the modelling “absolutely” factored in a carbon price with an assumption that industry would pay $24 a tonne to offset emissions – a cost that ultimately would be paid by Australians, she said.

Professor Kompas said his 2030 and 2050 estimates were conservative and only included impacts that could be reliably modelled, such as reduced agricultural and labour productivity, loss of arable land due to sea-level rise, some health impacts and losses from infrastructure.

There are concerns Australia's net zero plan relies on technology, which hasn't even been created yet. 5min 14sec

His modelling excluded impacts that were harder to model but were expected to ramp up due to global warming, such as floods, bush fires, pollution and biodiversity losses from environmental losses.

Professor Kompas estimates the Black Summer fires alone cost $110 billion.

Climate scientists have found the Black Summer fires were intensified by global warming and bushfires generally would become more frequent and intense as the global average temperature rises.

Climate policy
Professor Kompas in May estimated the national cost of emissions reduction, achieved with either a carbon price or binding renewable energy target, at $36 billion to 2030, or what he called a “negligible impact” of 0.14 per cent of GDP.

He told this masthead on Tuesday a “major reduction in fossil fuels and a massive increase in renewables” was required for Australia to move in line with the global efforts required to keep warming below 2 degrees.

“But the cost of this action is not very large compared to the economic damage from climate change,” he said.

Links

at No comments: