Climate Change And Poverty Are As Much Of A Threat As Terrorism For Many Young People

The Conversation - Rhian Barrance

Shutterstock

It will probably come as little surprise that recent surveys have found the majority of adults in Europe think that international terrorism is the most pressing threat to the continent.
Though this is valuable information about what adults think, little is known about what children and young people perceive as the greatest threats to life and democracy in Europe.
The stereotypes of young people, particularly teenagers, are that they are disengaged from society, and not focused on national, let alone international, issues. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

Young people's views
For the last four years, our research group WISERDEducation has been surveying students at primary and secondary schools across Wales about aspects of their lives, education and perceptions of the wider world. In 2016 we asked almost 700 secondary school students (aged 13 to 18-years-old) what they considered to be "the most important problem facing Europe today", to see whether their perceptions differed from adults', and also whether views varied by age.
The students were given nine different problems to choose from: climate change, economic instability, international terrorism, poverty, war, availability of energy, population growth, spread of nuclear weapons and infectious diseases. The chart below shows the proportion of students who selected the five most popular options. The remaining options, grouped as "other", were chosen by very few participants, under 20% across all year groups. The chart below also excludes those who answered "don't know".


International terrorism dominated as the greatest problem for Europe among our participants. But looking at different school year groups, a more nuanced picture emerged.


Of Year 9 students (13 to 14-years-old), 44% considered terrorism to be the biggest problem, but this rate fell to 33% of Year 11 students (15 to 16-years-old). For Year 13 students (17 to 18-years-old), the percentage who thought terrorism was the biggest problem was much lower, at 20%.
For the older students, terrorism was displaced by economic instability as the most significant problem facing Europe – which may reflect the fact that employment and the economy were becoming more relevant to them as they came to the end of their school careers. However, while economic instability topped the list for this cohort, no single problem dominated for the Year 13 group. Students' concerns were clustered around a number of key issues, including terrorism, climate change and poverty.
Interestingly, the older students were more likely to see climate change as the most important problem for Europe. Only 12% of Year 9 and 11% of Year 11 students noted climate change as their greatest concern, but this jumped to 18% among Year 13 students. In fact, this was only slightly lower than the 20% of Year 13 students who saw terrorism as the most significant problem.

Threat perception influence
One reason that such a high proportion of students may have selected international terrorism as the most pressing issue facing Europe may have been the timing of our research. Students were surveyed in spring 2016, soon after attacks in Paris. In the month following the attacks, the children's helpline, Childline, reported a surge in calls from young people anxious about the possibility of a similar attack in Britain. Previous research has also found that people tend to prioritise threats that are physically and temporally close to them.
Terrorist attacks may also be seen as more threatening in general because they have clear perpetrators. By contrast no one group or individual can be blamed for climate change, making it seem less tangible as a threat. This is, of course, hugely problematic considering the large body of evidence that shows that climate change is already happening, and that other threats such as international terrorism may be linked to the disruption caused by global warming.
In the context of research on the threats to Europe – in which international terrorism routinely tops the list of concerns – the surprising finding from our survey is that such a high proportion of Year 13 students considered climate change to be a pressing issue, more so than found in some studies of adults' views.
A recent YouGov survey found that Britons are among the least concerned in the world about climate change, with only 12.8% selecting it as their most pressing issue. Considering that 18% of people aged 17 to 18-years-old in our 2016 survey believed it to be the most important issue facing Europe, and that the older the students were, the more likely they were to prioritise climate change, it seems that attitudes may be changing among the next generation of young adults.

Links

• Climate change could be a unifying cause of millennials, but will they vote?
• Politically Engaged but Unrepresented? Attitudes to Politics Among the Voters of Tomorrow
• Climate change: How do we know?
• Why Climate Change and Terrorism Are Connected
• Global survey: Britain among least concerned in the world about climate change

AEMO Releases Final Report Into SA Blackout, Blames Wind Farm Settings For State-Wide Power Failure

ABC - Nick Harmsen

AEMO is working with industry to build power system resilience. (AAP: Angela Harper)

Key points: AEMO has released its fourth and final report into SA's September blackout It said overly sensitive settings in some wind farms resulted in the statewide blackout But it also found the intermittent nature of wind was not to blame

Overly sensitive protection mechanisms in some South Australian wind farms are to blame for the catastrophic statewide blackout in September last year, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) says.
In its fourth and final report into the September 29 blackout, AEMO said it was the action of a control setting responding to multiple disturbances that led to the 'black system'.
The report said the unexpected operation of the control settings resulted in the sudden loss of generation from the wind farms.
"Had the generation deficit not occurred, AEMO's modelling indicates SA would have remained connected to Victoria and the black system would have been avoided," the report said.

"AEMO cannot rule out the possibility that later events could have caused a black system, but is not aware of any system damage that would have done this."

AEMO has also contradicted its own early advice that the changing nature of South Australia's electricity generation mix played no role in the blackout.
It said the generation mix now includes increased amounts of non-synchronous inverter-connected generators — in other words, wind and solar.

Big batteries, stabilisation urged for Australia's power system

South Australia's renewables-heavy power mix was a factor in the statewide blackout in September, a new report by the Australian Energy Market Operator confirms.

"This generation has different characteristics to a conventional plant, and uses active control systems, or complex software, to ride through disturbances," the report said.
"With less synchronous generation online, the system is experiencing more periods with low inertia and low available fault levels, so AEMO is working with industry on ways to use the capability of these new types of power generation to build resilience to extreme events."
AEMO said as the generation mix continues to change, it may no longer be able to rely on coal and gas generators to provide a fast enough response to stabilise the grid.
"Instead, additional means of procuring these services must be considered, from non-synchronous generators, where it is technically feasible, or from network or non-network services, such as demand response and synchronous condensers."
The Australian Energy Market Commission is already taking steps in this regard.

How the weather event tripped the system
On Wednesday September 28, two tornadoes with wind speeds between 190 and 260 kilometres per hour tore through a single-circuit 275-kilovolts transmission line and a double-circuit 275kV transmission line, about 170km apart.
The damage to these three transmission lines caused them to trip, and a sequence of faults in quick succession resulted in six voltage dips on the SA grid over a two-minute period at about 4:16pm.
As the number of faults on the transmission network grew, nine wind farms in the mid-north of SA exhibited a sustained reduction in power as a protection feature activated.
For most of them, the protection settings allowed the wind turbines to withstand a pre-set number of voltage dips within a two-minute period.

Two tornadoes with wind speeds of up to 260kph ripped down transmission lines. (ABC News: Dean Faulkner)

When the protection feature kicked in, the output of those wind farms fell by 456 megawatts over a period of less than seven seconds.
When the wind farms unexpectedly reduced their output, the Heywood Interconnector from Victoria tried to make up the shortfall.
About 700 milliseconds after the last wind farm powered down, the flow in the interconnector reached such a level that it activated a special protection scheme that tripped it offline.
The sudden loss of power flows across the interconnector sent the frequency in the SA grid plummeting.
South Australia has an automatic load-shedding system designed to kick-in in just such an event.
But the rate of change of the frequency was so rapid, the automatic load-shedding scheme did not work.
Without it, the remaining generation was much less than the connected load, and as a result, the entire system collapsed.
The SA power system then became separated from the rest of the national grid.
AEMO said its "analysis shows that following system separation, frequency collapse and the consequent black system was inevitable".

Why hasn't the entire state blacked out before?
AEMO said unforeseen separation and complete loss of the Heywood Interconnector has occurred six times in the past 17 years.

SA's generation mix before the blackout. (Supplied: AEMO Black System SA report)

But in every other instance, the system stayed alive.
"The key differentiator between the 28 September 2016 event and the other three events is that there was significantly lower inertia in SA in the most recent event, due to a lower number of on-line synchronous generators," the report said.
"This resulted in a substantially faster rate of change of frequency compared to the other events, exceeding the ability of the under-frequency load-shedding scheme to arrest the frequency fall before it dropped below 47Hz."
Synchronous generators include coal, gas and hydro.
The state's last coal generator, at Port Augusta, closed last year.
Some gas generators have been mothballed, or used sparingly, especially in circumstances when the state's wind and solar power output is high.
Immediately before the blackout, wind had been producing almost half of South Australia's power needs, with much of the remainder being imported from Victoria.
South Australia's thermal generators (gas and diesel) had only been outputting about 18 per cent of the state's power needs.

A chart showing the chain of events which led to the statewide blackout. (Supplied: AEMO)

Are wind farms to blame?
It can be argued that the changing nature of the grid, which is seeing wind farms and solar energy replacing traditional thermal generation, did make South Australia more vulnerable to a statewide blackout.
There is no doubt the protection settings on some wind farms also contributed to the chain of events which resulted in this blackout.
But AEMO also makes it clear the intermittent nature of wind was not to blame.

"The most well-known characteristic of wind power, variation of output with wind strength, often termed 'intermittency', was not a material factor in the events immediately prior to the black system."

AEMO said changes made to turbine control settings shortly after the event has removed the risk of recurrence given the same number of disturbances.

SA's automatic load-shedding scheme didn't kick in during the storm. (AAP: David Mariuz)

Links

• Renewable energy mix played role in SA blackout: third report
• Wind farms lost power due to safety settings during SA blackout
• Australia's power grid in need of multi-billion-dollar upgrade: report
• Unclear if wind power played role in SA blackout, report says
• South Australian blackouts a case of history repeating itself
• Gas, solar mix could reduce SA's reliance on national power

Trump To Sweep Away Obama Climate Change Policies

BBC

The president says the object of his changes is to boost economic growth and stimulate job creation. Reuters

US President Donald Trump is due to sign an executive order to overturn key parts of the Obama administration's plan to tackle global warming.

The move will undo the Clean Power Plan which required states to slash carbon emissions.
The executive order also cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. Regulations on oil, gas and coal production are to be reviewed.
Mr Trump has promised to remove green rules which he says hurt the economy
During the campaign, he vowed to pull the US out of the Paris climate deal agreed in December 2015.
The White House said the new measures would "help keep energy and electricity affordable, reliable and clean in order to boost economic growth and job creation".
But environmental groups warn that they will have serious consequences at home and abroad.

What is Mr Trump's order changing?
President Trump takes a very different approach to the environment from Mr Obama. The former president argued that climate change was "real and cannot be ignored".
The Clean Power Plan sought to limit greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants to meet US commitments under the Paris accord.

Mr Trump says that the US will no longer wage war on coal. AFP 

The regulation has been unpopular in Republican-run states, where it has been subjected to legal challenges - especially from businesses that rely on burning oil, coal and gas.
Last year the Supreme Court temporarily halted the plan, while the challenges are heard.
The Trump administration says that scrapping the plan will put people to work and reduce America's reliance on imported fuel.
It says the president will be "moving forward on energy production in the US".
"The previous administration devalued workers with their policies. We can protect the environment while providing people with work."
The president also intends to slash funding of the Environmental Protection Agency by a third. He recently appointed climate change sceptic Scott Pruitt as its new head.

What will the impact be? - Matt McGrath, BBC environment correspondent
This order signed by President Trump is both a practical and a philosophical attempt to change the US narrative on climate change.
His supporters say it will create thousands of jobs in the liberated oil and gas industries. His opponents agree the new order will be a job creator - but they'll be jobs for lawyers, not in the coal fields.
Front and centre is practical action on the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the Obama project to cut fossil fuels from energy production. Although it has long been tied up in the courts, the new administration will leave it to fester there while they come up with a much weaker replacement.
There will also be new, less restrictive rules on methane emissions from the oil and industry and more freedom to sell coal leases from federal lands.
President Trump is signalling a significant change in the widely-held philosophy that CO2 is the enemy, the main driver of climate change.
US environmentalists are aghast but also enraged. They will be queuing up to go to court. But in many ways that's playing into the hands of President Trump and the fossil fuel lobby.
"Delay is what they want," one green source told me, "delay is winning."

Will the US honour its commitments under the Paris climate deal?
While campaigning for the presidency, Mr Trump argued that the agreement was unfair to the US.
The landmark agreement commits governments to moving their economies away from fossil fuels and reducing carbon emissions to try to contain global temperature rise.
Mr Trump has in the past said climate change had been "created by and for the Chinese".

Reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants was a key part of America's commitment in the Paris climate deal. AP

But at the end of last year, he acknowledged that there was "some connectivity" between human activity and climate change.
It is now unclear where exactly the US stands in relation to the deal.
Whatever the US chooses, the EU, India and China say they will stick to their pledges made in Paris.

What has been the reaction?
The president's order will be resisted by environmentalists, who have promised to challenge it in the courts.

Campaigning groups are scathing of the president's environment policies. AP 

"These actions are an assault on American values and they endanger the health, safety and prosperity of every American," billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer was quoted by Reuters as saying.
Another green group, Earthjustice, said it would challenge the order in and out of court.
"This order ignores the law and scientific reality," its President Trip Van Noppen said.

Does Trump believe in climate change? Tara McKelvey, BBC White House reporter
Yes - at least according to a senior aide.
When asked whether the president believes in man-made climate change, the aide said "sure", adopting a matter-of-fact tone.
This marks a shift. In 2015 the president said that climate change was a "hoax".
By November 2016, the president had softened his position on the matter, saying he saw "some connectivity" between man and climate change.
Now the president has gone further - at least, according to his aide.
The president, a one-time climate-change denier, now believes, that climate change is real - and that humans are behind it.

Links

• Trump's 'control-alt-delete' on climate change policy
• Trump: The best thing ever for climate change?
• World v Trump on global climate deal?
• Trump team moving away from supporters on climate science

Plans For Coal-Fired Power Plants Drop By Almost Half In 2016

BBC - Matt McGrath

This new Chinese coal-fired plant opened in January but many more have been put on hold. Getty Images

Twenty-sixteen saw a "dramatic" decline in the number of coal-fired power stations in pre-construction globally.

The authors of a new study say there was a 48% fall in planned coal units, with a 62% drop in construction starts.
The report, from several green campaign groups, claims changing policies and economic conditions in China and India were behind the decline.
However, the coal industry argues the fuel will remain essential to economic growth in Asia for decades to come.

Rapid swing
Between 2006 and 2016, India and China together accounted for 85% of the coal plants built around the world.
But according to the Boom and Bust 2017 report, put together by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and CoalSwarm, there has been a huge swing away from coal in these two countries in just 12 months.

The study says that questions over finance are threatening coal plants in India. Getty Images 

The main causes of the decline are the imposition of restrictive measures by China's central government - with the equivalent of 600 coal-fired units being put on hold until at least 2020.
The Indian go-slow was prompted, according to the authors, by the reluctance of banks to provide funds. Work at 13 locations is currently not going ahead.
However, there have also been significant retirements of coal plants in Europe and the US over the past two years, with roughly 120 large units being taken out of commission.
"This has been a messy year, and an unusual one," said Ted Nace, director of CoalSwarm.
"It's not normal to see construction frozen at scores of locations, but central authorities in China and bankers in India have come to recognize overbuilding of coal plants as a major waste of resources.
"However abrupt, the shift from fossil fuels to clean sources in the power sector is a positive one for health, climate security, and jobs. And by all indications, the shift is unstoppable."
The study comes as other groups analyse the potential for investments in coal to become stranded assets if governments continue to restrict CO2 emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that hundreds of billions of dollars could be at risk.
"The decline in new coal plants in Asian countries is truly dramatic, and shows how a perfect storm of factors is simply making coal a bad investment," said Paul Massara, now of North Star Solar but a former CEO of RWE npower.

Investments in solar power in India have soared in recent years. Getty Images 

"Growing awareness of the air pollution problems coal causes, the impact of policies to tackle climate change, and the rapid growth and cost-competitiveness of renewable sources of energy, along with emerging battery technologies, are making new coal plants redundant before they are even built," he said.
However, the World Coal Association vehemently disagrees. It says the complexity of large infrastructure projects means that until they break ground, it's no surprise if they don't go ahead.
"Yes, China, is reducing the number of coal-stations but not because it's transitioning away from coal. Instead, the new dynamics is a signal of a more developed economy," said Benjamin Sporton.
"Contrary to the picture being portrayed by certain quarters, China's climate pledge suggests that coal will continue to be central to its energy solutions, albeit through efficiencies including the use of new coal technologies.
"In India's case, it's simply not true that renewables are displacing coal. The International Energy Agency has said that India's coal demand will see the biggest growth over next five years with an annual average growth rate of 5% by 2021.
"For these countries, excluding coal from the energy mix is not an option; it is essential for economic growth and critical in securing energy access."
According to the authors of the study, the slowdown brings the possibility of keeping global warming under 2 degrees C since pre-industrial times "within feasible reach."
However, the study says that much more progress needs to be made to reduce the number of coal-fired plants under development in Vietnam, Indonesia, Turkey, Japan and elsewhere.

Links

• The Simple Truth: Coal-Fired Generators Have No Future In Australia
• Power prices could double with new coal-fired stations: experts
• 'Clean Coal' Is A Con And It's Costing Us Lives
• The Coal War: Inside The Fight Against Adani's Plans To Build Australia'S Biggest Coal Mine

In The Battle For The Planet's Climate Future, Australia's Adani Mine Is The Line In The Sand

The Guardian - Bill McKibben

Australians must decide whether they continue to support coal or whether the future is renewable. Without a doubt, Malcolm Turnbull will be left on the losing side

‘The battle to stop the Adani mine is shaping up as the most important environmental fight ever down under, the likes of the Tar Sands battle we’ve seen in North America.’ Photograph: Dave Hunt/AAP

There is nowhere else on the planet right now where the dichotomy between two potential futures – one where we address the climate change crisis, one where we ignore this momentous threat and continue with business as usual – is playing out in such a dramatic and explosive way as Australia.
In the US, Donald Trump is decimating decades of hard-fought environmental and climate standards – it’s all 18th century all the time. But the ageing fossil fuel assets and recent “market failure” of the Australian electricity grid is pushing political leaders to all-out brawling, pitting conservative inaction against the demand for solution-focused action.
A recent wave of blackouts and near misses and the proposal of the biggest coalmine in the world – the Adani Carmichael mine in Queensland – has created tinder-dry conditions that only needed one spark to go up in flames.
The spark finally came recently, via Twitter, from renewable energy entrepreneur Elon Musk who offered to sell the batteries that would remove the last argument against renewable power.
It turned the deadlocked debate over how to fix Australia’s fossil fuel-ladenand often failing energy “market” into an open war between those backing the dying coal industry with those set on using the moment to transition to renewable energy.

Indeed, one of the icons of the ageing coal fleet, the dirtiest coal power station in the developed world – Hazelwood in Victoria – turns off its turbines this week as it shuts down. The symbols couldn’t be clearer: Musk’s batteries or Adani’s mega-mine and dirty coal power. Which one represents the future?
As you formulate the answer, remember that the war is of course playing out against a tragic backdrop: the ongoing destruction of the Great Barrier Reef that is Australia’s great natural treasure, the thing it’s been charged by the world to protect. That horror is a human-created disaster, caused directly by man-made global warming that is increasing ocean temperatures by an alarming rate.

The decision about the future is also a decision about what kind of democracy you want. As in the US, the Aussie mining industry has for decades has a disproportionate amount of power over politicians. It cares about one thing only – not the greater good, but its own perpetuation.
But now the coal industry is starting to lose its grip. And it won’t necessarily be a slow process. The fractures are running through all stratas of Australian governance: states are closing coal stations and opting for renewable energy and battery storage (a la the Musk Tweet); and companies and businesses that have traditionally been allies of the coal industry are advocating for climate policies that would essentially spell the end of coal-powered energy; individuals and communities in great numbers are breaking free of the grid.
A marooned and thoroughly isolated Malcolm Turnbull is left on the losing side advocating for an industry and a coalmine we all know he doesn’t believe in to appease a small number of rightwingers in his party so he can continue to call himself the prime minister. Without a doubt, he will be swept aside by the arc of change – he who had the chance to lead on the issue of our time but chose to give in to vested interests and the fringe of his party.
As your electricity grid fails and industry holds on to the myth of an ever-growing coal export industry, Australians must draw a line in the sand and decide whether they continue to support coal, or whether the future is renewable.
Backed against the wall, the coal lobby and Turnbull’s fossil fuel-obsessed colleagues have gambled everything on the construction of the Adani coalmine. This mine would be the largest coalmine in history and, if constructed, it would do much to push the planet beyond 2C of warming.
The politics of coal are changing and this mine is that line in the sand.
Last week a historic alliance of environmental groups representing more than 1.5 million people launched the largest climate movement in Australia’s history.
Led by Bob Brown, who I had the honour of meeting last year, the battle to stop Adani is shaping up as the most important environmental fight ever down under, the likes of the Tar Sands battle we’ve seen in North America.
People are engaged and will take action to preserve the climate, the Great Barrier Reef and the rights of the traditional owners whose land will be destroyed by this mine in ways that hasn’t before been seen.
In my many visits there, I have found Australians to be obliging and deeply passionate about protecting their unique environment. Never has the contrast between the fossil fuel present and the clean energy future been in such stark relief. I now implore all Australians to take a stand – for the sake of the world’s climate – to ensure this mine never goes ahead.

Links

• The Adani mine is this generation's Franklin River. People power can stop it
• Anti-Adani activists vow 'direct action' against mine contractor Downer
• Adani coalmine activists gear up to fight: ‘This will dwarf the Franklin blockade’
• Adani mine leases and national parks in doubt after native title court decision
• Adani coalmine 'covertly funded' by World Bank, says report

The Adani Brief: What Governments And Financiers Need To Know About The Adani Group’s Record Overseas

Environmental Justice Australia - Earthjustice

The Adani Group's proposed Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project in the Galilee Basin in Queensland would, if developed, be among the largest new coal mines in the world.
In addition to destroying the traditional lands and sacred sites of the Indigenous Wangan and Jagalingou people, and unique and important species and ecosystems, burning the 60 million tons of coal the mine is projected to produce each year would measurably exacerbate climate change and ocean warming and acidification that are causing human and environmental devastation worldwide.
The associated rail infrastructure and expansion of the coal export terminal at Abbot Point Port adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area would facilitate the shipping of coal through the Reef's water from both the Carmichael Mine and other mines proposed for the Galilee Basin, increasing the risk of shipping oil spills and groundings that would further damage the Reef's already endangered ecosystem.
In addition to these threats, the Adani Brief presents evidence that raises serious concerns about the global legal compliance record of some corporate entities within the Indian-based Adani Group.
This evidence includes investigations by an Indian government intelligence agency of illegal business dealings, active involvement in large-scale illegal mineral exports, and numerous violations of Indian environmental laws that have harmed the environment and local communities.
This evidence in the Adani Brief suggests that governments and private stakeholders should give serious consideration to the possibility that if this track record continues in Australia, then supporting the Adani Group's Carmichael Mine and the Abbot Point Port may expose governments and private stakeholders to reputational and financial risks.

Adani Group entities in India are under investigation for corruption and illegal dealings
The Indian government's Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) is currently investigating a number of Adani Group entities, including Adani Enterprises Ltd (AEL), which is the ultimate holding company of Adani Mining Pty Ltd, the proponent of the Carmichael Mine, for illegally overvaluing imports of coal and capital equipment in order to siphon funds offshore, a practice that creates "black money."
A detailed report from a reliable media source also indicates that for more than a decade the DRI has also been investigating Adani Group entities for tax evasion and money laundering whilst trading in diamonds.
In 2011, after a three-year investigation, the ombudsman of the Indian state of Karnataka found AEL to have been actively involved in large-scale illegal export of iron ore.
The ombudsman recommended that AEL should be stripped of its rights to operate the port and banned from further business dealings with the government.
These investigations and findings of illegal activity by Adani Group entities should be of concern to potential financial supporters of the Carmichael Mine or Abbot Point Port, including the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility, in relation to reputational and financial risks.
Best practice would likely require Australian financiers to enquire with Indian authorities as to the status of the investigations and defer the provision of finance until any pending Indian investigations are completed.

Irregularities in the ownership of Terminal 1 at Abbot Point Port may create risk uncertainties for lenders
The ultimate ownership of Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd (AAPT), which owns and operates Terminal 1 at Abbot Point Port, is opaque, making it difficult to assess the risk profile of any security for a loan to AAPT (or any intermediate parent companies).
AAPT has reported to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission that it is ultimately owned by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZ), a public company that is part of the Adani Group and is listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange.
But APSEZ's most recent annual report indicates that the company has divested its stake in AAPT, and attributes ownership of AAPT to a private Singapore company that is ultimately owned by a Cayman Islands entity likely associated with the Adani family.
If APPT is owned by APSEZ, actual or potential lenders' security is tied (either overtly or by implied endorsement/connection) to an Indian publicly listed company with substantial additional assets and relatively transparent accounts.
If not, the profile of the security may change.
The risks are ultimately borne by lenders, their shareholders, others with financial interests in the lenders, and employees.

Adani Group entities have a concerning record of failing to comply with Indian environmental laws
The environmental record of Adani Group entities in India raises serious questions about those entities' commitment to environmental protection and the health and welfare of local communities, and to compliance with laws intended to assure such protection.
This should be of significant concern to governments and financiers in relation to the Adani Group's proposed Carmichael Mine, particularly in light of the integrated relationship between the Australian-based Adani Group companies and the broader Adani Group generally.
In addition to environmental compliance issues previously raised in earlier reports,1 the Adani Brief describes evidence of several other instances of non-compliance with Indian environmental laws:
+ In August 2016, the National Green Tribunal, India's specialised environmental court, fined AEL nearly AU$1 million for its role in chartering an unseaworthy ship to transport coal.
This is the same activity the Adani Group would be undertaking in shipping coal from the Carmichael Mine through the fragile Great Barrier Reef.
The tribunal found that the ship had sunk, spilling oil and over 60,000 tons of coal that destroyed mangroves and polluted beaches.
The tribunal criticised AEL's failure to clean up the spill for more than five years.
+ In January 2016, the National Green Tribunal fined Adani Hazira Port Private Ltd, a subsidiary of APSEZ, almost AU$5 million for undertaking development works at its port in Hajira, India, without an environmental permit.
The tribunal found that these works destroyed mangroves and impeded the fishing activities of local communities by interfering with their access to the river and ocean.
The tribunal criticised the company for having an "irresponsible attitude" and for failing to care about any "adverse impact [of its development] on [the] environment."
+ The Adani Group's development of a huge port and one of the world's largest coal-fired power plants at Mundra, India, has caused significant harm to the environment and local communities, resulting from numerous failures to comply with regulations and permits.
Among other things, there is evidence of large-scale destruction of mangrove forests, obstruction of creek systems and natural seawater flow, failure to protect groundwater from salinity intrusion, and possible dumping of potentially toxic fly ash in violation of the relevant environmental approval.

Adani Mining Pty Ltd failed to disclose the concerning environmental record of a company formerly managed by one of its executive officers to the Australian government
Australian laws require the government to examine the suitability of a company to operate projects, like the Carmichael Mine and the Abbot Point Port expansion, that may pose a risk of environmental or human harm.
Because a company's executives are essential to ensuring compliance with laws that protect against such harm, the laws recognise the relevance to the suitability determination of the environmental record of a company's executive officers and of companies they have managed.
In 2015, in considering whether to approve the Carmichael Mine, the Federal Environment Department asked Adani Mining Pty Ltd (the proponent of the Carmichael Mine) for the environmental history of its executive officers.
In its response, Adani Mining Pty Ltd failed to disclose that one of its directors and the CEO of the Adani Group's operations in Australia, Mr.
Jeyakumar Janakaraj, was previously an executive officer of an unrelated company when that company had caused serious water pollution in Zambia.
The company later pleaded guilty to criminal charges for the pollution and its failure to report the incident.
Because Adani Mining Pty Ltd did not disclose this information when requested, the Federal Environment Minister did not consider it when granting approval to the Carmichael Mine.

Links

• A review of the Adani group's environmental history in the context of the Carmichael coal mine
• Can the Adani Group be trusted to comply with environmental laws? The Adani Group's global environmental record
• New report raises concerns about Adani’s authority to operate
• Indian conservation group launches legal challenge to Adani’s Carmichael coal mine
• Why we demand an investigation into Adani's environmental approvals

Australia Needs Long-Term Planning, Not 'Knee-Jerk' Action To Tackle SA Blackouts, Professor Says

ABC News - Joseph Lam

No-one should have been surprised by the recent blackouts in South Australia because the warning signs had been there for months, researchers told the World Science Festival in Brisbane.

The transition will be long and tedious requiring longstanding decisions and intensive planning.

The Securing Australia's Energy Future panel at the Queensland Performing Arts Centre (QPAC) heard the crisis had been in researchers' sights for months and what was now needed was long-term planning and a strong framework, not a "knee-jerk" reaction.

University of Queensland's Energy Initiative director Chris Greig said blackouts in South Australia finally put the government and media spotlight on problems researchers knew would come during the transition to renewable energy.
Enquiries were made into hydro pumps, megawatt batteries and coal-fired power stations — all of which were just a knee-jerk reaction to an event, Professor Greig said.
He said one of the problems we have in Australia is the government tends to focus on one thing at a time.
"What I think is more important is a long-term plan and it has to come out of the hands of politics, so it's not subject to a knee-jerk reaction," he said.
He added that the answer to solving Australia's energy problems is not a simple one and what needs to be understood is that the electricity grid has been unstable for some time, the South Australian blackout just shining a spotlight on the situation.

SA power milestones and mishaps

SA's power generation and supply security has been under scrutiny in recent times. How did we get here?

On achieving a reliable source of energy nationwide, Laura Tyler, BHP Billiton's chief of staff and head of geoscience, said we need a regulatory system which works across the whole of Australia and balances the whole network.
"We actually need that partnership between industry and government," Ms Tyler said.
"One thing we noticed a lot of is policy uncertainty", said Paul McCartney, chief originations and transactions officer of the Federal Government's Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). "Where it struggles is when you have a policy framework that's inconsistent."
On understanding the carbon imprint of our energy usage, one of the first points to acknowledge is that electricity makes up only a third of our country's carbon emissions, Professor Greig said.
Focusing solely on electricity usage means we ignore other major carbon emitters like transport and agriculture.
However, our energy consumption in its current state is a carbon emitter and to achieve an emissions-free future it still needs to be addressed.
Anna Skarbek, the chief executive officer of Climate Works Australia, said it is possible to decouple growth in energy use from growth in emissions.
"The solutions and pathways for decarbonising an economy like Australia's are actually fairly simple," she said.

What does transmission mean for an average household?
Professor Greig said that households alone are not the primary energy users in Australia, but to achieve a zero-emissions economy, renewable energy must be in place.
He said that when dealing with renewable energy there are three things which need to be taken into account — it requires a strong interconnected grid, a significant amount of flexible generation and storage.
The professor warns that although batteries seem like a viable option for homes, we also need to take into account potential risk factors with overheating and storage.
The last thing the country needs is another pink batts epidemic, he said.
Ms Skarbek said technology is our friend when it comes to efficiency and a lot of the appliances in our homes already consist of smart technology which can help.
A modem added to smart meters could help avoid using appliances during energy spikes, she said.
Although our carbon footprint is relatively small, making up just 1.2 per cent of the world's emissions, we still have a very important role to play — Australia needs to lead the way in the global movement, said Professor Greig.
"We have the potential to be both a world-class renewable energy user as well as operate clean energy mines," said Ms Skarbek.
The panel agreed that we should aim to be innovative and build partnerships, as global warming is not a problem Australia can face on its own.
We have an opportunity to maintain our standard of living, but the question is how we are going to have it all into the future, Ms Tyler said: otherwise the blackouts will keep going on.

Poverty: the elephant in the room
"We know climate change last year was responsible for reducing food production worldwide by about 8 per cent. That eight would have fed the world's hungry," said Ms Starbek.
There are currently 3 billion people in the world who do not have access to reasonable energy, and they only emit one tonne of carbon emissions per person each year, says Professor Greig.
He went on to say our average in Australia is 20 tonnes each, so "if they develop in any kind of similar way to us then we have lost this climate battle".
Tackling energy poverty with a clean energy solution is a battle we have not quite figured out yet but we must do so, Professor Greig says.
"It's going to come as an enormous cost to make the transition, but it's going to come to an even more enormous cost if we don't."

Links

• SA to spend $500m to take control of state's energy market
• Jay Weatherill's tirade on Josh Frydenberg a calculated move by SA Government
• Nothing 'unhinged' about Jay Weatherill's tirade against Josh Frydenberg
• SA power: Will the energy plan save households and businesses any money?