Using Technology To Fight Climate Change

Morgan Stanley

Entrepreneurs from around the world are creating innovations to mitigate climate-change impact from five key sectors.

While AgTech used to focus mostly on biofuels, seed genetics and water desalination, it now includes development of new technologies to reduce methane emissions from livestock—notably cattle. Morgan Stanley

A new report by Morgan Stanley’s Institute for Sustainable Investing, with The Economist Intelligence Unit, delves into five sectors closely tied to greenhouse gas emissions, and the technologies that governments, cities and companies are embracing to mitigate the impact. Here are some highlights for investors to explore in each sector.

Energy
Areas to watch:

1. Large-scale wind and solar power in the U.S., India, China and Saudi Arabia;
2. Small-scale off-grid solar where energy infrastructure is underdeveloped;
3. Efficiency technologies worldwide.

Energy consumption accounts for 35% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions,¹ and industrial expansion in emerging markets will only increase that share if opportunities for climate change mitigation technology aren’t embraced.
The good news is that the use of renewable energy has reached a global tipping point, where the price competitiveness of solar and new technologies are raising demand for clean energy sources in emerging and developed markets alike. In fact, renewables are expected to become the cheapest form of new power generation by 2020, according to recent research by Morgan Stanley.
In the U.S, the solar industry already employs more workers than coal, oil and natural gas combined,² and the solar market alone is expected to grow almost 25% per year on average through 2022, to reach $422 billion.³
Across the globe, smart-grid and Internet-of-Things technologies are making energy grids more efficient, reliable and low cost. Energy storage technology is also reaching a point where renewables can finally become a dependable source of power on electricity grids.
China far outstrips all other countries in the Index in terms of total energy consumption and emissions. Yet its government is highly focused on reducing pollution and energy emissions. The International Energy Agency forecasts that nearly 40% of total renewable power capacity growth will come from China by 2020.⁴
India’s government is also actively expanding renewables use. In 2016, the country unveiled the world’s largest solar power plant. India is now on track to become the world’s third biggest solar market in 2017,⁵ behind the U.S. and China.

Agriculture
Areas to watch:

1. Livestock methane reduction innovations;
2. Efficient seeds and crop varieties in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia;
3. Mechanization of agriculture processes to reduce livestock emissions for small-holder farms.

After years of neglect, agriculture is beginning to capture the imagination of tech entrepreneurs and offer new investment opportunities. AgTech investments reached $4.6 billion in 2015, 95% higher than in 2014.⁶ Although agriculture accounts for 13% of global greenhouse emissions,⁷ the impact is substantial in countries that rely heavily on the sector for exports. In Argentina, Australia and India, for instance, agriculture accounts for more than a third of total greenhouse gas emissions.⁸  In Bangladesh and Rwanda, where agriculture plays a dominant economic role, the sector accounts for more than half of total emissions.
While AgTech used to focus mostly on biofuels, seed genetics and water desalination, it now includes development of new technologies to reduce methane emissions from livestock—notably cattle. In Argentina, for instance, scientists are developing methane-capturing backpacks for cows. Initial results show that the backpacks can capture enough methane from one cow in a day to power a refrigerator for 24 hours.⁹
AgTech also includes new technology to sustain crop growth in regions suffering extreme weather conditions, such as Nigeria and Bangladesh.
Governments in agriculture-heavy countries are also improving the investment landscape for AgTech startups. In Australia, the government has partnered with the National Farmer Federation to create SproutX,¹⁰ an AgTech startup accelerator. In Turkey, mitigation technology development is growing, as the government sets ambitious goals to be among the top five agricultural producers in the world by 2023.¹¹ In China, India and Brazil—the three largest global agricultural emitters—the focus is on technology investments that modernize the agriculture sector and increase crop production.

Built Environment
Areas to watch:

1. Green building retrofits in major cities;
2. Vertical farming;
3. Remote sensing systems to monitor deforestation.

The built environment refers to greenhouse gas emissions that stem from the conversion of land for new agricultural, industrial and urban development—including buildings, as well as what’s referred to as “land use, land use change and forestry” (LULUCF). About 40% of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from buildings,¹² and another 10%-12% from LULUCF, which includes deforestation.¹³
Deforestation for agriculture can be a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in some emerging countries—70% in Indonesia’s case¹⁴ and 51% for Brazil.¹⁵ The latter has focused on technology to monitor and reduce the destruction of the Amazon rain forest by using remote-sensing systems that detect deforestation, and other systems to alert authorities to illegal logging. Advances in more efficient agricultural techniques, like vertical farming, can also offset deforestation emissions.
The energy-efficiency movement in buildings, meanwhile, is becoming a global business in its own right. Growth in green-building certifications—such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)—is burgeoning in developed countries, as commercial real-estate owners realize they can unlock greater returns with green buildings than with portfolios of less efficient real estate. The number of LEED-certifications in the U.S. has jumped, from 296 in 2006 to 36,300 in 2016.¹⁶ And it's not just the U.S.; Poland, for example, saw a 60% increase in green buildings from 2014 to 2015.¹⁷
New technologies move well beyond solar panels and green roofs. Energy efficiency now happens behind the scenes, with automated building management systems detecting usage patterns of lighting, heating and air conditioning. Lighting technology is also an area of opportunity, as are innovations in window insulation, which trap heat in winter and keep out the sun in summer.
The nonprofit  Business and Sustainable Development Commission estimates that energy-efficient buildings, clean vehicles, urban public transport and green building in cities could represent an opportunity of more than $1.1 trillion globally by 2030, with more than half coming from energy-efficient buildings.¹⁸

Transport
Areas to watch:

1. Growing electric vehicle demand in developed markets;
2. Public transit and biodiesel innovation in Brazil and Argentina;
3. Low-emission transport in low-income economies.

It’s been a while coming, but the transportation industry’s long-promised electric future is now within grasp. The electric vehicle market is expected to account for 75% of global car sales by 2050,¹⁹according to the International Energy Association. There are even efforts underway to create solar-panel equipped vehicles.
Tighter regulations for clean air are leading policymakers to think about transportation in new ways. Increasingly public transport is being upgraded to be more energy efficient. Initiatives to expand green public transportation will underpin strong demand for clean transport technologies in the UK as well as the U.S., according to the report.
Clean transport technology is needed most particularly in fast-growing emerging markets. In India, vehicle demand is expected to almost double by 2020.²⁰ Underpinning the demand for clean transportation in Brazil is the country’s culture of individual car ownership and a large and well-established biofuel market. Authorities are also exploring the construction of cleaner public transport in cities like Sao Paulo.²¹

Industry
Areas to watch:

1. Carbon capture and storage technologies;
2. High-efficiency industrial power generation in Bangladesh;
3. Innovations that decouple industrial production from emissions growth in advanced economies.

Corporations are increasingly taking up the battle against industrial pollution as part of their own sustainability efforts. Late last year, for instance, a conglomeration of oil companies – including Saudi Aramco, Royal Dutch Shell and BP - announced a $1 billion investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology development over the next 10 years.²²
Public outcry against industrial pollution is also driving governments in advanced and emerging economies to take action. In South Korea, the government has launched a carbon emissions trading scheme, and called for a legal framework for CCS, in spite of resistance from some industrial groups who believe the crackdown could hurt the country’s international competitiveness.²³
The biggest opportunities for tech investment in this sector lie in emerging economies, namely China and India, where the industrial sectors are expected to grow by 25% and 40%, respectively, through 2020.²⁴ This raises the urgency for innovations that reduce what are already dangerous pollution levels in both countries.
China, where air pollution is a highly political issue, has sought to position itself as a climate leader, pushing a progressive agenda, including plans to implement a cap-and-trade program in 2017.²⁵ In its most recent five-year plan, China announced that it would seek to reduce factory emissions by 25%.²⁶
Meanwhile, India’s government has targeted a 20% reduction in the country’s emissions by 2020,²⁷after its air pollution levels surpassed even China’s in 2016.²⁸ Indian corporations have also embraced clean-air tech innovations. In early 2017, for example, a plant in Tuticorin, southern India, installed technology that captures and converts carbon dioxide from its coal-powered boiler into baking soda. This is the first industrial-scale carbon capture venture that has turned carbon emissions into a commercial opportunity.²⁹

Links

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data”
2. Combined”, EcoWatch, 17 January 2017
   Dana Varinksy, “Solar-energy jobs are growing 12 times as fast as the US economy”, Business Insider, 26 January 2017
3. Allied Market Research, “Solar Energy Market by Technology (Photovoltaic Cells and Concentrated Solar Power Systems), Solar Module (Monocrystalline, Polycrystalline, Cadmium Telluride, Amorphous Silicon Cells, and Others), Generation (First, Second, and Third), and Application (Agriculture & Horticulture, Architecture, Transportation, and Others) - Global Opportunity Analysis & Industry Forecast, 2014-2022”, February 2017
4. International Energy Agency, “Renewables to lead world power market growth to 2020”, 2 October 2015
5. “India unveils the world's largest solar power plant”, Aljazeera, 30 November 2016
6. Sara Menker, “Planting Dollars: The Growing Pace of Global Investment in Agriculture”, 30 August 2016 
7. Stephen Russell,“Everything You Need to Know About Agricultural Emissions”, World Resources Institute,29 May 2014
8. The Economist Intelligence Unit calculation from CAIT Climate Data Explorer and FAO
9. AgWeb, “Could Less Gassy Livestock Be a Cash Cow?”
10. “Australia’s first national agtech innovation hub SproutX launches to transform agricultural industry”, Startup Daily, September 2016
11. Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Investment Support and Promotion Agency, “Food and Agriculture in Turkey,” March 2014
12. The Economist Intelligence Unit, “Energy efficiency and energy savings: A view from the building sector,” 2012
13. Economist Intelligence Unit calculation from CAIT Climate Data Explorer and FA
14. “Forests and Landscapes in Indonesia”, World Resources Institute
15. Claudia Azevedo-Ramos, “Sustainable development and challenging deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: the good, the bad and the ugly”, FAO
16. Statista, “Statistics and Facts about the U.S. Green Building Industry”
17. Colliers International, “Green Buildings in Poland 2015: Certification in Numbers”, 2015
18. “Valuing the SDG Prize in Cities: Unlocking Business Opportunities to Accelerate Sustainable and Inclusive Growth”, Business and Sustainable Development Commission, November 2016
19. Anthony Eggert, “The Clean Transport Revolution”, Climate Works, 7 June 2016
20. EIU Forecast.
21. Prefeitura de Sao Paulo, “Law Number 14933”, 5 June 2009
    Ari Phillips, “Electric Buses Being Tested Around The World, Pleasing Passengers And The Environment”, 19 March 2014
22. Jess Shankleman and Rakteem Katakey, “Big Oil to Invest $1 Billion in Carbon-Capture Technology”, Bloomberg, 4 November 2016
23. Ned Stafford, “Emissions trading scheme faces industry skepticism in South Korea”, Chemistry World, 6 January 2015
24. The Economist Intelligence Unit forecast
25. Tom Phillips, “China's Xi Jinping says Paris climate deal must not be allowed to fail”, The Guardian, 18 January 2017
26. Barbara Finamore, “Tackling Pollution in China's 13th Five Year Plan: Emphasis on Enforcement”, NRDC, 11 March 2016
27. Chelsea Harvey, “Air pollution in India is so bad that it kills half a million people every year”, The Washington Post, 11 may 2016
28. Chelsea Harvey, “Air pollution in India is so bad that it kills half a million people every year”, The Washington Post, 11 may 2016
29. Roger Harrabin, “Indian firm makes carbon capture breakthrough”, The Guardian, 4 January 2017

A Shift To Clean Energy Will Come But Politics Remain Vile Until The Next Election

The Guardian - Simon Holmes à Court*

The Coalition is fighting battles against each other, the opposition, consumers, facts and future. It can’t end well for them or for us

Energy minister Josh Frydenberg and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull during question time in the house of representatives in parliament house, Canberra 12 September 2017. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

In a mid-January op-ed, former prime minister Tony Abbott gushed about Australia’s bountiful “clean coal”. I fired off an email to Abbott’s office asking for more information about this promising new form of coal — I mean, if “clean coal” exists, all our problems are solved, right?
After sending nine polite emails over four months, all unanswered, I called Abbott’s office and spoke to a lovely, yet understandably haggard, office manager, who explained that the former prime minister’s priority was his Warringah electorate. I asked if I could speak with his energy advisor and was told that, as a backbencher, Tony Abbott doesn’t have the luxury of an energy advisor.
A further five emails were ignored, and I reached the conclusion that many start with — Tony Abbott is not interested in rational discussion about energy, instead preferring to lob home-made logic bombs and run.
In an echo of the “cultural cringe”, still alive and well in Abbott’s circles presumably, the “member for Warringah” — apparently too busy with local constituent issues to discuss his nationally published opinions — flew to London to deliver the annual address at a climate-science denial thinktank and in the process launch a missile directly at its intended target, the Australian energy debate.
Abbott’s speech is arguably the most ideological contribution to our energy debate yet, a mixture of historical revisionism (facts and consistency irrelevant), homage to the “triumph of the Western liberal order” and an expression of deep regret for the emergence of a “post-Christian nostalgia” akin to goat sacrifice by “primitive people”. Almost every sentence is outrageous and one could dissect every one of them in an attempt to set the record straight. That, however, would be entirely missing the point.
Abbott’s bomb — designed to shock and destroy, not contribute — landed right on target. In a week when energy minister Josh Frydenberg tried to reassure us that “the good news is that we have learned the lessons of the past, we know where we are going and we have a comprehensive plan to get there”, never has it been more apparent that the Coalition has learnt nothing, has no idea where it is going and literally has no plan.
The biggest news of the week is not Abbott’s speech, but the message it underscored: that the clean energy target (CET) is dead.
For a brief moment in June there was hope that the Coalition and Labor might find a common ground through chief scientist professor Alan Finkel’s technology agnostic proposal to solve the energy trilemma — affordable, reliable and lower-emissions electricity. In the intervening period the Coalition has decided energy will be where they find their point of difference with ”blackout Bill’s” Labor as we gear up for a prolonged campaign into the next federal election.
Frydenberg’s signalling on Monday confirmed that the chance of bipartisan energy legislation passing before the next election just went to zero. Without long term, stable energy policy, renewable investment will slow, the fossil fuel power investment strike will stretch into its second decade and the unsolved trilemma will bite deeper.
Frydenberg and Turnbull both understand the energy system and they know that Finkel got it basically right, yet a backbench with abysmal energy literacy and extraordinary power has given them no choice but to drop the Finkel plan, even before an alternative has been put on the table.
Sometime soon Frydenberg will deliver an “energy investment framework”. Nothing can come of it while the world view of the backbench — currently more powerful than cabinet — is based on a couple of great big lies.
The first is the misconception that renewable energy is heavily subsidised, based on gross miscalculations (misinformation?) driven hard by Australia’s “merchants of doubt”, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Institute of Public Affairs. While there’s now a chorus demanding the end of “renewable subsidies”, few understand that major renewables projects (including two wind farms totalling 980 MW) are now being contracted with an effective subsidy of $0.
Far from no longer being needed, the renewable energy target provides the impetus for retailers to write long term purchase contracts, essential to securing project finance. For an increasing number of projects, the RET costs retailers literally nothing; in fact every expert analysis, including the centrepiece of Abbott’s Warburton review, shows the RET lowers costs of capital and introduces cheaper energy into the market to the consumer’s benefit.
For all the same reasons, the CET would enable a lower cost and more orderly energy transition than relying solely on extreme prices to new signal investment.
The second major misconception is that we have a major reliability problem caused by renewable energy. We don’t. South Australia did have a state-wide blackout a little over a year ago. The wind energy that shut down the grid was not wind turbines, but a series of tornados that toppled 22 pylons. Protection equipment kicked into action, yes, some of it at wind farms, and disconnected enough of the grid for it to “collapse”. The reasons behind the collapse are of great interest to power system engineers, but it was the failure of the generators contracted to restart the grid in this eventuality that impacted South Australians the most. Even with massive network damage and failure of emergency procedures, service was restored to many households in just three hours.
But what of all the other blackouts in South Australia? Apart from a transmission line failure in December, storm damaged power lines after Christmas, gas generators that sat idle when needed to run in February — all minor incidents blown out of proportion to suit a narrative — reliability in SA has been the same as elsewhere in Australia: excellent.
Try telling a Coalition MP that we don’t have a reliability crisis and they’ll laugh in your face. Presumably none are aware that the Australian Energy Market Operator announced earlier this week that the hole left by Hazelwood’s closure has been filled. We’re entering summer better prepared than at any other time in history.
As long as the backbench’s grasp on the facts is so poor, they will keep fighting a battle they can’t win.
Renewable energy is wildly popular with the public. 20% of all Australian households have installed solar on their rooftops — the highest in the world — and the pace of installation is only increasing. Poll after poll shows that Australians, regardless of their political stripes, want more renewables.
Yet, oddly, renewable energy would appear to have no friends in the Coalition. Even among the many in Abbott’s party room who can’t stand the man – who within the party has stuck their neck out to counter his lies?
We won’t see another coal fired power station built in Australia. Anyone who believes it’s going to happen doesn’t comprehend the economic, engineering and political barriers that stand in the way. Now that the economic case has been won, the shift to clean energy is locked in; however, it is now certain that politics will remain vile through to the next election and beyond.
It is almost as if the Coalition is planting landmines in front of their own army — this cannot end well for them, or for Australia. As a young, ambitious minister, Frydenberg must be praying daily for a reshuffle.
On energy, the Coalition is fighting battles on many fronts — against each other, the opposition, consumers, the facts and the future.
Renewable energy has won the war, but it has yet to win the peace.

*Simon Holmes à Court is senior advisor to the Energy Transition Hub at Melbourne University

Links

• Tony Abbott says climate change is 'probably doing good'
• 'Climate change is real': energy minister hits out at Tony Abbott
• Energy policy would not be that hard if the government wasn’t hamstrung by ideologues
• A shift to clean energy will come but politics remain vile until the next electionTony Abbott dares us to reject evidence on climate, but reveals a coward
• Tony Abbott's climate change speech 'loopy', says Labor
• Tony Abbott's climate frolic is strange and sad – and all about politics
• Australian cities to have 50C summer days by 2040, study says

Liberal Statesman Tells Malcolm Turnbull To Stand And Fight Tony Abbott On Climate

Fairfax - Mark Kenny

A former Liberal leader has urged Malcolm Turnbull to defy Tony Abbott in the party room over climate and energy policy, saying that by "drawing a line in the sand" he could deliver better policy and save his prime ministership.
In a searing assessment of the Coalition's chances of recovery, John Hewson told Fairfax Media that Mr Turnbull looked weak for failing to assert his past commitments on climate change, tax policy and marriage equality, and for refusing to call out Mr Abbott despite the growing absurdity of his arguments.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Photo: Andrew Meares

Dr Hewson cited Mr Abbott's claim this week that global warming could be good for the world saying the statement had laid bare the former prime minister's role as a wrecker while further isolating him from mainstream Australian voters.
He said Mr Abbott had adopted every position on climate change from "it being a significant issue to being crap".

Former Liberal leader John Hewson (pictured centre) says Malcolm Turnbull needs to stand up to Tony Abbott in the party room.  Photo: Andrew Meares

"In those circumstances, I'd call him out," he said.

But he said while Mr Turnbull failed to implement a proper policy that drove new energy investment it would be Mr Abbott's attention-grabbing statements from the conservative right that would define the government to voters.
"It's a bit ironic but they [voters] elect governments to take the hard decisions and when you don't take them you look really weak," he said.
But a senior minister defended the Prime Minister's restrained handling of the Abbott-led climate insurgency, saying the policy, which is expected to go before cabinet within days or weeks, would aim to deliver reliability, affordability and to achieve emissions reductions consistent with Australia's Paris commitment as a by-product.

Former Liberal leader John Hewson. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

It was suggested that the policy, likely to adopt a hybrid approach, could even land in a political "sweet spot" by forcing Mr Abbott to choose between falling in behind it, or perhaps voting with Labor in opposing it.
Labor has floated the idea of backing a clean energy target but is unlikely to support a policy that falls short of that mechanism.
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg hinted that the government will sidestep the final outstanding recommendation from chief scientist Alan Finkel for a clean energy target, in favour of a clutch of other measures.
However, Dr Hewson believes Mr Abbott is not Mr Turnbull's biggest problem, which is more the Prime Minister's reluctance to openly confront his predecessor.
He said Mr Turnbull should draw a line in the sand in the full knowledge that adopting a progressive clean energy target would spark a reaction from Mr Abbott and his small coterie of supporters.
He said Mr Abbott would "make a bit of noise" and there would be "a few that would back him", but ultimately mainstream voters would applaud a Prime Minister who stood up for his beliefs.
Dr Hewson said the alternative facing Mr Turnbull was to accept that his government would be defined as much by Mr Abbott as himself.
"How long do you want to sit back and be beaten up, because that's what Abbott's doing," he told Fairfax Media.
"Abbott's taking every opportunity, you know, day in, day out, to undermine Turnbull, it doesn't really matter what the issue is."
Dr Hewson who unsuccessfully led the Coalition to the 1993 election, said voters wanted to believe in the Turnbull government but needed to see the Prime Minister stand up to critics and stand up for its principles.
"It's time for Malcolm to just take a stand and I think the electorate is looking for him to show leadership on so many issues. I think the the electorate would cut him a lot of slack for doing so," he said.
Addressing a climate sceptics meeting in London on Monday, Mr Abbott railed against climate change dogma, suggesting it had done more harm to the world than global warming itself, which was probably a net benefit because more people died from cold snaps than heatwaves.
A former close ally of Mr Abbott, Mr Frydenberg rounded on his former boss's London comments.
"We take our advice from the scientific experts. We believe we need to reduce our emissions. That is why Tony Abbott signed up to the Paris agreement. I point out that, at the time, Tony Abbott said that the agreement Australia struck at Paris was a definite commitment and that it was economically responsible and environmentally responsible. They were Tony Abbott's words," he said.
But while Mr Turnbull was being urged to stand up to Mr Abbott, another longstanding MP, speaking on background, said Mr Abbott had a right to speak out because there was a multiplicity of views on climate change across the party and the community, and because, "there is always going to be a response when you tear down a first-term prime minister".

Links

• Tony Abbott says climate change 'could be beneficial' because people die in the cold
• 'I've learnt to speak my mind': 10 excerpts from Tony Abbott's climate change speech in London 
• Transcript Of The Hon. Tony Abbott MP, Address To The Global Warming Policy Foundation, Westminster, London
• Why Tony Abbott looks forward to global warming: more beach days
• Once bitten, twice shy: why Malcolm Turnbull is cornered on climate change

'Well, Climate Change Is Real': Josh Frydenberg Reminds Tony Abbott He Signed Paris Deal

Fairfax - James Massola

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg has pointedly reminded Tony Abbott that "climate change is real", and that it was the former prime minister's decision to sign Australia up to the Paris climate change deal.
Mr Frydenberg has been politically close to Mr Abbott throughout his career, including a stint as the former prime minister's parliamentary secretary. Like fellow cabinet ministers Peter Dutton and Mathias Cormann, he remained loyal to Mr Abbott until the end of his leadership but has since wholeheartedly backed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Abbott shut down over climate comments
After saying global warming was a good thing because more people die in the cold, the former PM has been rebuked by Energy minister Josh Frydenberg.

Mr Abbott delivered a major speech in London on Monday in which he suggested the science of climate change was not settled and that Australia's decision to sign up to the Paris climate deal was "a compromise based on the advice that we could achieve it largely through efficiencies, without additional environmental imposts".
The former prime minister has also questioned the value of the Paris deal in recent months and suggested Australia's commitment to reduce its emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030 against 2005 levels was only aspirational.
In a sign of the growing frustration within the Liberal Party at Mr Abbott's frequent interventions over energy policy and other issues, Mr Frydenberg delivered a sharp response to the former prime minister on Wednesday.
"Well, climate change is real. We take our advice from the scientific experts. We believe we need to reduce our emissions. That is why Tony Abbott signed up to the Paris agreement. I point out that, at the time, Tony Abbott said that the agreement Australia struck at Paris was a definite commitment and that it was economically responsible and environmentally responsible. They were Tony Abbott's words," he said.
"I am not going to run a commentary on Tony Abbott's speech other than to say we have firm commitments we agreed to at Paris. The government will meet, and Australia will meet those commitments, just as we be at our first Kyoto target, just as we're on track to beat our 2020 target."
Mr Frydenberg ducked questions about whether the former prime minister should dial back his frequent contributions to public debate on the clean energy target; however, his reminder that it was in fact Mr Abbott who signed up to the Paris deal will be understood as a rebuke to Mr Abbott.

Josh Frydenberg with then prime minister Tony Abbott in 2015.  Photo: Andrew Meares

Mr Turnbull echoed Mr Frydenberg's comments on Wednesday, also pointing out that Mr Abbott had made the decision to sign up to the Paris accord and that ​"indeed, as Mr Abbott said at the time, Australia is a nation that when it makes international commitments of this kind, keeps them".
Political allies and friends of the former leader on the backbench went to ground on Tuesday following the incendiary speech to the sceptic Global Warming Policy Forum in London.

Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last month.  Photo: Andrew Meares

Links

• Tony Abbott's 'loopy' climate change speech privately funded
• Abbott allies go to ground, Labor lashes 'loopy' Lib following speech
• Coalition's climate credibility strained by Tony Abbott's frolic
• Once bitten, twice shy: why Malcolm Turnbull is cornered on climate change
• Why Tony Abbott looks forward to global warming: more beach days
• Tony Abbott's climate change speech in London reveals his true self
• Tony Abbott speech: Allies go to ground and Labor lashes 'loopy' ex-PM over climate change views
• Tony Abbott says climate change is 'probably doing good'
• 50-degree days possible for Sydney, Melbourne: research
• How 'unprecedented' early season heat baked Australia

Expert Views Make Way For Political Expediency In Climate Debate

Fairfax - Nicole Hasham

The patient's vital signs are not good. Power prices are high, and emissions haemorrhaging. Reliability and security of supply are in doubt. We need a treatment plan, and fast.
Such was the diagnosis of the national electricity market on Monday by Australia's chief scientist Alan Finkel, the man whose blueprint to improve the system was supposed to take the politics out of energy policy. So, how's that working out?

A Clean Energy Target would help make sure that as ageing coal-fired power plants are retired, there is enough investment in renewables to replace them. Photo: Simon O'Dwyer

The answer is, pretty poorly. In his speech to the National Energy Summit on Monday, Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg gave the strongest hint yet that the prospect of any clean energy target was dead and buried, claiming the falling cost of renewable energy meant the subsidies were no longer necessary.
Cue the cycle of politicking and tail-chasing that has wasted more than a decade of Australian climate policy, frustrating the business community and leaving the public wondering: is any leader capable of stopping the bleeding?

Dr Alan Finkel insisted on Monday that Australia still needs a clean energy target. Photo: Ben Rushton

Let's be clear. Dr Finkel is Australia's top scientist. He spent six months working on the report. His expert panel consulted widely, visiting regulators and operators in Europe and the United States and commissioning a review of best practices from the International Energy Agency.
His call for a clean energy target wasn't without critics: less politically palatable options, such as an emissions intensity scheme, are widely thought to be a better way to cut emissions.
But Dr Finkel's brief prevented such a finding, and Australia needs policies to encourage renewables. So a clean energy target is better than nothing, as long as it is strong enough to meet Australia's commitments under the Paris climate deal.
The measure would build on the current renewable energy target, and help make sure that as ageing coal-fired power plants are retired, there is enough investment in renewables to replace them.

In a speech to the National Energy Summit on Monday, Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg gave the strongest hint yet that the Clean Energy Target was dead and buried. Photo: Ben Rushton

Dr Finkel, calm and armed with the facts, insisted on Monday that Australia still needs a clean energy target.
He says a massive drop in the price of renewables would mean the price of renewable energy certificates under the scheme would also fall, so the cost to electricity retailers, and their customers, would be minimal.
And a few years down the track, a government could increase the slope of the emissions reduction trajectory, having shown itself capable of managing the introduction of renewables without the sky falling in.
But in this erratic policy climate, the considered view of experts comes a far second to political expediency.
It was a Coalition government that in 1998 created the Australian Greenhouse Office, the world's first government agency dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Six years later the same government dismantled it.
In 2007 the Labor government created a Department of Climate Change. In 2013 it too was scrapped.
And of course, Australia became the first nation to undo legislated action on climate change, when the Abbott government repealed the Gillard government's carbon price (as well as slashing the renewable energy target and trying to abolish government agencies supporting the renewables sector).
Labor says it will support a clean energy target. Research shows a majority of Australians support it, and the business community is crying out for the investment certainty it would bring.
But a dogged rump of hard-right conservatives opposed to the target has Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull by the collar.
Dr Finkel on Monday urged Australia to start its treatment regime and take the "red pill" – an orderly transition to a cleaner energy market, which starts with the clean energy target.
Let's hope the government's response is one we can swallow.

Links

• Chief Scientist makes last ditch plea for clean energy target
• Josh Frydenberg hints the government could back away from clean energy target
• Shorten pledges to overhaul energy market and renewable investment rules
• Back to the future as old climate battlelines re-emerge
• Shorten pledges to overhaul energy market and renewable investment rules
• Climate crunch: Australia to fail on Paris commitments without massive renewable switch
• Tony Abbott says dumping clean energy target would help Coalition win election
• Alan Finkel urges Turnbull to adopt clean energy target before states act
• Turnbull rejects efforts to ‘dumb down’ energy debate into renewables v coal
• Greens warn Labor not to do clean energy deal that protects coal power
• Coalition's Finkel response won't rule out new coal power stations, PM says
• Barnaby Joyce: I'll support a clean energy target – if coal is included
• Malcolm Turnbull leaves open alternative to clean energy target after internal criticism
• 'Too early to say' if Coalition will back clean energy target, Frydenberg says
• BlueScope Steel backs low emissions target as way to achieve energy balance
• Power prices will soar if energy policy doesn't change, Frydenberg warns
• Berejiklian to extend coalmine
• Shorten’s green jobs vision
• No surprise over CET end

E.P.A. Announces Repeal Of Major Obama-Era Carbon Emissions Rule

New York Times - Lisa Friedman | Brad Plumer

Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. chief, at the White House in June. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times 

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced on Monday that it would take formal steps to repeal President Barack Obama’s signature policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, setting up a bitter fight over the future of America’s efforts to tackle global warming.
At an event in eastern Kentucky, Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said that his predecessors had departed from regulatory norms in crafting the Clean Power Plan, which was finalized in 2015 and would have pushed states to move away from coal in favor of sources of electricity that produce fewer carbon emissions.
“The war on coal is over,” Mr. Pruitt said. “Tomorrow in Washington, D.C., I will be signing a proposed rule to roll back the Clean Power Plan. No better place to make that announcement than Hazard, Kentucky.”
The repeal proposal, which will be filed in the Federal Register on Tuesday, fulfills a promise President Trump made to eradicate his predecessor’s environmental legacy. Eliminating the Clean Power Plan makes it less likely that the United States can fulfill its promise as part of the Paris climate agreement to ratchet down emissions that are warming the planet and contributing to heat waves and sea-level rise. Mr. Trump has vowed to abandon that international accord.
It also is a personal triumph for Mr. Pruitt, who as Oklahoma attorney general helped lead more than two dozen states in challenging the rule in the courts. In announcing the repeal, Mr. Pruitt made many of the same arguments that he had made for years to Congress and in lawsuits: that the Obama administration exceeded its legal authority in an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. (Last year, the Supreme Court blocked the rule from taking effect while courts assessed those lawsuits.) A leaked draft of the repeal proposal asserts that the country would save $33 billion by not complying with the regulation and rejects the health benefits the Obama administration had calculated from the original rule.
Coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants are responsible for about one-third of America’s carbon dioxide emissions. When the Clean Power Plan was unveiled in 2015, it was expected to cut power sector emissions 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005. While many states are already shifting away from coal power for economic reasons, experts say scrapping the rule could slow that transition.
Environmental groups and several states plan to challenge the repeal proposal in federal courts, arguing against Mr. Pruitt’s move on both scientific and economic grounds.
Industry groups cheered the announcement, but have also indicated that they would prefer that Mr. Pruitt replace the Clean Power Plan with a new, more modest regulation on power plants in order to blunt any court challenges. The E.P.A. is still required to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions because of a 2009 legal opinion known as the endangerment finding.
“We have always believed that there is a better way to approach greenhouse gas emissions reductions,” Karen A. Harbert, the president of the Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, said in a statement. “We welcome the opportunity for business to be at the table with the E.P.A. and other stakeholders to develop an approach that lowers emissions, preserves America’s energy advantage and respects the bounds of the Clean Air Act.”

How does Trump plan to roll back the Clean Power Plan?
In order to regulate pollution from existing power plants, the E.P.A. has to set goals for each state based on what is technically feasible and cost-effective. Under the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration set targets by assuming utilities could improve the efficiency of their coal plants, shift from coal to cleaner natural gas and add more renewable energy to their grids.
But Mr. Obama’s approach was controversial, because the E.P.A. assumed utilities could reduce emissions at individual plants by taking actions outside of those plants — say, by replacing coal plants with wind farms elsewhere. Industry groups and more than two dozen states challenged this move in court, arguing that the E.P.A. can look only at cleanup measures that can be undertaken at the plants themselves.
Mr. Pruitt is proposing to repeal the Clean Power Plan on this basis. He also argued that the Obama administration overstated the benefits of its rule by factoring in the gains from curbing global warming in other countries as well as from reducing harmful air pollutants other than carbon dioxide.
If Mr. Pruitt does end up pursuing a replacement rule, it would almost certainly be confined to inside-the-fenceline measures, like upgrading coal-plant boilers. Previous E.P.A. analyses found that such upgrades would lead to a roughly 4 percent increase in efficiency at coal plants.

What does this mean for emissions?
While the repeal of the Clean Power Plan offers a reprieve for America’s coal industry, it is unlikely to halt the decline of coal altogether. Even in the absence of the rule, many utilities around the country have opted to shift to natural gas, wind and solar, driven by cost concerns and state-level policies. Many states, like California and New York, are already moving ahead of the targets set by the Clean Power Plan as they develop their own climate policies.

Document

The Trump Administration’s Proposal to Repeal the Clean Power Plan
The Trump administration will file a proposal in the Federal Register to repeal the Clean Power Plan, arguing that the Obama administration exceeded its legal authority in an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. OPEN Document

Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, a Democrat, noted that his state has plans to exceed the goals that had been set under the Clean Power Plan because the state is closing coal plants early and developing jobs in wind and other renewables.
“We have dramatically cleaner air and we are saving money. My question to the E.P.A. would be, ‘Which part of that don’t you like?’ ” Mr. Hickenlooper said.
A new analysis by the research firm Rhodium Group estimated that United States electricity emissions are currently on track to fall 27 to 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, roughly in the range of what the Clean Power Plan originally envisioned, even if the regulation is repealed.
But John Larsen, the author of the Rhodium Group analysis, estimated that if Mr. Obama’s policies had remained in place, as many as 21 states would have had to make deeper reductions than they are currently expected to do without the rule — including Texas, West Virginia, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and emissions most likely would have fallen further than the 32 percent originally envisioned.
“So for certain states,” Mr. Larsen wrote, “today’s announcement is a big deal.”
Experts also note that the Clean Power Plan would have prevented a rebound in coal use in case natural gas unexpectedly became more expensive or various policies to promote renewable energy were blunted. The repeal comes on the heels of a proposal by the Department of Energy to subsidize coal and nuclear plants by revamping electricity markets.
Jody Freeman, director of the environmental law program at Harvard Law School, said the Energy Department proposal combined with the Clean Power Plan repeal signals the Trump administration is putting its thumb on the scale in favor of fossil fuels.
“You see a pretty powerful message. Disavow any effort to control greenhouse gases in the power sector, and instead, intervene in the market to promote coal. It’s a wow,” she said.

What happens next?
Mr. Pruitt’s proposal for repeal will now have to go through a formal public-comment period before being finalized, a process that could take months. Mr. Pruitt will also ask the public for comment on what a replacement rule should look like, but the E.P.A. has not offered a timeline.
Environmental groups and Democratic-controlled states are expected to challenge these moves on multiple fronts.
“Every step of this, from the repeal to the replacement, will involve a lot of time-consuming litigation, and we could ultimately see this end up in the Supreme Court,” said Richard L. Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University.
That raises the question of whether the Trump administration can craft and finalize a replacement rule by the 2020 election. Failure to do so, some industry groups worry, could allow a new administration to start over and impose a more stringent climate plan on power plants.
Partly for that reason, many states are already preparing for the prospect of tougher carbon regulations down the road.
Consider Arkansas, one of the states that challenged the Clean Power Plan in court. Ted J. Thomas, the chairman of the Arkansas Public Service commission, says that his state is nonetheless in the process of shifting from coal to cheaper natural gas. The initial rule also convinced the state to start exploring clean-energy options, like expanding wind power, promoting the use of smart meters, and developing a working group to look at carbon capture technology for coal plants.
“Even if they repeal the Clean Power Plan, or replace it with something that doesn’t require us to do very much, you still have to reckon with the fact that ultimately regulations on carbon are coming,” Mr. Thomas said. “So we need to develop options to deal with that other than sticking our heads in the sand and hoping we can just file lawsuits forever.”
“You can either be prepared or unprepared,” he added, “and that’s a pretty simple choice.”

Links

• Trump Takes a First Step Toward Scrapping Obama’s Global Warming Policy
• Trump Wants to Repeal Obama’s Climate Plan. The Next Fight: Its Replacement
• Scott Pruitt Is Carrying Out His E.P.A. Agenda in Secret, Critics Say
• What to Know About Trump’s Order to Dismantle the Clean Power Plan

After The Storm: How Political Attacks On Renewables Elevates Attention Paid To Climate Change

The Conversation - David Holmes

AAP/David Mariuz

This time last year, Australia was getting over a media storm about renewables, energy policy and climate change. The media storm was caused by a physical storm: a mid-latitude cyclone that hit South Australia on September 29 and set in train a series of events that is still playing itself out.
The events include:

• an extraordinary attack on renewables by federal government ministers;
• a steadfast pushback by the South Australian government to continue its renewables roll-out;
• the offer of tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to build the largest battery storage facility in the world in South Australia and;
• the Finkel Review.

In one sense, the Finkel Review was a response to the government’s concerns about “energy security”. But it also managed to successfully respond to the way energy policy had become a political plaything, as exemplified by the attacks on South Australia.
New research on the media coverage that framed the energy debate that has ensued over the past year reveals some interesting turning points in how Australia’s media report on climate change.
While extreme weather events are the best time to communicate climate change – the additional energy humans are adding to the climate is on full display – the South Australian event was used to attack renewables rather than the carbonisation of the atmosphere. Federal MPs hijacked people’s need to understand the reason for the blackout “by simply swapping climate change with renewables”.
However, the research shows that, ironically, MPs who invited us to “look over here” at the recalcitrant renewables – and not at climate-change-fuelled super-storms – managed to make climate change reappear.
The study searched for all Australian newspaper articles that mentioned either a storm or a cyclone in relation to South Australia that had been published in the ten days either side of the event. This returned 591 articles. Most of the relevant articles were published after the storm, with warnings of the cyclone beforehand.
Some of the standout findings include:

• 51% of articles were about the power outage and 38% were about renewables, but 12% of all articles connected these two.
• 20% of articles focused on the event being politicised by politicians.
• 9% of articles raised climate change as a force in the event and the blackouts.
• 10% of articles blamed the blackouts on renewables.
• Of all of the articles linking power outages to renewables 46% were published in News Corp and 14% were published in Fairfax.
• Narratives that typically substituted any possibility of a link to climate change, included the “unstoppable power of nature” (18%), failure of planning (5.25%), and triumph of humanity (5.6%).

Only 9% of articles discussed climate change. Of these, 73% presented climate change positively, 21% were neutral, and 6% negative. But, for the most part, climate change was linked to the conversation around renewables: there was a 74% overlap. 36% of articles discussing climate change linked it to the intensification of extreme weather events.
There was also a strong correlation between the positive and negative discussion of climate change and the ownership of newspapers.
The starkest contrast was between the two largest Australian newspaper groups. Of all the sampled articles that mentioned climate change, News Corp was the only group to has a negative stance on climate change (at 50% of articles), but still with 38% positive. Fairfax was 90% positive and 10% neutral about climate change.

Positive/negative stance of articles covering climate change by percentage.

Given that more than half of all articles discussed power outages, the cyclone in a sense competed with renewables as a news item. Both have a bearing on power supply and distribution. But, ironically, it was renewables that put climate change on the news agenda – not the cyclone.
Of the articles discussing renewables, 67% were positive about renewables with only 33% “negative” and blaming them for the power outages.
In this way, the negative frame that politicians put on renewable energy may have sparked debate that was used to highlight the positives of renewable energy and what’s driving it: reduced emissions.
But perhaps the most interesting finding is the backlash by news media against MPs’ attempts to politicise renewables.
19.63% of all articles in the sample had called out (mainly federal) MPs for politicising the issue and using South Australians’ misfortune as a political opportunity. This in turn was related to the fact that, of all the articles discussing renewables, 67% were positive about renewables with only 33% supporting MPs’ attempts to blame them for the power outages.
In this way, while many MPs had put renewables on the agenda by denigrating them, most journalists were eager to cover the positive side of renewables.
Nevertheless, the way MPs sought to dominate the news agenda over the storm did take away from discussion of climate science and the causes of the cyclone. Less than 4% of articles referred to extreme weather intensifying as a trend.
This is problematic. It means that, with a few exceptions, Australia’s climate scientists are not able to engage with the public in key periods after extreme weather events.
When MPs, with co-ordinated media campaigns, enjoy monopoly holdings in the attention economy of news cycles, science communication and the stories of climate that could be told are often relegated to other media.

Links

• How TV weather presenters can improve public understanding of climate change
• Fake news and god’s wrath: extreme hurricane politics in the US
• The future of Australian coal: an unbankable deposit
• Australia’s climate bomb: the senselessness of Adani’s Carmichael coal mine
• With battery storage to the rescue, the Kodak moment for renewables has finally arrived
• Playing politics with renewables: how the right is losing its way
• Growing inequality in the US is bad news for climate change
• ‘We must keep the lights on’: how a cyclone was used to attack renewables
• The fossil-fuelled political economy of Australian elections