13/05/2017

Earth Could Break Through A Major Climate Threshold In The Next 15 Years, Scientists Warn

Washington Post - Chelsea Harvey

(NASA via Associated Press)
Global temperatures could exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above their preindustrial levels within the next 15 years, according to a new scientific study, crossing the first threshold under the Paris climate agreement and placing the world at a potentially dangerous level of climate change.
The report comes as climate agreement participants are watching the United States — where the Trump administration is debating whether to withdraw from the Paris accord — and as scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are working on a special report about the 1.5-degree goal (equivalent to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) and the consequences of overshooting it.
That IPCC's upcoming special report and the increasing urgency about minimizing global warming were one impetus for the study, according to co-author Benjamin Henley, a research fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia. "We are working on a number of scientific avenues to help inform that report," he told The Washington Post.
The study focuses on a natural planetary system known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO (it's also sometimes referred to as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). It's an alternating pattern of ocean temperatures that shifts periodically between warm and cool phases, helping to drive temperature and weather patterns all over the world.
During cool, or "negative," phases, tropical regions of the Pacific Ocean tend to be colder, and the global mean temperature is lower. The system is similar to the El Niño/La Niña cycle, the major difference being that phases of the IPO tend to last much longer — sometimes a decade or more. The phenomenon is believed to be a natural form of climate variability unrelated to human-caused climate change, although it does have the potential to influence the progression of global warming.
For most of the 2000s, the IPO has been in a negative phase, and scientists think its cooling effect has helped to slightly offset the effect of climate change, an explanation for the so-called global warming pause in the first part of the 21st century. As multiple studies have pointed out, this temporary slowdown is consistent with the overall long-term warming trend and in no way suggests that human-induced climate change is not occurring. Rather, this natural variation in the global climate helped to slightly blunt those effects.


Researchers say 2015 was the hottest year on record, and that it "smashed" the previous record, which was 2014. The Post's Chris Mooney explains what that could mean for weather patterns, the Paris climate deal and 2016. (Gillian Brockell, Chris Mooney/TWP)

Many scientists believe that the planet is now transitioning back into a positive, or warm, phase, which could amplify, rather than offset, human-caused climate warming. This means we could reach milestone temperature thresholds faster than we would if the IPO had remained in its negative phase.
That's the conclusion of the new study, written by Henley and Andrew King of the University of Melbourne. Using model projections of future climate warming under a business-as-usual scenario, they suggest that the Earth could hit the 1.5-degree temperature threshold as early as 2025, while the continuation of the negative phase probably would delay this event until after 2030.
The exact difference in timing depends on how we define the milestone itself, the researchers point out. We could say we've hit the threshold the first year the global mean temperature is 1.5 degrees warmer than it was during the preindustrial era, regardless of how the temperature fluctuates after that point. Or we could say it has happened when the mean temperature meets this point over the course of a five-year period or longer. Or, because global mean temperature tends to wiggle up and down a bit from one year to the next, we could say it's the point at which we cross the 1.5-degree threshold and never dip below it again.
The scientists explored all but the last scenario in their paper and found that the projected year for crossing the 1.5-degree threshold varied slightly among them. Generally, however, the models suggested it would occur between 2025 and 2029 (most likely around 2026) if the IPO shifts to a positive phase, and around 2031 if it stays in a negative phase. (They were not able to investigate the final scenario, they noted, because it probably will occur much further in the future and the number of IPO phases humans have observed since detailed record-keeping began is not sufficient to inform the model simulations required.)
"The paper emphasizes the way that natural climate variations, like the IPO, can interact with the progression of human-caused global warming," Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told The Washington Post. "Therefore, the timing of when we cross certain thresholds depends on the interplay between these two factors." Meehl was not involved with the new study but has previously published research on the IPO.
And the 2025 date for hitting the 1.5-degree temperature threshold is looking more and more likely. Multiple studies in the past few years suggest that the transition to a positive IPO phase has  begun. Henley said there's some uncertainty about whether that has happened, but other scientists are more confident. Scientists John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth, also of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, have published research to this effect, and both told The Post that we have been in a positive phase for several years now.
In fact, Trenberth and Fasullo suggested that the paper's conclusions have been generally known for some time. They also pointed out that the study has its limitations. Fasullo suggested that the various reasons given for the 1.5-degree temperature threshold are "deficient" for precisely the reason that they're sensitive to climate variations such as the IPO.
Trenberth said that the 1.5 degrees — as a single, concrete number — is "pretty irrelevant." He noted that "it is all of the other things going on when that stage is reached that really matter: the heat waves, wildfires, droughts, extreme rainfalls, etc."
It's also unclear, for now, how significant the difference between a positive and negative IPO really is in terms of what the planet would look like under either scenario. The timing difference for hitting the 1.5-degree target is only about five years. At the point when a positive IPO would cause us to cross the threshold, the researchers note that the global temperature under a negative IPO would probably be about 0.2 degrees Celsius cooler. Whether there would be a significant difference in the actual climate effects produced under these different mean temperatures is uncertain.
It's also possible that the business-as-usual scenario used in the study won't come to pass and that the Paris agreement will indeed drive down global emissions enough to push off 1.5 degrees for a longer period of time. (Overall, the accord lists a goal of staying "well below" 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.)
But the paper clearly indicates that the 1.5-degree target is fast approaching. In fact, according to Meehl, the paper underscores a point that many climate scientists have been warning about: that we're increasingly likely to blow past our climate goals, and soon. And with a potential U.S. withdrawal from the Paris accord looming, this scenario is now more likely than ever.
"Given our rapid approach, one way or another, to the 1.5-degree threshold, the most plausible way to reach it at this point looks like we would have to overshoot and attempt to come back down to it afterward with policies that would significantly reduce emissions going forward," Meehl suggested. Some scientists have proposed technology that would actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thus cooling the climate in the future, but that's a long way from being a practical solution to climate change.
"I guess the important thing is that policymakers should be aware of just how quickly we are approaching 1.5 degrees, and just realizing the urgency of reducing emissions," Henley said. "It's critical to keep pursuing the 1.5-degree goal."

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

The 2017 Budget Has Axed Research To Help Australia Adapt To Climate Change

The Conversation - Tayanah O'Donnell | Josephine Mummery

Flooding on the Coomera River near Queensland’s Gold Coast. AAP Image/Ed Jackson
The 2017 federal budget has axed funding for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), an agency that provides information to decision-makers on how best to manage the risks of climate change and sea level rise.
The NCCARF received A$50 million in 2008 to coordinate Australia’s national research effort into climate adaptation measures. That was reduced in 2014 to just under A$9 million. For 2017-18, a mere A$600,000 will be spread between CSIRO and NCCARF to support existing online platforms only. From 2018, funding is axed entirely.
This decision follows on from the 2014 streamlining of CSIRO’s Climate Adaptation Flagship, and comes at a time when a national review of Australia’s climate policies is still underway.
Despite a growing global impetus to address the risks of climate change, there is evidence that Australia is being hampered by policy inertia. A review of 79 submissions to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry on Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation, published in 2014, found that:
adaptation first and foremost requires clear governance, and appropriate policy and legislation to implement change.
Earlier this year the World Economic Forum listed “failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation” as one of the top five risks to the world, in terms of its potential impact. Meanwhile, in Australia, local governments, professionals and community groups have consistently called for more national policy guidance on how best to adapt to climate risks.
The government’s decision to slash funding for climate adaptation research is therefore at odds with the growing urgency of the problem. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most recent major assessment report, pointed out that Australia can benefit significantly from taking adaptation action in highly vulnerable sectors.
These areas of vulnerability include: the risk of more frequent and intense floods; water shortages in southern regions; deaths and infrastructure damage caused by heatwaves; bushfires; and impacts on low-lying coastal communities.
To put it simply, lives and money will be saved by strong climate adaptation measures.
Australia needs a coherent policy approach that goes beyond the current focus on energy policy, although climate adaptation is indeed an important issue for our electricity grid as well as for many other elements of our infrastructure. A coherent, whole-of-government, approach to climate risk is the economical and sensible approach in the long term.
Like it or not, the federal government has to take a leading role in climate adaptation. This includes the ongoing need to address existing knowledge gaps through well-funded research.
The federal government is the major funder of leading research in Australia, delivered through CSIRO, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Cooperative Reserach Centres, the Australian Research Council and universities. This role should not be divested. Without climate adaptation research, Australia can expect significantly higher infrastructure damage and repair costs, more death and disease, and more frequent disruption to services – much of which would be avoidable with the right knowledge and preparation.
The damage bill from the 2010-11 Queensland floods alone exceeded A$6 billion. Since 2009, natural disasters have cost the Australian government more than A$12 billion, and the private sector has begun trying in earnest to reduce its risk exposure.
In response to these known risks, there is demand for robust policy guidance. Effective partnerships between government, industry and the community are crucial. One such example led by the NCCARF is CoastAdapt, an online tool that collates details of climate risks and potential costs in coastal areas.
For projects like this, success hinges on full engagement with all relevant spheres of government, industry, research, and the community. There is more to be done, and it needs leadership at the highest level.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

Budget 2017: No Mention, No Policy, No Idea On Climate

Independent Australia - 

Not a single mention. Climate change is the biggest social, moral and political issue of our time and yet Treasurer Scott Morrison didn’t utter those words once in his entire Federal Budget speech.
(Cartoon courtesy cartoonmick.wordpress.com)
Alarm bells are ringing because the Turnbull Government seems determined to continue Tony Abbott’s environmental negligence.
This is a budget that puts big polluters ahead of the community and the air, water, forest and land that sustain us. It will be every day Australians that pay the price.
In a nutshell, the budget continues with a 14% cut in environment expenditure since the Coalition formed government in 2013; this is projected to be a 27% cut by 2020. Meanwhile, $7.6 billion have been allocated for polluting subsidies — more than six times the environment budget.
There is no climate change policy, no plan for the environment and no plan to transition the energy economy to prepare for the next century.
Astonishingly, Malcolm Turnbull still wants to give Adani a "cheap" billion dollar loan from his coal slush fund. This one loan is almost the same amount of money that our prime minister is willing to provide our nation’s rivers, reefs and forests this year. He has lost his moral compass.
The prioritisation of gas in this budget further demonstrates the Coalition's failure to recognise the need for a long-term transition plan for Australia’s energy system. Budget measures which foreshadow investment in gas infrastructure and new gas exploration mean Australia will remain shackled to fossil fuels instead of accelerating the transition to renewables.
Australians want their elected representatives to take seriously their responsibility to Australia’s reefs, rivers, people, forests and wildlife seriously. But unsurprisingly, there is a crisis of confidence in the Turnbull Government’s ability to protect nature.
New ReachTEL polling released this week and commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) shows only 40% of voters think the government has a plan. Contrary to the Turnbull Government’s actions, Australians support increased investment to protect nature (60%), want big business (67%) or polluters (76%) to foot the bill and are more likely to support parties who have a comprehensive national plan (74%).
That’s because the government spends more time barracking for a dangerous, polluting coal mine than it does for protecting our environment. Their credibility is in tatters. They’re completely out of touch with what Australians expect their elected representatives to do.
buzzfeed.com
In a nutshell, the budget continues with a 14% cut in environment expenditure since the Coalition formed government in 2013; this is projected to be a 27% cut by 2020. Meanwhile, $7.6 billion have been allocated for polluting subsidies — more than six times the environment budget.
There is no climate change policy, no plan for the environment and no plan to transition the energy economy to prepare for the next century.
Astonishingly, Malcolm Turnbull still wants to give Adani a "cheap" billion dollar loan from his coal slush fund. This one loan is almost the same amount of money that our prime minister is willing to provide our nation’s rivers, reefs and forests this year. He has lost his moral compass.
The prioritisation of gas in this budget further demonstrates the Coalition's failure to recognise the need for a long-term transition plan for Australia’s energy system. Budget measures which foreshadow investment in gas infrastructure and new gas exploration mean Australia will remain shackled to fossil fuels instead of accelerating the transition to renewables.
Australians want their elected representatives to take seriously their responsibility to Australia’s reefs, rivers, people, forests and wildlife seriously. But unsurprisingly, there is a crisis of confidence in the Turnbull Government’s ability to protect nature.
New ReachTEL polling released this week and commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) shows only 40% of voters think the government has a plan. Contrary to the Turnbull Government’s actions, Australians support increased investment to protect nature (60%), want big business (67%) or polluters (76%) to foot the bill and are more likely to support parties who have a comprehensive national plan (74%).
Here are a few results from the ReachTEL poll, published here for the first time:

Do you agree with the following statement? 'The current Federal government has a plan to protect the reefs, rivers, forests and wildlife for the current and future generations.'
Source: Australian Conservation Foundation
Currently out of a budget of $445 billion the Federal Government spends just over $1 billion on protecting reefs, rivers, forests and wildlife. In the upcoming Federal Budget would you like to see the Government spend (much more, more, the same, less, much less) on protecting nature?
Source: Australian Conservation Foundation
Would you support a proportion of company tax being spent directly on protecting Australian wildlife in danger of extinction and protecting Australia’s reefs, rivers and forests?
Source: Australian Conservation Foundation
Would you support a levy on polluting companies if funds were directly spent on protecting Australian wildlife in danger of extinction and protecting reefs, rivers and forests?
Source: Australian Conservation Foundation
Thinking about big picture solutions to the problems we have with our reefs, rivers, forests and wildlife, would you support a political party with a policy for a national plan where nature thrives?
Source: Australian Conservation Foundation
That’s because the government spends more time barracking for a dangerous, polluting coal mine than it does for protecting our environment. Their credibility is in tatters. They’re completely out of touch with what Australians expect their elected representatives to do.
Our message to Prime Minister Turnbull is pretty simple:
"The only way for you to restore your credibility on environment and climate change is to reverse environment sector cuts and develop a comprehensive national plan to protect nature and move to clean energy. There is no other solution for your leadership, or for our environment."
By choosing to prop up big polluting companies with loans and subsidies, our government is choosing not to invest in clean energy, education and creating a better future for our children and grandchildren. The government’s own State of the Environment report called for more spending on our reefs, rivers, forests and lands — not less.
Australians care about our rivers, reefs, wildlife and forests and expect governments to protect them for our children and grandchildren. They understand the value of nature in a way that the Turnbull Government doesn’t appear to do.
Polluters and big business should be made to pay for the damage they cause to the environment, not everyday Australians. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure this.

Budget 2017 and the environment:
  • No active climate change policy; no further funding for the Emissions Reduction Fund;
  • No energy transition plan;
  • No national environment protection plan;
  • No reform of the Fuel Tax Credit subsidy, which will cost Australians $6.3 billion next year and $27.1 billion to 2020;
  • No change to the aviation fuel excise concessions which subsidise the fuel of the aviation sector — will cost Australians $1.3 billion next year, $5.8 billion over the next four years;
  • The government has announced an energy package which focuses on gas and the Snowy Hydro Scheme;  
  • The government affirms its election commitment to provide a $110m of equity for a solar thermal plant in Port Augusta;
  • No further research funding for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility — it has been given $600,000 next year to work with CSIRO to maintain an online database of specific parts of its research. It has no funding after that;
  • The government has committed to funding Landcare till 2022-23 with total funding of $1 billion over the seven years. However, there is no new funding over the forward estimates above what has already been foreshadowed;
  • Nothing new in the budget on Indigenous Ranger programmes; and
  • $15 million for new Indigenous Protected Areas from existing environment funding
  • Despite the Finkel Review, the Government’s Climate Policy Review, the Vehicle Emissions Review and the completed National Energy Productivity Plan, there is no funding to address Australia’s growing climate pollution; and instead,
  • The Environment and Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg, is planning for failure, saying it is uncertain Australia can achieve net zero climate pollution by 2050.
Where's Mr Turnbull's leadership on climate change?
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

12/05/2017

Climate Change Is The Elephant In The Budget Room

Eureka Street - Francine Crimmins*

When Scott Morrison announced the 2017-18 Budget this week there was one phrase he didn't dare to utter in his meticulously written and rehearsed speech. It's just two short words, climate change, but when used together they conjure a public debate even our minister for the environment gets tongued tied over.
Morrison's omission of climate change in the federal budget has set a tone of ignorance to improving energy policy in a meaningful way. Dr Paul Burke, a fellow at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, thinks 'It shows that climate change isn't a number one priority if it's not mentioned at all in a budget speech.'
The only mention of energy security was in the wider context of pressures on the cost of living for Australians. Morrison said the Prime Minister's energy security plan will provide 'reliable and affordable energy for all Australians' and that $3 billion was already being invested in new emissions technologies.
When it comes to new funding to assist in reducing emissions — nothing to see here. Funding for the environment budget was cut 14 per cent since the Coalition formed government in 2014. Under this budget, it is predicted the cut could be up to 27 per cent by 2020.
New energy related measures in this budget include a focus on increasing gas production, taking out the most funding with $86.3 million. This sum will cover $19.6 million to increase gas market transparency and over $30 million for discovery of new potential gas stores.
On the renewable energy front, $6.2 million is going to support the Solar Communities program which supports food rescue charities and other community groups to install solar to reduce their emissions and save on energy costs. There's also $110 million being set aside for Turnbull's Snowy Hydro 2.0 and a hefty investment into a solar thermal project in Port Augusta.
In addition, the National Landcare Program will receive $5 million to support a community led project into threatened species. The Great Barrier Reef will also receive $1 billion after the worst coral bleaching season in history was reported late last year.
Despite this, it's clear an overwhelming focus in environmental funding is on exploration and harvesting of gas for Australia's future in energy. It is short sighted to place money into environmental conservation projects, such as the reef fund, without first actively attempting to treat the cause of the coral bleaching — our fossil fuel emissions.
"This lack of commitment to energy in public policy, and now national budgeting, ignores overwhelming scientific evidence that not reducing to net zero emissions by the end of the century will cause climate change levels to become extremely dangerous."
Environmental organisations on Twitter were not oblivious to the omission in the Treasurer's address. Friends of the Earth Australia tweeted: 'Like many, we're disappointed to see so little funding for the environment and no mention of climate change in the budget speech.'
The lack of attention given to climate change in this budget comes after Minister for the Environment Josh Frydenberg admitted Australia wouldn't meet its Paris commitment of zero emissions by 2020. Instead, he predicts 2050 is a more realistic target. The Energy Reduction Fund, the government's climate policy, has no new funding under this budget.
This lack of commitment to energy in public policy, and now national budgeting, ignores overwhelming scientific evidence that not reducing to net zero emissions by the end of the century will cause climate change levels to become extremely dangerous. Countries at The Paris COP21 agreed on a limit of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees by 2020. This decision was reached as a way to limit warming before it reaches a catastrophic level of 2 degrees. This promise appears to be abandoned by the Turnbull government in the most recent budget.
Australia's budget not only is a betrayal of the future of Australia's health, biodiversity and economic security, but also negligent of an international agreement which was set up to ensure a fair approach to climate for nations.

*Francine Crimmins is studying a double degree of Journalism and Creative Intelligence & Innovation at the University of Technology Sydney.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

Turnbull Lets Fig Leaf Droop And Stands Naked On Climate Policy

RenewEconomy - 

You would think that with all the hoo-ha about the scandalous increases in electricity prices that it would have rated some sort of mention in the budget. You know, one of the biggest cost inputs for business being addressed in the government’s economic centrepiece.
But no. The 2nd Morrison/Turnbull fiscal document blithely ignores the issue, despite the fact that their lack of policy direction in the last few years has been the major contributor to the price surges that are scorching household and business budgets.
There’s some pointless extra money for coal seam gas, the removal of some funds for carbon capture (finally) and some previously promised funds for solar thermal (about time), and even another thought bubble on Snowy Hydro – this time to buy it out from the state governments. See Matt Rose’s article for more details.
But there is nothing on climate change, no grand vision on energy. There are no new funds for the Direct Action policy that Turnbull had once ridiculed as a fig leaf for a climate action, and nothing on what might take Australia along the path to the pledge it signed in the Paris deal – effectively to reach zero net emissions by 2050.
As Labor’s Mark Butler noted this morning, the Coalition’s climate change policy has officially gone from that fig-leaf to a non-existent farce.
Nearly three years after celebrating the dumping the carbon price (above), slashing the RET and ignoring expert advice (CCA and the Climate Council), the Coalition government has no actual policy, on energy or climate, and its negligence is adding to the stunning rise in electricity prices it is trying to blame on everything and everyone else.
“Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister who once said he didn’t want to lead a Liberal Party that didn’t feel as strongly about climate change as he did, is now the Prime Minister who has completely dropped any pretence of attempting to combat climate change,” Butler says in his statement, noting that climate change did not rate a single mention in the Budget speech.
“As the central pillar of the Direct Action policy, the Emission Reduction Fund, runs out of funds, this budget delivers ZERO new policies or funding to drive down pollution and combat climate change. This budget allocates more new money to the Department of the House of Representatives than it does to tackling climate change.
“Budgets are about choices and priorities, and this budget makes it perfectly clear the Turnbull government isn’t choosing a safe climate because they don’t think it is a priority. This budget finally makes official what we already know; this Liberal government is failing all future generations of Australians.”
We took big slabs of Butler’s comments because we don’t think we could say it any better.
Ostensibly, the Coalition government is waiting for the results of the Finkel Review, and its own review into climate policy, or any of the other 24 different reviews whose outcomes it may find convenient.
Turnbull’s also waiting to sniff the breeze out of Washington, which is likely to be foul, and could amount to a complete withdrawal or at very least a two-fingered salute, something that his f***-you picks as head of the EPA and the energy department have all but guaranteed.
And then Turnbull has to consider the right wing of his own party, and the date in September when it will come to pass that he has served a day longer than his predecessor Tony Abbott, when we can only hope that we might see the emergence of Turnbull 2.0.
For the moment, the Coalition’s stance is untenable. It has suggested that “clean coal” might be the answer, but that idea – on both the notion that this coal might be clean or economic – has been hit out of the ball-park by all but a handful of market opportunists.
Gas is quickly being discounted too. The monies allocated for pipeline and C&G research are yet more fig leaves. Gas will play some role as a “peaking plant” and a “gap filler” over the next decade or two, but the idea of gas being a transition fuel has also been belted out of the ball-park, by the gas producers themselves.
AGL Energy says it is simply too expensive and can’t and won’t be able to compete with the stunning falls in wind, solar and battery storage technologies. Origin agrees, particularly after signing a long-term agreement to buy the output of the 530MW Stockyard Hill wind farm for just $55/MWh.
Santos is signing up for solar plants because it might be the cheapest way of freeing up more gas, which is just one small light in a gas business strategy that is based around an untenable, f*** the next generation, 4°C climate strategy.
The Finkel Review, like the CSIRO/ENA reports that preceded it, and the new thinking coming out of the Australian Energy Market Operator, and the major utilities, will likely tell us that the transition to zero net emissions is both possible, imperative, and likely to cost a lot less than most people think.
The trick will come in the policy suite that is deemed best to reach that target. One is the emissions intensity scheme, but this was largely designed as a free kick for a technology (gas) that is now longer considered necessary.
That can be solved, perhaps, with a really biting EIS, or perhaps more effectively by adopting state-style renewable energy schemes and having a managed transition through a series of auctions, the policy of choice in many other countries.
The idea that Turnbull is now considering buying out Snowy Hydro, completely, suggests the latter may be an option. Current market settings and rules clearly don’t work because the price of electricity is preposterously and unnecessarily high.
As this graph shows, the average price has more than doubled over the last year. At times, the rise has been three or four-fold, particularly when the incumbents were able to take advantage of their market power in South Australia and Queensland.
That has the single happy outcome of making distributed generation – rooftop solar and battery storage – very popular.
But as the CSIRO and the networks point out, that could have unintended consequences if power prices stay high and the technology costs of solar and storage continue to fall to the levels anticipated by South Australian Power Networks, of just 15c/kWh, or less than half of their bills.
That could cause a stampede out of the grid just at a time that the equipment installed by households and business should be harvested to add to the power and security of the grid.
As so many people are saying, this is going to require some smart technologies, and some smart policies. There is absolutely no sign of the latter from this government yet.
Then again, this budget does jettison the conservative ideology on small government. Perhaps it can also dump – with or without permission from the IPA – its antipathy on climate change, and do energy consumers a favour by accelerating, not slowing, the inevitable energy transition away from centralised fossil fuels.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

Budget 2017: Government Goes Hard On Gas And Hydro In Bid For Energy Security

The Conversation - Hugh Saddler | Alan Pears | Roger Dargaville |Tony Wood


Gas infrastructure and exploration attracted the lion’s share of new energy announcements in the 2017 federal budget. Sean Heatley/Shutterstock.com
The budget contains several measures designed to boost energy security, including:
  • A$90 million to expand gas supplies, partly through increased unconventional gas exploration
  • a potential Commonwealth buyout of an expanded Snowy Hydro scheme
  • up to A$110 million for a solar thermal plant at Port Augusta
  • monitoring of gas and electricity prices by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Below, our experts react to the measures.

Gas price problem far from solved
Roger Dargaville, Deputy Director, Melbourne Energy Institute, University of Melbourne
The budget contains a broad range of funding in energy-related areas, with a significant focus on gas resources, making A$78 million available for onshore unconventional gas exploration and reform in the gas markets, and A$7 million for studies into new gas pipelines to South Australia, from both Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
Interestingly, there is A$110 million in equity available (but not guaranteed) for a solar thermal plant in Port Augusta. And most notably, the government has proposed purchasing the Snowy Hydro Scheme from the New South Wales and Victorian governments, ensuring that the scheme stays in public hands.
The budget also includes A$13 million for CSIRO to improve energy forecasting tools, and A$8 million for the ACCC to investigate consumer energy pricing issues.
Overall, the budget highlights the government’s desire to do something about gas prices, but offers little to make a significant difference to a very difficult problem. Gas market reform and new pipelines are unlikely to reduce the exposure of the domestic market to price rises driven by international exports.
Importantly, there is little new funding in the budget directly relating to reducing carbon emissions and meeting the pledges made in the Paris Agreement (a 26-28% emission reduction relative to 2005 levels by 2030). Also noteworthy is the fact that funding for the carbon capture and storage flagship ceases in 2018-19.

‘On energy this budget is small fry’
Tony Wood, Energy Program Director, Grattan Institute
The budget does little more on energy than endorse the government’s deal with Senator Nick Xenophon on corporate tax cuts, complemented by modest commitments to energy security, more gas and better regulation.
Government facilitation of gas development and beefing up the energy capability of the Australian Energy Regulator and the ACCC are simple logic, and the one- off payment to pensioners to help with electricity bills will be welcomed by them.
Major public funding for further feasibility studies is a little more questionable. If the gas crisis can’t galvanise support from pipeline companies and gas consumers for pipelines, why would governments reach a different conclusion?
And finally, one can only speculate as to why the federal government is contemplating buying out the NSW and Victorian governments’ share of Snowy Hydro. Presumably it is because the feds are concerned about securing support for the proposed expansion.
In summary, on energy this budget is small fry ahead of major policy decisions that rest on the forthcoming Finkel Review of the National Electricity Market next month, and the climate change policy review later in the year.

The Commonwealth will look at expanding the Snowy Hydro Scheme and buying it off the states. AAP Image/Lukas Coch
A step towards radical energy reform?
Hugh Saddler, Honorary Associate Professor, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National University
Few announcements in the budget speech are more emblematic of complete policy reversal than the announcement that the Commonwealth would buy the shareholdings in Snowy Hydro Limited of the governments of NSW (58%) and Victoria (29%), to add to the 13% currently owned by the Commonwealth. This comes almost exactly 11 years after Prime Minister John Howard, responding to vociferous public opposition, pulled the plug on plans by all three governments for a public float of their entire shareholdings. What is more, Treasurer Scott Morrison has now announced that, once owned by the Commonwealth, Snowy Hydro would remain in public ownership.
This announcement of course accompanies the government’s Snowy 2.0 proposal, for a fivefold increase in the Snowy scheme’s current 500 megawatt pumped storage capacity (at Talbingo). This was used, after commissioning in 1974, to allow inflexible coal fired power stations to operate with constant output levels day and night, but is now almost never used. This presumably reflects commercial decisions by Snowy Hydro, as it trades in the National Electricity Market.
The rationale for Snowy Hydro 2.0 is to facilitate operation of a grid with a high share of renewable generation, by smoothing out variations in wind and solar supply. Does this announcement mean that the government envisages moving away from a strictly commercial approach to using the assets of the Snowy scheme? Is this a first step towards radical restructuring, or even dismantling, of the National Electricity Market?

Stronger legislation needed
Alan Pears, Senior Industry Fellow, RMIT University
The detailed A$265 million energy package includes a number of useful measures to strengthen the weak regulatory culture of the energy sector that has allowed our energy crisis to evolve. But it is still limited: strong legislative reform and active support of emerging competitors will also be needed. It is a modest investment compared with recent multibillion-dollar energy cost increases. If it is successful, it will deliver vary large net benefits to the economy by limiting energy price increases. Unfortunately, past efforts to fix the energy situation have largely failed to deliver real outcomes: we need clear objectives for outcomes, and a mechanism to implement contingency strategies if they are not achieved.
In a context of increasing urgency for stronger action on climate, and the reality that the global “burnable carbon” budget is very limited, investment to encourage more gas development seems misplaced. More emphasis on energy efficiency, renewables and smart energy systems would make much more sense. Energy efficiency already saves billions on energy costs and could save much more, while renewable energy is becoming cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. They also help to achieve our climate targets. And fossil fuels are responsible for almost three-quarters of Australian emissions, so we need strong action to meet our international obligations.
The extension of the A$20,000 tax write-off for small business spending on equipment is a measure that, at least for small businesses, offsets a significant barrier to investment in energy efficiency. Firms will also be able to continue to claim the write-off to improve the economics of investments in on-site renewable energy and storage. Of course, the problem still remains for spending over A$20,000 by small businesses, and for larger businesses.
The energy security plan, which includes funding for ACCC to police energy industry behaviour is only a small step towards fixing the disastrous failures of energy policy and a transition to a 21st century energy policy framework. Much more will need to be done.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

11/05/2017

A Parable From Down Under For U.S. Climate Scientists

New York Times - Justin Gillis

John Church in Hobart in September 2010. He is known internationally for helping to bring statistical and analytical rigor to longstanding questions about sea level rise. Peter Boyer 
HOBART, TASMANIA — John A. Church, a climate scientist, did not look or sound like a man who had recently been shoved out of a job.
Speaking softly and downing coffee at an outdoor cafe in this old port city, he sounded more like a fellow fresh off a jousting match. “I think we had a win — a bigger win than I ever anticipated,” Dr. Church said in an interview last month.
Australian climate science went through an upheaval last year, one that engaged the press and the public in defending the importance of basic research. In the end, Dr. Church did indeed lose his job, but scores of his colleagues who had been marked for layoffs did not. Some of them view him as having sacrificed his career to save theirs.
What happened in Australia shows the power of an informed citizenry keeping watch on its government. And it may turn out to be a precursor to an attack on fundamental climate research in the United States.
Australian climate science is important not just for Australia, a country of 24 million people, but for the world. Australia is the most scientifically accomplished nation in the Southern Hemisphere, which has expanses of ocean and relatively little land.
In effect, this small country is keeping an eye on half the planet for the rest of us.
Much of the necessary work is done by scientists on the payroll of the country’s principal research agency, known as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. It was within that agency that last year’s controversy unfolded.
Budgets at the agency had been under pressure for years, much as scientific budgets have been in the United States. Then in 2015, a new boss, Larry R. Marshall, took over at the behest of the conservative government, controlled by a party known here, oddly, as the Liberals, and led now by Malcolm Turnbull. (Actual liberals join the Labor Party.)
The issue can be overwhelming. The science is complicated. We get it. This is your cheat sheet.
Though Dr. Marshall is Australian, he made his name as a scientific researcher and entrepreneur in the United States. He went back to Australia with the goal of sprinkling some Silicon Valley pixie dust on the agency, doing more to turn its fundamental research into jobs and start-up companies to benefit the economy.
Studying the agency’s costs, Dr. Marshall and his aides decided that too many people were working on basic questions about the climate. If he laid off scores of them, he reasoned, he would have money to reinvest in other priorities. Those would include looking for ways to reduce emissions, and to adapt to climate changes that could no longer be avoided.
When they found out about the plan, though, the agency’s scientists were dumbfounded. They were entirely in favor of research on solutions, but the notion that basic climate monitoring and analysis could be scaled back struck them as preposterous.
While the world’s scientists have established that the planet is warming, that human activity is the main cause and that continued high emissions will pose profound risks, they are still far from having a complete understanding of the planetary climate.
When Dr. Marshall’s plan was unveiled, Australian researchers hit the panic button. Among those who swung into action was Dr. Church.
He is an oceanographer and climate scientist with decades of experience. Working from one of the research agency’s offices in Hobart, the capital of Australia’s island state of Tasmania, he had become known internationally for helping to bring statistical and analytical rigor to longstanding questions about sea level rise. With a colleague, Dr. Church was the first to establish that the rise had accelerated during the 20th century, a strong indication that the pace is linked to emissions of greenhouse gases.
He also had extensive contacts in the Australian press. Dr. Church said that by the time he reached Peter Hannam, a top environmental journalist with The Sydney Morning Herald, Mr. Hannam was already sniffing out the story of the cutbacks. Once he broke it, the situation developed into an international brouhaha.
A flood of internal documents leaked. Thousands of scientists weighed in from abroad, pleading with the Australian government to reconsider. People marched in the streets. Hearings were convened.
Dr. Church stuck his neck out farther than his colleagues. In an open letter to Dr. Marshall, he urged that the cuts be rolled back and accused his boss of being “disrespectful and insulting” toward the agency’s employees.
Trying to allay suspicion about his motives, Dr. Marshall took pains to make clear that he accepted the basic findings of climate research. The climate “absolutely is changing,” he declared before a committee of the Australian Senate. “It is changing, and we have to do something about it.”
Explaining the origins of the controversy, Dr. Marshall said in a recent telephone interview from Canberra, the national capital, “Unfortunately, with a finite funding envelope, you’ve got to make choices where you fund.”
Despite the government’s efforts to quell the controversy, the proposed layoffs became an issue last summer in a hard-fought election campaign, part of a larger argument about the perceived weakness of Australia’s climate policies.
The Liberal-led conservative coalition narrowly beat Labor, but lost seats in Parliament and returned to Canberra in a weakened position. Almost as soon as the election was over, the government partly backed down, with a new science minister, Greg Hunt, declaring that climate analysis would be a “bedrock function” of the research agency.
Originally, scores of scientists and staff members at a research center outside Melbourne had been marked for layoffs, but in the end only 20 or so left, many of them near or past retirement age. The center is now recruiting additional scientists, and may wind up larger than before the fight.
In the interview, Dr. Marshall said he wished he had communicated more effectively with the agency’s employees about the reasons for the shift in priorities. “We are a learning organization, and there are definitely things we’d do differently,” he said.
As the controversy unfolded, Dr. Church was implacable in public, but he said in our interview that he had wrestled with major doubts.
“I had sleepless nights for months,” he said. “I thought, am I doing the right thing by my colleagues? Am I looking after their positions, or am I making it worse for them and for the Australian public?”
The end, he said, came as no great shock. He was on a research ship in the middle of the Southern Ocean when the word came down that his job would not be one of those being saved.
“I’m still angry, in some sense,” he said, citing certain colleagues in the agency who he felt had not defended the integrity of science at a critical moment.
But he was able to take full retirement benefits. His reputation as a man of honor was burnished by the episode, and the University of New South Wales offered him a position that will allow him to continue his work. He expressed gratitude to that institution.
As Dr. Church and I were finishing our coffees, I noted that President Trump had offered a budget outline for the United States that, if enacted, would almost certainly require huge cuts in the basic scientific enterprise of monitoring and analyzing the climate.
Congress will have the last word after Mr. Trump presents a more detailed outline, so there is no way to know how that fight will end. But over two weekends in April, tens of thousands of Americans marched in the streets to defend science and to demand action on climate change.
That means the citizenry in the United States, just as in Australia, is alert and watching. You can bet a lot of American scientists are thinking these days about how they will respond if the government starts gutting climate research.
“I guess somebody in the United States,” Dr. Church said, “has to step out into the public and do what I did.”

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative