25/01/2018

Stuck In First Gear: How Australia's Electric Car Revolution Stalled

The Guardian - 

As sceptics fretted over price, range and lack of charging stations, Australia was overtaken by the rest of the world. Now policymakers are being urged to jumpstart the industry
In Elizabeth in South Australia, they stood in a huge line, only three months ago, and spelled out HOLDEN for the helicopters. Thirteen weeks later, after the plant closed and the last car rolled away, the talk began of rejuvenation, a new owner and the promise of the electric.
The proposal, from the British billionaire Sanjeev Gupta, to refit the old Holden plant to make electric cars is still just a suggestion, but it has captured the imagination of a country suddenly keen to talk. On Monday, the idea was backed to the hilt by the premier, Jay Weatherill, and the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union. On Tuesday, the federal energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, said the electric car would do to Australia “what the iPhone did to the communications sector”.
Last November, the urban infrastructure minister, Paul Fletcher, announced a review into how electric cars could affect road revenue – a tacit acknowledgment that, depending on how the dice fall, they could change everything in the next decade or two.
This year, the electric car seems to be having its political moment.
Most experts agree the era of the electric car is coming – at some point. The issue is when. Behyad Jafari, the chief executive of the Electric Vehicle Council, says the future of the industry hinges on government intervention.
By global standards, Australia is lagging behind. Only 0.1% of all new car sales in 2016 in Australia were electric, and that was actually down 23% on the year before. Other nations are powering ahead – Norway on 29%, the Netherlands on 6% and China, France and the UK on 1.5% of new cars in the same year.

Market share of electric vehicles, selected countries
Guardian graphic | Source: IEA, ClimateWorks Australia


Jafari has been calling on the government to introduce a temporary tax, stamp duty or rego fee exemption for electric cars – to “kickstart” the industry – and a national plan of action.
“The government has thought the issue is a lack of model availability and charging infrastructure, but in fact they are symptoms of our problem,” he says. “There is a lack of certainty that the market will do well. In every other country there is policy support, but that doesn’t exist here ”
A Holden Volt electric car. British billionaire Sanjeev Gupta is eyeing a plan to build electric cars at the former Holden site in South Australia. Photograph: Gm Holden
 If the government pulls the right policy levers, he believes, the industry will follow. Last year, the UK and France announced they would ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040. Volvo announced it would make only electric or hybrid cars from 2019.
In Australia, the government provides a discount on the luxury car tax threshold for low-emission vehicles and companies can earn carbon credits by buying electric – but the industry wants more.
The Department of Environment and Energy’s current prediction is that electric cars will be 15% of new vehicle sales by 2030. The CSIRO predicts 20% by 2035, and the Australian Energy Market Operator predicts between 16% and 45% by 2036.
“I’m not in the business of setting projections because they’re always wrong,” Jafari says. “Every year the battery technology becomes more effective and cheaper at a faster rate than anyone predicts. The predictions of uptake and driving range are reforecast higher every year.
“The question is, do you want to take into account projections based on how things have been so far and assuming nothing changes? Or projections for what happens if Australia gets its act together and provides support?”
Jafari believes the upward, exponential trend could begin between 2018 and 2020, which means all eyes are on Frydenberg.
“A signal has been sent that a change is coming,” Jafari says.
On January 12 Frydenberg penned an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald declaring the electric “revolution” imminent.
“The lack of takeup is not because of a lack of consumer interest,” he wrote in his piece. “What holds them back are issues relating to price, range and infrastructure. But on each count, there are good things happening, with more to come.”
Later in the year, he is chairing a forum with Fletcher to discuss measures to “encourage the uptake” of electric vehicles.
According to the Australian, his support sparked a backlash from his own cabinet colleagues, but on Tuesday, the minister doubled down, telling critics they would be buying one in a decade.
Energy minister Josh Frydenberg drives an electric car during an event outside Parliament House. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
 For the doubters, the barriers remain the same: a lack of charging stations, “range anxiety” over how far a car can travel, and natural reticence to adopt something new.
Investment is coming slowly for charging stations. In Western Australia, the Royal Automobile Club built 10 stations from Perth to Augusta, in New South Wales the NRMA is building 40, and in Queensland the state government has announced a 2,000km superhighway of chargers, from Cairns to Coolangatta.

Queensland’s superhighway of charging stations

But there are still only 476 charging stations nationwide. In NSW and Victoria that means 1.7 and 2.5 stations per 100,000 residents respectively.
This makes Prof Stephen Greaves, an expert in transport management at the University of Sydney, sceptical about mass uptake.
“I’d like to see [the exponential growth argument] proven right but I think we are a long way from that,” he says. “The Australian consumer is naturally cautious about making a change such as this. I don’t think it’s a priority of Australians, or the government.
“I was looking at all the things they do in Norway – it’s a laundry list. You can drive in the bus lanes. You get free parking. You don’t pay any money on toll roads. If you put all these things in place, and you put more recharging stations in, you will see a significant but small increase.”
There are just 476 electric car charging stations in Australia. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
Also complicating matters are the rise of automated vehicles and ride-sharing services like Uber. Last year a Stanford University economist, Tony Seba, predicted that ride-sharing would end car ownership. With these fleets using only automated, electric cars, he maintains, no new petrol cars will be sold after 2025.
As the futurists debate, government is turning its attention to the knock-on effects. Depending on how the pendulum swings, and when, electric car uptake could slash the revenue collected from roads.
Currently, driving a petrol-consuming car costs you money via the fuel excise – a government tax on petrol, roughly 40c per litre – which is collected for the purpose of funding road infrastructure and maintenance, but that technically can be spent anywhere.
This means the more you drive a petrol car, the more you pay – but electric cars are exempt.
According to the 2017 Productivity Review, the average vehicle is charged $1,334 a year: $607 from the fuel excise, the rest from registration, licence fees and stamp duty.
With the rise in electric cars, the CSIRO is projecting that the revenue from the excise, in real terms, will drop by 50% by 2050, blowing a hole in the revenue stream.

Road-related revenue v expenditure
Total government revenue v total private and public spending on roads by financial year, adjusted to 2014-15 dollars
Guardian graphic | Source: BITRE


A solution, suggested by the Productivity Review, and hinted at by Fletcher, is to scrap fuel charges and instead charge vehicles, both petrol and electric, for how many kilometres they drive – potentially using GPS tracking.
Known as road user pricing, it can potentially also be used to charge motorists higher rates for driving on busy roads, or at peak time, which could ease congestion.
Road user pricing makes sense, and is more equitable, even in a purely petrol world, Greaves says.
But while it may benefit those who choose to take public transport and drive less frequently, road user pricing can be seen to penalise those who have no option but to drive – people in regional areas and outer suburbs.
“Some sort of variable rate is potentially a way to go,” Greaves says. “The simplest way to do that is by time of day. If you’re driving in peak hours, you’re paying a little bit more. It will make people think about what they do a bit more.”
The worry is that if distance pricing becomes too complex, or politically difficult, we will simply default to taxing electricity like it was fuel, halting the clean incentive.
But, with road user pricing, there is a potential for governments to finally balance the three concerns of funding, congestion and electric car uptake.
“You can in theory achieve all of this,” Greaves says. “You can tailor it for how clean the vehicle is.”
This is exactly what New Zealand is doing.
New Zealand has had a form of road user pricing since 1978. Their current model charges an excise for petrol cars (60c per litre) and by distance for diesel and electric ($62 per 1,000 kilometres).
But as part of a concerted effort to boost uptake, the Ministry of Transport has exempted electric vehicles from the charge until 2021 – saving each user roughly $600 a year.
Since the move, in May 2016, the number of electric cars has shot up from 1,300 to 6,400 – more than 5,000 cars in a year-and-a-half. In contrast, Australians bought 1,300 cars in 2016.
For now any change in Australia, according to Fletcher, is going to be “a 10- or 15-year journey”, and the review will not be formally announced until later this year. In the meantime, the future of the electric car is tied up in shifting projections and promises. Weatherill, Australia’s most vocal pro-renewable premier, is certainly trying to seize the opportunity in Elizabeth.
“He has ambitions,” he said of Gupta. “We’re assisting him in that endeavour ... We’re prepared to get in behind it.”

Links

Wind Farms Power Big Surge In Renewable Energy Jobs

Fairfax - Cole Latimer

A boom in wind farms is fuelling a jobs surge in the renewable energy industry with 17 per cent employment growth in the sector in December.
Nationwide, there are now 15,691 renewable energy jobs, rising to 21,168 when including those in small-scale rooftop solar installation. This is a 17 per cent month on month increase from November job figures.
Keppel Prince Engineering in Portland specialises in industrial fabrication and the manufacture of wind turbine towers for the renewable energy sector.  Photo: Jessica Shapiro
The boom in wind farms accounts for 71 per cent of all renewable energy jobs. There are now 79 wind farms operating in the country and at least another six due to be built this year.
“While many Australians proudly think of the Snowy Hydro Electric Scheme as a great construction and power engineering achievement, its power generation is now dwarfed by wind power,” research firm Green Energy Markets said.
“The wind farms under construction at present will produce twice as much power per annum as the Snowy Hydro scheme. When combined with wind farms already in operation, wind will supply five times more electricity per annum than that of the Snowy scheme.”
The new wind and large-scale solar projects committed to in 2017 will generate more than 10 terawatts hours of energy, equivalent to the entire power consumption of Tasmania. The largest will be the Murra Warra wind farm near Horsham in Victoria. In December, Telstra, ANZ, Coca-Cola Amatil and The University of Melbourne signed up to pre-purchase the energy generated from what will be the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere.
There were 4417 megawatts of renewable energy projects under construction in December, up 500 megawatts from November, lifting both construction and operational jobs.
The rapid growth is helping Australia hit its Renewable Energy Target, and increase the level of green energy in the nation's power mix.
Queensland is leading the way in renewable jobs and projects, following by Victoria, which recently displaced New South Wales for second place.
“We’ve got Victoria building our biggest wind farm, Queensland doubling its renewable jobs in just four months, and South Australia reaping the benefits of the world’s biggest battery,” GetUp environmental justice campaigner director Miriam Lyons said.
“Our electricity grid is in the midst of a transformation, and NSW needs to make sure it’s taking full advantage of the renewables boom that is creating meaningful work for thousands of people,” she said.
The growth in jobs has been supported by a record year in clean energy investment, as companies enter power purchase agreements totalling a record 5.4 gigawatts.
In 2017, financing and investment for renewable generation projects rose to almost $US7 billion ($8.75 billion).
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has played a major role in supporting these renewable energy investments, funding more projects in 2017 than in its last three years combined.
According to Green Energy Markets data, “if Australia kept up the 2017 levels of commitments for a further 10 years, renewable energy would approach two-thirds of Australia’s electricity supply.”
Renewable energy now accounts for 16.3 per cent of Australia’s total annual generation, with 1150 gigawatt hours from wind; 953 gigawatt hours from small-scale rooftop solar; 779 gigawatt hours from hydro; 174 gigawatt hours from bio-generation, and 69 gigawatt hours from large-scale solar farms, creating enough renewable energy to power 6.9 million homes nationwide, and cutting emissions levels by approximately 2.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Links

Climate Change: The Heat Is On All Of Us

The Weekly Times - Steven Hobbs*

Looking for leader: Support is needed on climate, energy and agriculture policy.
LIKE many in the bush, my family keeps a close eye on rainfall.
There are detailed records for our part of the Mallee dating to the 1880s, and I have kept them since the 1980s.
We have watched as decade aver­ages have dropped and high temperature records topple.
Of course, some years were better for rainfall than others, but overall the trend only travels in one direction: down.
What I see on my farm tallies with what scientists around the world are saying: the climate is changing — and fast.
From federation to today Australia as a whole has warmed by more than 1C.
Does 1C matter? Well yes, a hell of a lot.
According to US weather agencies, 2017 was one of the hottest years on record for the globe. Our own Bureau of Meteorology tells us 2017 was Australia’s third warmest since 1900.
Here in Victoria, March was ­declared the hottest such month on record, and November the second-hottest. June, meanwhile, was ­declared the driest with rainfall well below average for much of eastern Australia.
We are getting 30 per cent less rain on our property since the 1990s. On average that is 125mm less rain a year, of which 100mm is from the crucial growing season.
While some politicians are still ­debating what to do about climate change, from the air-conditioned comfort of Parliament House, farmers like me are working out what else we can do to manage more extreme conditions.
Just before Christmas the bureau warned of “Port Douglas humidity” across Victoria as torrential rainstorms bore down on us.
Many farmers worked all hours to get their crops in, forgoing sleep and upping their risk of injury.
Climate change affects all aspects of our lives.
This is not a cycle. This is not just natural variability.
You can choose to ignore climate change, but it is not going anywhere.
Like a bank mortgage, there is a price to be paid. If you pay it early you pay less — if you put it off, the interest only accumulates.
Plenty of us are adapting to the new reality in our own way. Some farmers are investing in new practices and technologies. Others are sowing new crop varieties, or finding innovative, new ways of conserving water and soil.
But there is only so much we can do as individuals. We need leadership and bipartisan support on climate, ­energy and agriculture policy. Farmers and industry alike need confidence to invest in technology and infrastructure and we need leaders who are clued up on science and ­debating the best way to deal with the situation.
If we do not, then in the long run we will see more people move off the land. Since I started farming (in the 1980s) I’ve experienced more droughts than my father did in his time on the land. They are now once every three years, rather than one in 10. The past is no longer an indicator of what the future holds for farming — it is time we started looking ahead.

*Steven Hobbs is a fourth-generation sheep and prime lamb producer at Kaniva

Links

24/01/2018

Frydenberg Factcheck: Is S.A Really Burning 80,000l Of Diesel An Hour To Keep Lights On?

RenewEconomy - Simon Holmes à Court*

If you were unlucky enough to catch Josh Frydenberg’s recent ‘car crash’ of an interview, where he tried to spin Australia’s fourth consecutive year of growing greenhouse emissions as nothing but good news, your ears might have pricked up at the claim that South Australia and Victoria have had to bring in ‘expensive and polluting’ diesel generators and that South Australia in particular is burning ‘80,000 litres of diesel an hour, just to keep the lights on’.
With so many half-truths floating about in the so called ‘energy debate’, it’s worth unpacking this claim.
For the 2017–18 summer, both the South Australia and Victorian governments have installed banks of diesel generators as part of efforts co-ordinated by AEMO to ensure grid security under their Reliability and Emergency Reserve Trader (RERT) arrangements
Australia’s National Electricity Market has for many years included diesel generators in the generation mix.
According to AEMO’s generator database, as of December 2017 there were 98MW of registered diesel generators in NSW, 31MW in Queensland and 266MW in South Australia, not including the new generators installed in late 2017.
In addition, there are many more diesel generators sitting ‘behind the meter’ in hospitals, data and telecommunications facilities, etc. that are not registered with AEMO.
Typically, diesel generators in the NEM run only for short periods during exceptionally high demand. With running costs generally in excess of $300/MWh, most diesel generators in the NEM run for well less than 1% of the year.

South Australian Diesel-Gas Turbines
The South Australian government has acquired nine General Electric ‘aero-derivative’ TM2500 turbines which can run on either diesel or natural gas. (The class of turbines is called ‘aero-derivative’ as the design is derived from GE’s CF6 aircraft engine.)
The trailer-mounted TM2500 turbines have been installed temporarily at two sites to form two power stations:
  • Temporary Generation North — 5 turbines (total 153MW) at the former Holden manufacturing site in Elizabeth
  • Temporary Generation South — 4 turbines (total 123MW) at Adelaide’s Desalination Plant in Lonsdale
Five turbines at the former Holden manufacturing site in Elizabeth
Four turbines at the Adelaide Desalination Plant in Lonsdale
The trailer-mounted turbines arriving by ship.
For their first summer the turbines have been configured to run on diesel, allowing them to be in operation before the start of summer, however once a site with suitable electricity and gas network access is found, they will be moved and reconfigured to run on lower emissions and cheaper natural gas.
Initially the turbines were leased for $111.5m, but in late November then SA Government announced that the fleet had been purchased so that, in the words of Premier Jay Weatherill, “we can get on with the work of securing a permanent location”.
The total capital cost is $338.7m — which works out to be $1227/kW — and since they are no longer temporary, the SA Government is referring to them as the ‘state-owned generators’.
With the addition of this 276MW, SA will have 543MW of diesel capacity (not including the Hallett Power Station) for the 2017–18 summer.
From the first seven weeks of summer, from 1 December 2017 to 21 January, the engines only ran for short periods for testing and licensing purposes — i.e. over this period they have not run for a single minute to support the grid — and have generated just 157MWh, the equivalent of 35 minutes at full load, representing a capacity factor of only 0.05%.
Even when prices hit the market cap of $14,200/MWh last week the engines sat idle. While this might appear nonsensical at first glance, generators cannot both operate in the market and participate in the RERT.
In addition, the SA government has been careful not to distort the price signals in the market that will bring in new participants.
When running on diesel the generators emit 750kg CO2e/MWh (an emissions factor of 750), which is not only a much lower emissions factor than the now demolished Northern Power Station (1010), but lower than even the best coal power stations anywhere.
(Yes, even the so called ‘high efficiency, low emissions’ power stations that are neither highly efficient nor low emissions.)
Once converted to gas, the emissions factor will drop to 540, marginally lower than the Torrens Island gas power station (580).
At full tilt, the engines would burn at most 80,000 litres of diesel per hour, however those endlessly quoting the figure (looking at you Josh Frydenberg, Craig Kelly and Chris Kenny!) won’t tell you that they’ve used less than 47kL for the summer so far.
To put it into context, the state-owned generators have so far burnt less than 40 tons of diesel, while the Northern and Playford power station, before they were shut down by Alinta, consumed an average of 67 tons of brown coal every hour.

Victorian Temporary Generators (Morwell)
As part of the 1,150MW of strategic reserves secured by AEMO, 105 containerised diesel engine generators with a combined capacity of 105MW have been temporarily installed at the site of the old Morwell Coal Power Station (a.k.a. EnergyBrix), shut in 2014.
The equipment is owned and operated by international services company Aggreko and is contracted to be available for the three months starting 8 January 2018.
Containerised generators installed at the site of the former Morwell Power Station (EnergyBrix)
As RERT generators, it is estimated that there is a 61% probability that the power supply will not be required to operate at all.
According to Aggreko’s announcements, “there is a 19.5% probability that it will operate for up to 4 hours during the period January to March, and a 13% probability that it will operate for up to 8 hours over this period.
A condition of the Victorian EPA approval is that Aggreko must seek further approval from the EPA to operate more than 20 hours over the whole 3-month period.”
During last week’s heatwave, AEMO activated the RERT. While AEMO does no release details of which RERT panel members were called on to participate, an AEMO spokesperson has confirmed that the Morwell generators did not operate.
The diesel generators have an emissions intensity factor of 668 (ie. 668 kgCO2-e/MWh). This is less than half of Hazelwood’s factor of approximately 1,400, well below that of  Millmerran Power Station (891), likely the lowest emissions coal power station in Australia.
Layout of the temporary installation at the former Morwell Power Station (EnergyBrix)
While it is not accurate to say that the Morwell engines ‘replace Hazelwood’, it is arguable that they would not have been required if Hazelwood had not closed in March 2017.
Over a typical three-month period Hazelwood used to emit 4,308,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
If the Morwell generators operate at all they will emit 73.5 tons per hour. As such there is a 61% probability they won’t emit a single ton of CO2 outside any testing, a 19.5% probability of less than 293 tons and a 13% probability of less than 588 tons. The engines will need EPA approval to emit more than 1,470 tons of CO2, or 1/3000th of what Hazelwood used to emit over a similar period.
So while it is true that diesel generators have been installed to boost power security over the summer, it must be kept in mind that Victorias are temporary, South Australia’s will soon run on natural gas, both are much cleaner than coal and neither will get much, if any use. Anyone, politician or opinionista, who tells you otherwise is engaging in an act of deception.
As for the cost, we built our generation and transmission system to be 99.998% reliable. Politicians and our government agencies got the strong message through 2017 that this is not reliable enough.
So until we can have adult conversations about energy, we’ll have to pay for infrastructure that’s only called upon in extremely rare circumstances — you can consider that another form of ‘gold plating’.

*Simon Holmes à Court is senior advisor to the Energy Transition Hub at Melbourne University and can be found on Twitter @simonahac  


Links

Don't Shoot The Climate Change Messenger

Fairfax - Emma Johnston* | Alex Sen Gupta*

Today, when our weather forecasters tell us a heatwave is coming, we can be quietly confident of the time it will arrive and the temperatures that will be reached. When western Sydney broke records on January 7, hitting 47 degrees, the Bureau of Meteorology had warned us, enabling individuals and organisations to prepare. While analysis of this event is ongoing, researchers at the Australian Research Council's Centre of Excellence on Climate Extremes found a similar Sydney heatwave last year was twice as likely due to the climatic impacts of humans.
The role of forecasting is to use the best information available at the time to predict conditions, and give us time to prepare, adjust or change course. When we're talking about tomorrow's, or even next week's, weather everyone plans accordingly, without a second thought. Using seasonal forecasts, based on predictions of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), industries and governments routinely respond months in advance to forecast patterns of rainfall and wind.
Once thriving wetlands close to the Murray River at Mildura in north-west Victoria.  Photo: Jessica Shapiro
By contrast, when many of the same scientists predict how the climate is likely to change over decades, they find themselves ignored, disbelieved, disparaged or even threatened.
Yet weather, seasonal and climate forecasting all rely on much the same models (based on the same laws of physics). Climate modelling also incorporates external factors that can be estimated long into the future including - most importantly - how levels of carbon dioxide (and other gases) will change under various socio-economic conditions. Because we have a good understanding of how additional carbon dioxide affects the earth's energy balance, we can estimate its effect on the climate. This means we can forecast key trends for different regions, such as if rainfall will be higher or lower on average, if currents are strengthened or weakened, or if extreme events such as heatwaves will become more or less intense and/or frequent.
For decades, climate change forecasters have mainly been telling us what we'd prefer not to hear. Concentrations of global greenhouse gases are rising relentlessly (with the biggest hike in 2017), 17 of the Earth's 18 hottest years ever have been recorded since 2000 and the oceans off Australia's east coast are warming two to three times faster than the global average, radically altering, for example, the composition of marine species off Tasmania. Officials at the Australian Open in Melbourne were forced to consider how excessive heat was affecting, or threatening, elite players.
Given our aversion to bad news, perhaps it's not surprising so many scientists endure damaging 'shoot the messenger' attacks. Consider the recent tirade by a Queensland tourism industry representative against one of Australia's most distinguished experts, Professor Terry Hughes, the director of the ARC Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. Hughes' latest research demonstrates that devastating coral bleaching events, due to warmer waters, are occurring too regularly for mature coral reefs to recover. It is research the tourism industry representative would like to have de-funded; presumably for fear of scaring off tourists and their cash.
Such short-term thinking – and numerous responses of a similar ilk – demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role, rigour and immense value of research and forecasting as the global climate changes. This puts us all at risk.
Next month, UNSW Sydney hosts one of the largest and most important international conferences of meteorologists, oceanographers and climate scientists focusing on the Southern Hemisphere; our critical climatic backyard. Delegates will have some complex science and modelling on their plates.
It's clear new partnerships must be forged between forecasters and climate scientists and communities, industries and decision-makers, if we are to go beyond denial and derision, to work together more effectively.
Two recent news stories remind us of the urgent need for a concerted global response. First, the World Meteorological Organisation revealed last year was among the hottest on record without the exacerbating effects of El Nino conditions boosting temperatures, reinforcing global scientific consensus that we are not merely facing natural climate variability, but the effects of human activity.
Second, Nature published a forecast of global temperature increases for this century within a narrower range than previous predictions. While is it is too early to know how important this study is, it suggests two critical things. One, that the climate's sensitivity to rising emissions is high enough to demand action. Two, that we may still have time to avoid catastrophic climate change.

*Emma Johnston is dean of science and professor of Marine Ecology and Ecotoxicology at the UNSW. She will open the 12th International Conference for Southern Hemisphere Meteorology and Oceanography at UNSW on February 6.
*Dr Alex Sen Gupta, is a climate scientist at UNSW and a conference organiser.

Links

'Wasteful Stunt': Turnbull Government Accused Of Doing Too Little To Save Reef

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The Turnbull government's pledge of an additional $60 million to help improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef has been dismissed by environmental groups and scientists as insufficient and a "wasteful publicity stunt".
The government's pledge of the funds over 18 months includes $10.4 million for "an all-out assault" to reduce the impact of coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish, the government said in a statement.


Great Barrier Reef's bleached coral up close
Parts of the Great Barrier Reef are enduring sustained periods of heat stress worse than at the same time during last year's record-breaking coral bleaching event, raising fears the natural wonder may suffer another hammering.Vision supplied: Biopixel.

The number of vessels used to curb the spread of the starfish will increase from three to eight
About $36.6 million will also go to further reduce the run-off of nutrients and other pollution from farms near the Great Barrier Reef.
"The reef is the world's largest living structure and a global natural icon," the statement said.
Jon Brodie, a Professorial Fellow with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, said the funding would likely make little difference particularly if spent on programs already shown to be ineffective.
He said these included crown-of-thorns efforts that appear to have minimal impact on numbers despite removing 500,000 starfish, and whose full results were not being made public – as Fairfax Media reported last week.
Dr Brodie said the federal and state governments' own water quality report card in 2016 indicated funding needed to be closer to a $1 billion per year over a decade.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull visits the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) to unveil the 'rescue plan' for the reef. Photo: Michael Chambers
The Turnbull government "is not prepared to put enough money in to make a difference", he said.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science, one recipient of money to develop a new Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, welcomed the funds but noted any recovery hinged on dealing with the threat from climate change.
Crown-of-thorns starfish being lured to one location - for possible easier extermination. Photo: University of Queensland 


"These methods will need to go hand in hand with greenhouse gas mitigation and conventional management" such as no-fish zones, Paul Hardisty, the institute's chief executive, said.
"But they could be the difference in our efforts to preserve and protect the reef, and the tremendous value it provides to all Australians."
John Rumney from the Great Barrier Reef Legacy takes a close look at bleaching corals near Port Douglas. Photo: Dean Miller/GBR Legacy




IMAGE
The Greens, though, said Monday's event was "a wasteful publicity stunt that's doomed to fail".
Some 64,000 jobs rely on the health of the Great Barrier Reef, especially tourism. Photo: Supplied
"If Malcolm Turnbull was serious about protecting the Great Barrier Reef he would listen to scientists and transition away from the real reef-killer: the fossil fuel industry," Andrew Bartlett, Greens senator for Queensland, said.

No state consultation
A spokesman for Leeanne Enoch, Queensland's new Minister for the Great Barrier Reef, said the Turnbull government hadn't consulted the Labor state government ahead of Monday's announcement.
Bleaching corals display vivid fluorescent colours before turning completely white. Photo: E.Matson, AIMS

Federal officials made contact with state counterparts on Monday to discuss how the funding would be rolled out, he said.
WWF-Australia welcomed the funding as "positive but nowhere near enough to meet Australia's promise to the World Heritage Committee".
The group said Australia had promised to cut sediment flowing into the reef by as much as half by 2025 and nitrogen pollution by 80 per cent.
"The funding announced today won't get us to the water quality targets we promised UNESCO" to maintain the World Heritage status of the reef, Sean Hoobin, WWF-Australia spokesman said.
"Failing on these targets is failing the reef," Mr Hoobin said. "With almost half the coral cover lost to bleaching over the last two years the reef needs a massive new investment to help it respond to global warming."
WWF has called for the government to commit $475 million a year for the next four years to improve water quality in key Great Barrier Reef catchments.
Unprecedented back-to-back bleaching hit the central and northern regions of the reef hard over the past two years and there are indications of some bleaching at the southern end this summer, Dr Brodie said.

Links

23/01/2018

Growing Populations, Climate Change Leave Cities On A Fast Track To Water Deficits

Daily Climate - 

By 2050 many of the world's major cities will face surface water shortages, spurring regional conflict and competition for scarce resources

More than a hundred cities—containing millions of people—will have water demands outstripping surface water supplies by 2050, according to a new analysis of climate change impacts on water.
The global study cited many cities in the U.S.—including Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Ana and Long Beach in California, and Phoenix, Arizona—as headed for worsening future water problems.
These water deficits—exacerbated by a changing climate, a growing population and urbanization— will spur conflict between cities and nearby farming areas and put pressure on already stressed groundwater supplies.
There are "two big climate change impacts relevant to drinking water quantity," said senior author of the study, Robert McDonald, lead scientist for the Global Cities program at The Nature Conservancy. "Timing of rainfall is changing … in general wet periods will get wetter, dry periods will get drier.
"The other is that, because it's hotter, evaporation from whole watersheds will go up a lot, even if there is the same amount of precipitation, cities will find reservoirs a lot lower."
Currently about 54 percent of the world's population lives in cities—which is "likely to grow to between 60 percent and 92 percent" over the next 80 years, according to the study published in Nature Sustainability journal.
  Currently about 54 percent of the world's population lives in cities—which is "likely to grow to between 60 percent and 92 percent" over the next 80 years, according to the study published in Nature Sustainability journal.
"We're in the middle of the fastest urban growth in history, and it would be hard to build water supply systems for all those people anyway," McDonald said. "Climate change is making it harder."
Water demand in cities is estimated to increase by about 80 percent by 2050. Globally, surface water demand will surpass supply by about 366 billion gallons, leaving 233 million people in cities with potential shortages, meaning the cities would be reliant on storage to get people safe water.
"This clearly points out a very stressful challenge ahead for cities—for all water users," said Brian Richter, the president of Sustainable Waters, who was not involved in the current study.
Top 10 cities with a projected surface water deficit by 2050:
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Jaipur, India
  • Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
  • Dalian, China
  • San Diego, California
  • Karachi, Pakistan
  • Harbin, China
  • Phoenix, Arizona
  • Porto Alegre, Brazil
  • Monterrey, Mexico
The "United States shows a clear division between cities in the West that are vulnerable to a surface-water deficit and cities in the East that have little vulnerability," the authors wrote.
Researchers estimated future water demand and availability in 482 of the world's largest cities, which contain 736 million people.
Due largely to climate change impacts on water supplies and trends of turning natural areas to urban, they estimate 27 percent of the 416 cities that rely on surface water will have a water deficit three decades from now. In addition, 41 percent of all river basins are set to have conflict between urban water users and agricultural users.
"South Asia is a hotspot region where competition between urban and agricultural demand is generally highest," the authors wrote.
The study comes as the World Economic Forum released their 2018 Global Risks Report, which cited "water crises" as the fifth highest risk to the planet over the next decade. Failure to mitigate and adapt to climate change was fourth on the list.
The annual report points out that lack of water is strongly linked to other escalating challenges such as food insecurity, involuntary migration and struggling economies.
Water scarcity could cost some regions of the world—such as Central Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia— up to 6 percent of their GDP.

Changing the historical blueprint
Richter said historically cities have followed a similar pattern in water use—first, using whatever water is most available, whether it's tapping groundwater or rivers. Then, as populations grow, the common next step is to reach into other watersheds and import water.
"Some cities reach great distances," he said, pointing to China's South to North Water Diversion project—which will require more than 620 miles of pipeline to take water from the Yangtze River in South China to North China—as one of the more extreme examples.
Richter said after importing, many cities then turn to desalination, and, more commonly, water re-use, recycling and conservation efforts.



This, he said, should be flipped.
"It's very important for cities to push aggressively on water conservation, it's by far the least expensive way to manage an urban water budget," he said.
Richter said the good news is there is still "tremendous potential" in many U.S. cities to push water demands far below what they are today.
"Many 'smart water' cities are at 50 to 60 gallons per capita per day, but many cities, including some in the Southwest, have a per capita use 10 times that," he said.
Richter pointed to San Antonio, which boasts the largest recycled water delivery system in the U.S., and Tucson, Arizona, which stores about 15 million gallons of reclaimed surface water in reservoirs for use in irrigation, fire fighting and industries, as two examples of forward thinking cities.
McDonald said a San Diego initiative to purchase water rights from agricultural district, and help farmers install new, more efficient irrigation equipment, is an example of a city-rural water solution.

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative