18/05/2019

Waste Not — If You Want To Help Secure The Future Of The Planet

New York Times - Tatiana Schlossberg

Keiran Whitaker, the chief executive of Entocycle, which takes so-called pre-consumer local food waste and feeds it to fly larvae, which eats the waste and converts it to protein. Credit Andrew Testa for The New York Times
If there’s one vital, but underappreciated, subject in the conversation about climate change, it’s waste: how to define it, how to create less of it, how to deal with it without adding more pollution to the planet or the atmosphere.
The issue has gained some acceptance, whether in the form of plastic straw bans or anxiety about e-commerce-related cardboard piling up.
But experts say these aren’t necessarily the biggest problems. Reducing the damage from waste might require expanding the traditional definition of waste — not just as old-fashioned garbage, but as a result of wild inefficiency in all kinds of systems, which often results in emissions of greenhouse gases, among other problems.
Companies and organizations around the world are taking on the challenge. Some are using materials traditionally considered waste and making them into something entirely new — and often unrelated — to their original purpose.
Others are avoiding the creation of waste through greater efficiency and new technologies. Here are three examples of efforts underway:

Entocycle
A British company trying to revolutionize the animal feed industry
When Keiran Whitaker was working as a scuba diving instructor, witnessing the destruction of tropical rain forests, often because of industrial food production, he decided he needed to put his environmental design degree to good use.
“We’re obliterating our natural ecosystems predominantly to produce monocrops that go into the industrial food web, and what’s bad on land is even worse underwater,” he said, referring to the destruction of rain forests and the bleaching of coral reefs.
According to a 2013 study from the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, just under 40 percent of global crop calories are used to feed animals, most of them from corn and soybeans grown at an industrial scale. It’s a particularly inefficient way to feed people: It takes about 100 calories of grain to produce just three calories’ worth of beef, or 12 of chicken.
Counting dead Black Soldier flies, and flies in an atmosphere and light controlled room where they will produce eggs. Credit Andrew Testa for The New York Times
Part of the Entocycle team at work in one of its labs, and flour made from its dried larvae. Credit Andrew Testa for The New York Times
So he is trying to fix the system, mostly by changing the food our food eats. The result is Entocycle, Mr. Whitaker’s start-up based in London, which takes so-called pre-consumer local food waste — created in the manufacturing of food products — and feeds it to Black Soldier fly larvae, which eat the waste and convert it to protein.
He said that about 97 percent of the insects are then ground into a flour high in amino acids, which, combined with other ingredients, can be made into feed pellets for animals. The flies’ excrement, known as frass, can be used as crop fertilizer. Eventually, the insect flour could be directly consumed by people. (While that might make some people cringe, Mr. Whitaker said he’s not “grossed out” by the insects.)
Timothy G. Benton, a professor at the University of Leeds, who is focused on food security and sustainability, said he doubted that a company like Entocycle could do enough to transform the food system.
But Mr. Whitaker, the chief executive, is more hopeful. If his model takes off (it currently is not producing at scale), more land could be used to feed people, and fewer forests would be razed for cropland or pasture; fertilizer production, responsible for 1 percent to 2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report from the Australian government, would be avoided, as would the nutrient pollution created from runoff. Enormous quantities of wild fish are also used to make animal feed, so this could also help ease global overfishing.
“How do you produce enough food to feed the world, and how do you produce a safe environment for us to live in?” Mr. Whitaker said. “They seem to be mutually exclusive, but they have to be fundamentally tied together.”
Dried Black Soldier fly larvae. Credit Andrew Testa for The New York Times
Spinnova
A company in Finland that produces clothing fiber from plants
According to its government, Finland’s forests have about 10 trees for every person in the world. It is perhaps not surprising then that a company aiming to reinvent the way we make clothing from wood is Finnish.
The second and third most common textile fibers are already made from plants — cotton and viscose rayon.
Most viscose rayon is made from wood pulp, but the process of making it typically uses so many chemicals in such vast quantities that some experts said it shouldn’t really count as a natural plant fiber.
Additionally, traditional rayon production has been linked to harmful forestry practices. The Rainforest Action Network has found that about 120 million trees from existing forests are cut down for textiles every year.
Enter Spinnova, a Finnish textile fiber company founded by two former physicists, Janne Poranen and Juha Salmela, who used to work in pulp and paper development and research at Finland’s national research center.
After learning how spiders make silk, Mr. Salmela wondered if it might be possible to spin plant fiber in the same way.
It is. Spinnova uses a mechanical method to produce fiber, currently in a pilot stage. Their process uses about 99 percent less water than cotton production (one study showed that about 2,900 gallons of water can be produced to make a pair of jeans), without any harmful chemicals.
They use wood pulp harvested from Brazilian wood, in partnership with Suzano, one of the world’s largest paper pulp producers and one of Spinnova’s shareholders. The forestry practices and the wood pulp produced are certified as sustainable by the Forest Stewardship Council. This has a climate benefit as well because forests (especially well-managed ones) absorb much of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Spinnova plans to eventually use agricultural waste material and discarded clothing to produce fibers.
Lenzing, a manufacturer of wood-based textile fibers that uses a closed-loop chemical production process, is one of Spinnova’s shareholders. Spinnova has also received support from Marimekko, a Finnish retailer.
“Sustainability is our main driver,” Mr. Poranen said. “For me, it has been extremely important that you don’t have to think why you’re doing what you’re doing. It’s totally new and totally sustainable for the whole globe.”

Tokyo 2020
The Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo
Paralympic torches to be used in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics Games. They are 30 percent recycled aluminum. Credit Koji Sasahara/Associated Press
Although Japan has a relatively sophisticated recycling system, like other countries it has a problem with electronic waste, or e-waste.
It’s the result of the disposal of vast — and growing — amounts of appliances and gadgetry, including cellphones, computers and TVs, which can leak dangerous chemicals into the environment.
The Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games thought it could bring attention to the problem by making the medals for next year’s games — about 500 — from metals retrieved from donated e-waste.
At sites in more than 1,500 of Japan’s municipalities and about 2,400 NTT Docomo electronics stores, over 47,000 tons of discarded electronics were collected, including more than five million cellphones, according to Masa Takaya, a spokesman for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics.
By June 2018, the organizers had already collected enough bronze; by October 2018, they had more than 93 percent of the gold and 85 percent of the silver, he said, adding that the organizing committee anticipates that it will be able to make all of the medals from the donated items.
Recovering these metals also avoids additional mining, which is environmentally destructive and energy intensive.
The recycling industry, in which people break apart devices and remove copper, gold and other materials, has negative health consequences, according to the Lancet, and toxic chemicals from improper disposal can also get into the environment, causing pollution. And the problem could get worse. About a third of the global population was expected to have an internet-connected phone by 2017, according to a report from eMarketer. In the United States, the typical home has 65 electronic appliances, according to a study from Natural Resources Defense Council.
This initiative will not solve the e-waste crisis — that will likely come from governments and electronic companies, said Vanessa Gray, an official at the International Telecommunication Union, a U.N. agency specializing in information and communications technology. But she said attention to the issue is important, because many people don’t know even what e-waste is and why it matters.
“Just for that, the Olympics story is really good,” she said. “In the end, it shows that the way we do things at the moment has terrible consequences for society, in terms of the negative health impacts and obviously impacts to climate change.
“It’s time for a system update.”

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

Australians Disagree On How Important Climate Change Is: Poll

The Conversation -  | 

There is more consensus around climate than politicians would have Australian voters believe. Darren England/AAP
Climate change, the environment and energy policy are all key issues in this election campaign, fuelled by compelling evidence of our accelerating impact on the environment and climate. While voters agree more than you might think, there’s still a serious split on the importance of acting on climate change and preventing harm to the environment.
Australia’s major political parties fall into two broad camps on these issues. The Labor party is spruiking policies that control emissions and move towards renewables, consistent with its rhetoric about taking on the “top end of town” – including the mining industry.
In the Liberal-National view, concerns about energy and the environment are attacks on the businesses that deliver Australia’s prosperity. Moving away from coal towards renewables is typical of an opposition that has neither the ability nor inclination to support a thriving economy and control government finances: all symptomatic of the “Bill Australia can’t afford”.
But are Australians really that divided? Between April 29 and May 3, 2019, we asked 1,170 people about their attitudes and behaviours, including questions about voting intentions for those respondents eligible to vote in the upcoming election.

Energy and environment attitudes
We wanted to know how our respondents intended to vote. How did that correlate with their attitudes towards climate change, and policies around energy and the environment?
We asked respondents to rate various statements about their behaviour and attitudes on a Likert five-point scale, where 1 means “strongly agree” and 5 means “strongly disagree”.
These statements included eight questions about attitudes towards climate change, and five questions on various policies (a tax on carbon, an emissions trading scheme, business incentives for carbon-neutral production, and regulation of mining and plastic use).
We also asked respondents to rate the importance of the broad statement: “How important is it for the government to implement policies to address environmental damage and climate change?”
(Note: the main purpose of the survey was to explore people’s likely choices about smart meters. In common with any survey, there may be many sources of sampling bias. Our survey was not designed to be a representative sample of political constituencies, and so is not an attempt to predict the election outcome.)


Then we divided the responses roughly into the two “camps” – Liberal-affiliated and Labour-affiliated – excluding the 14 responses for people intending to vote for the Centre Alliance. This gave us 635 right-leaning voters and 541 left-leaning voters.
Perhaps surprisingly, we discovered a lot of agreement across the right- and left-leaning camps. On average, our respondents agreed about their commitment to recycling and also with the statement “I think it’s important that households do their bit for the environment”.


In terms of their attitudes towards conserving energy, both camps agreed that conserving energy was important because they want to control their energy bills. The left-leaning camp had no strong opinions about conserving energy to help limit climate change; the right-leaning camp disagreed that they would conserve energy because of climate change.
This suggests that – for the broadest impact – demand-side management policies should focus on how households can save money by conserving energy – and smart meters could be a key ingredient in this strategy.
Behavioural tools are likely to be important too and smart meters have capabilities to combine economic incentives and behavioural motivators, as we’ve explored in previous research into behavioural insights for encouraging energy savings.


Both camps agreed that businesses should be given incentives towards carbon-neutral production. They disagreed that current government policies were good policies. So there is a strong appetite for policy change.
Neither camp had strong opinions about carbon tax or emissions trading policies. Perhaps this is because debates around these policies are old news from the Gillard-Rudd-Abbott era, or perhaps most people just aren’t sure what these policies would mean for them personally.
There were still areas of disagreement. The left-leaning camp had generally stronger opinions about climate change, agreeing that environmental damage and climate change are problems. The right-leaning camp on average neither agrees nor disagrees that these are problems.



The left-leaning camp tends to agree that the government should introduce policies to regulate plastics and mining – unsurprising given that this camp includes a substantial number of people intending to vote Green. The right-leaning camp was neutral on these issues.
Overall, this survey suggests more consensus across Australian voters than politicians might like us to believe. Once the election is over, and there is no more political mileage to be had from the mud-slinging that has characterised this campaign, then perhaps we can hope our political leaders will start expending some energy on judiciously analysing and assessing the policy challenges ahead.
This will be essential if we are to come up with policies to mitigate climate change and environmental damage, whilst also ensuring Australia’s jobs, wages and prosperity.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,

Stark Climate Policies On Offer At This Election But Will Voters Bite?

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

If our politicians are supposed to be driven by polls and focus groups, why is it that climate change isn't a policy that attracts bipartisan or even tripartisan support?
As we learnt again last week from the respected Lowy Institute, the threat of a warming world is of growing concern for Australians and now tops even terrorism or North Korean nukes.
Respondents to surveys say they want more renewable energy and action on climate change - but will they vote that way at the ballot box? Credit: Fabrizio Bensch

While the full findings won't be out until next month, support for renewable energy is likely to remain high, too. Last year, backing was 84 per cent - numbers "that we don't really see on other issues", Lowy's poll chief Natasha Kassam told the Herald.
Britain, of course, offers good and bad models when it comes to governance of late, but the Conservative government under Theresa May cheered the fact that the country had gone a week without burning coal for electricity for the first time since those dark satanic mills started spinning.
That response even drew a rueful reaction on Twitter from Malcolm Turnbull, whose term as prime minister was abruptly ended last August with his effort to get his optimistically named National Energy Guarantee policy through his party room one last time.
With the Morrison government dropping the NEG, it is not clear what the Coalition is offering voters on the energy front.
Yes, investors have earmarked about $25 billion for wind and solar projects over the past three years of the Renewable Energy Target, and that is no small change.
However, there is little indication what will follow after 2020 if the Morrison government is returned, and the industry is fearful they are facing a cliff.
AGL''s Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley - barring some unexpected closure elsewhere - willb e the next to halt production in 2022. Credit: Janie Barrett
Reading the polls, the Liberal-led NSW government of Gladys Berejiklian is working on the assumption that the remnant of the NEG - replete with deeper emission-target cuts for the power sector - will be revived under a Labor government as Opposition Leader Bill Shorten promised.
Labor's promise of securing 50 per cent of electricity from renewables by 2030 is a key arrow in its policy quiver. Even though it looks like a long shot - roughly doubling where we are now in the eastern states that make up the National Electricity Market - in fact it's probably not much more than business-as-usual.
(The caveat, though, is that investors in that sector have barely known a "usual" period in the past decade.)
The likelihood is the surge in clean energy alternatives to coal and gas in power generation will continue, meaning there's a reasonable chance that 50-50 target will be exceeded and then some by 2030.
The Greens say 100 per cent renewables should be the goal by then, and that a bonanza of new jobs - in the order of 180,000 - will offer employment opportunities to aid the transition for the Hunter and Latrobe valleys that will fare worst from the demise of coal-fired plants.
They also advocate a policy whose name the two main parties dare not utter - a carbon price. That's despite seasoned commentators such as Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute supporting a market solution.
"The major parties seem to prefer an unproductive debate on cost [of taking climate action], while the Greens have arguably the best core policy - an economy-wide carbon price," Mr Wood told readers of our sister paper The Australian Financial Review last week.
Transport is one sector that will have to cut emissions sooner or later. Labor plans to toughen efficiency standards and aims for half of new car sales to be electric by 2030 - up from about 0.2 per cent now. Credit: Dmitry Panchenko
Labor's climate policy will indeed generate a carbon price as companies face a "cap" on carbon pollution, with those able to reduce emissions more quickly able to trade their surplus achievements with laggards.
The problem is that Labor's goal of cutting emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels will be complicated by adjustments for all the sectors or enterprises that will be partly or fully exempt. These include the agriculture sector and trade-exposed firms such as aluminium smelters - which is a key reason that Labor can't come up with a pat answer to the question of what its climate plan will cost.
But Labor is at least taking a stab. It has a declared net-zero emissions target for 2050 and, although Australia arguably signed up for a similar goal when it agreed to the Paris climate goals, the Coalition appears not to have a policy to get there.
The Morrison government says its rebadged direct action plan - now called the Climate Solutions Fund - will earmark $2 billion over a decade to pay polluters to cut emissions to farmers - and other sectors - to sequester emissions such as boosting the carbon content of soils or restraining land-clearing.
The Coalition's headline goal of cutting 2005-level carbon emissions by 26 per cent masks a couple of backtracks. Australia's official Paris goal is 26-28 per cent, but the upper end of the range has quietly been dropped.
More contentious, though, is the Coalition's plan to use expected carry-over credits from the current climate policy to which Australia has signed up, the Kyoto Protocol, as the Herald and The Age first reported last December.
Most nations with such credits, including Germany, Britain, New Zealand and Sweden, have voluntarily decided to extinguish any such "surplus" generated by exceeding goals up to 2020 when the Paris accord kicks in.
The slogan "NO PLAN B" is projected on the Eiffel Tower as part of the COP21, United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015. Credit: AP
The consequence is that Australia's abatement effort of 695 million tonnes of carbon dioxide shrinks to about 325 million tonnes at the stroke of a pen - assuming global negotiators don't blow the whistle on this plan.
Labor could have used this short cut to count towards its higher target of 45 per cent reduction in emissions but decided not to use it. One consequence could be that Australia will end up turning to international markets to import such reductions if domestic abatement efforts are too costly. (Again, modelling that cost is difficult, not least because we don't know how well Australia will go nor how much other countries will turn to such credits.)
Dylan McConnell, an energy analyst at the University of Melbourne, has joined a few dots to show that Australia has a lot of work to do if it wants to meet both the current targets for Paris and higher ones in the future.
Source: Dylan McConnell/University of Melbourne using data presented by Professor Ross Garnaut 
Remember that almost 200 nations agreed in Paris in late 2015 to limit global temperatures to 1.5 degrees and "well below 2 degrees".
We are more than halfway to that level of heating, with global surface readings more than a degree above pre-industrial levels, and further warming all but locked in because of the time-lag effect emissions have in trapping extra heat from the sun in our atmosphere.
Climate Analytics, an advocate for strong climate action, has a so-called "fair share target" that takes into account both domestic emissions and also the aid wealthier nations should offer poorer ones (which have contributed much less carbon pollution but will likely be less able to adapt to the more extreme weather on the way).
In Australia's case, that goal should be at least a 55 per cent cut on 2005 levels by 2030 and as much as 87 per cent if the lower end of the Paris accord target is to be achieved.
Australia is obviously just one player, but with among the highest per-capita emissions anywhere, it is difficult for our diplomats to argue a free pass. With an already fluctuating climate - especially for rainfall - the country is also highly exposed to increases in extra weather expected as the planet warms.
As the United Nation's extinction report out last week showed, Australia has much at stake in the achievement of the Paris goals, saying: "Coral reefs are particularly vulnerable to climate change and are projected to decline to 10-30 per cent of former cover at 1.5 degrees warming and to less than 1 per cent at two degrees."
Great Barrier Reef tour operators will struggle to attract visitors to bleached corals, as happened twice in two years in 2016 and 2016, killing about half the corals. Credit: Dean Miller, Great Barrier Reef Legacy
Future generations aren't likely to be very forgiving when they snorkel over, or try to fish in, reef regions that will be 99 per cent smaller than they were, say, in 1870.Australia's emissions are unhelpfully rising, reaching their highest quarterly rate in the year to September 2018 for seven years. The arc, therefore, is not yet bending down, and the longer they continue to rise, the harder for any future government to get emissions down to where they need to be.
The Greens, though, also highlight what they see as a sleeper issue masked by the Adani coal mine kerfuffle.
Labor plans to inject $1.5 billion into developing the gasfields of the Northern Territory and Queensland's Bowen and, yes, Gallilee basins - site of that particular coal mine proposal and eight others.
The Greens point out that, even assuming a conservative leakage rate, the greenhouse gas emissions of the new gasfields will dwarf those of Adani's Carmichael mine.
They predict trouble ahead for Labor if the Greens hold sway in the Senate, not least because soaring domestic emissions will make it harder for Australia to stem the rise of national carbon pollution, let alone hit targets such as net zero by mid-century.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,

17/05/2019

62 Experts Urge Next Parliament to Make Climate Action a Top Priority

Australia Institute

Scientists and experts say the next government will need to prioritise action on climate change.
To the Next
Parliament of Australia
Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are rising, moving the country further away from its Paris Agreement obligations.
Whichever party wins government on Saturday, urgent action on climate change must be a top priority for the 46th Parliament of Australia.
The consequences of climate change are already upon us; including harsher and more frequent extreme weather, destruction of natural ecosystems, severe property damage and a worldwide threat to human health.
Australia Institute research shows current emission reduction targets are incompatible with the goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement that aims to hold the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C and no more than 2.0°C above pre-industrial levels.
The solutions are all available to address climate change, all that is missing is the political will.
62 scientists and experts have signed an open letter to the next Parliament of Australia, calling for whichever party that wins Government this Saturday to make urgent action on climate change a top priority for the 46th Parliament of Australia.
Prominent signatories of the open letter include: Nobel Prize winners Professor Peter Doherty AC and Dr. Sue Wareham OAM, former Australian of the Year Professor Fiona Stanley AC, former Chief Scientist for Australia Professor Penny Sackett and many of Australia’s leading scientists from disciplines including climate change, health, economics, energy, and finance, including Professor Hilary Bambrick, Professor Will Steffen and Professor Barbara Norman.
“Australia is failing when it comes to addressing climate change and whichever party wins government this Saturday needs to make urgent action on climate change a top priority for the next Parliament of Australia,” said Richie Merzian, Climate & Energy Program Director at the Australia Institute.
“However you assess the fairness of a country’s emissions reduction target: by population, economic cost, or a combination, Australia Institute analysis shows Australia’s current reduction target is unambitious, unfair and irresponsible.
“The Government is relying on the climate outlier advice of Brian Fisher to terrify Australians about the alleged cost of climate action, while Australians struggle to deal with the very real costs of climate inaction.
“Climate change is an enormous threat to the security and wellbeing of all Australians. Climate change is already increasing the frequency of fires, floods and drought, as well as serious health impacts. Climate change is already a major threat to key industries, including agriculture and tourism and is already costing Australians billions of dollars every year, and will continue to rise unless we act.
"Beginning with my time as Australia’s Chief Scientist, I have made it my life’s work to push governments to listen to the science,” said Professor Penny Sackett, former Chief Scientist for Australia.
“Australians have paid dearly for the chain dragging of previous governments on climate action: we are now in a climate crisis.
“The next Australian Government must take the immediate and drastic action required to keep global warming on the safer side of 2 degrees. The time is not 2050, or even 2030. The time is now.”



Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , , ,

Climate Change Threatens 26 Native Species In Great Dividing Range, Study Finds

The Guardian - 

Australian researchers say governments must step up and protect critical habitats to give wildlife a chance
Warming temperatures put 26 species at risk in the Great Dividing Range, University of Queensland and Australian Conservation Foundation researchers say. Photograph: Simon Mossman/AAP 
More than 20 native animals would disappear from the Great Dividing Range before the end of the century if global emissions continue at business as usual rates, according to new analysis by Australian researchers.
The University of Queensland and Australian Conservation Foundation study, published this week in Global Ecology and Conservation, examines native fauna in a part of the country that is home to three-quarters of the population and much of Australia’s biodiversity.
The scientists and policy experts used climate models from the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change to assess how many endemic species could face extinction in the Great Dividing Range due to warming temperatures.
They examined 1,062 native species, and found 26 would go extinct by 2085 if the currently high global emissions trajectory continues. In that scenario, they assumed global warming of 3.7C by 2085.
Of the 26 species the researchers said would not survive, 11 are found only in the Great Dividing Range and nowhere else on earth.
Under a lower emissions pathway of 1.8C the Great Dividing Range would become climatically unsuitable for 16 species by 2085, including the 11 endemic species.
“The way emissions are tracking, we will lose a raft of species found nowhere else in the world, including the blue-winged parrot, Mount Claro rock wallaby, magnificent brood frog and painted spadefoot toad,” the study’s lead author, Sean Maxwell, said.
Another author, James Watson, said: “The fact is that there are 11 endemic species, which based off of this research, it appears they will be blasted off the face of the earth because there’s nowhere suitable for them to live.”

Why Australia's biodiversity is in trouble - video explainer.

“That’s the really sad thing from this piece.”
But the researchers identify some hope for the remaining 1,036 animals for which they forecast some climatically suitable habitat would remain even under the most aggressive scenarios they modelled.
The paper identifies two large sections of habitat, one in northern Queensland and another in northern New South Wales, that would benefit the survival of hundreds of species if they were protected.
Watson said that could be done by governments establishing protected areas in those spaces, or through other means, such as stewardship programs that reward farmers and other landholders who keep habitat intact rather than clear it.
Another author, James Trezise from the Australian Conservation Foundation, said the research found at least 673 animals would benefit from protecting intact habitat, which he said was a strong argument for Australian governments prioritising policies to avoid deforestation.
They found another 270 species would be heavily reliant on governments committing to restoring habitat areas in southern Queensland, southern NSW and northern Victoria that had already been modified in some form by agriculture and other activities.
“We need to rapidly protect critical habitats and climate refuges for species if we are to give wildlife a chance in the face of climate change,” Trezise said.
“The next Australian government will have to step up on protecting the environment. This means introducing stronger national environment laws and investing in new protected areas, wildlife corridors and ecosystem restoration.”

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,

Climate Change Election: Where Do Parties Stand And What Can We Expect After Saturday?

RenewEconomy - 



Six years ago, following the election of the Abbott Government, the renewable energy industry, and prospects for climate change were cast into a pretty dark period. Strong climate policies were unwound, and investment in new clean energy projects came to a standstill.
At times there seemed to be little hope that climate change could register as a major vote-winning issue in Australian politics.
However, the political environment has turned dramatically in recent years, as the impacts and threats of climate change grow more apparent. According to ABC’s Vote Compass, the economy was by far the most important issue to voters six years ago –  climate change ranked fourth place, behind asylum seekers, and health and hospitals.
In 2019, Vote Compass finds that environment is now top, followed by the economy and then health and super/pensions.
RenewEconomy has taken a look at where each of the three largest parties, the Liberal-National Coalition, the Australian Labor Party, and the Greens stand on climate change, what key groups have had to say about their platforms and their prospects for this year’s election.
We also take a look at some of the independents to watch.


THE COALITION
Where does the Liberal-National Coalition stand on climate change? Where do you start?
Rather than presenting a credible plan for tackling climate change, the Coalition has spent the 2019 election campaign focused on trying to scare voters about other party’s policies.
Brandishing discredited modelling from Brian Fisher, the Coalition has tried to characterise Labor policies as expensive, and the Labor Party itself as coming to take your utes away.
This falls into the classic mistake of ‘fighting the last war’. The Coalition took Government in 2013 on the basis of a relentless campaign against the carbon price. The Coalition thinks that by running the same playbook as 2013, it can retain power in 2019.

What the Coalition is promising:
  • 26% to 28% emission reduction target by 2030.
  • $2 billion to be provided to the Climate Solutions Fund, a rebranded Emissions Reduction Fund that will directly purchase emissions reductions
  • Committed to the construction of Snowy 2.0.
  • Committed to the establishment of a second interconnector between Tasmania and the Australian mainland.
  • Will use carry-over units from the Kyoto protocol to meet its 2030 Paris agreement target.
  • The Coalition has previously withdrawn funding for the international Green Climate Fund.
  • Supports the Adani Carmichael coal mine.

In their own words, Scott Morrison:
“This is coal. Do not be afraid. Do not be scared. It will not hurt you.” Question Time, 9 February 2017.
“Our position is based on you can have your economy and you can have your cleaner environment; you don’t have to sell one out for the other” – 3 April 2019
“The Carmichael mine has always had our support, and to facilitate it. The approvals have been provided, and the approvals have to be delivered on, by the company, and of course that has to be. Right across the Galilee Basin, we want to see the continued growth of this industry”, on the Adani Coal Mine, 7 November 2018.

What others have said about the Coalition:
The Climate Council considered the Coalition’s failure to act on climate change over the last six years as “the defining leadership failure of the past decade.”
Analysis by Climate Analytics found that the Coalition’s emissions targets were “very far away from the Paris Agreement”.
The analysis also showed that the Coalition’s policies were likely to lead to overall increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and is not at all consistent with preventing global warming.
The Australian Conservation Foundation gave the Coalition a score of 4 out of 100, with a catastrophically bad set of climate and environmental policies. The Coalition failed in each category assessed by the ACF, with a small number of points awarded for a commitment to fund indigenous rangers.
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition went further and gave the Coalition a negative score (minus 1 out of 25) for their climate change policies, losing marks for its enthusiastic support of the Adani Coal mine.
“This inaction is putting us at war with a climate that has no more room for atmospheric pollution,” – Former UNFCCC executive secretary Christiana Figueres.

Coalition Prospects
While predicting the outcomes of an election are equal parts science and guesswork, the Coalition are facing increasingly diminishing prospects of retaining power.
It’s not impossible for the Coalition to retain Government, but it will need to fight off challenges from some formidable independent campaigns and will need to take seats off Labor to regain a majority.
The Coalition’s open co-operation with potential crossbench members in One Nation and Clive Palmer could leave a booby-trapped Senate for any new Labor Government.


AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY
If the polls and the betting markets are to be believed, the Australian Labor Party, and its leader Bill Shorten, is on the cusp of winning power this Saturday.
After six years in the wilderness, and six years of relative leadership stability under Shorten, the Labor Party has regained the confidence to embrace climate change as a core pillar of its platform for re-election.
After getting booted from office following its failure to sell an otherwise successful carbon price policy, the Labor Party has borrowed from Coalition policies toolkit to use the Coalition’s toolkit against itself.
Buoyed by consistent polling showing that climate change and the environment is a top concern of voters, the Labor Party has developed a comprehensive set of policies and targets that give it credibility in acting on climate change, while dampening blows that the Morrison may seek to land during the election campaign.
The Labor platform has not been without its criticisms, with the issue of the Adani Carmichael Mine being the most notable source of friction. Labor has attempted a fine balancing act, between its own dislike of the project, and not wanting to spook Queensland voters.

What the Labor Party is promising:
  • 45% emissions reduction target by 2030.
  • 50% renewable energy target by 2030
  • Introduction of Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee, to reduce emissions in the electricity sector
  • Will adapt the safeguard mechanism, strengthening the emissions cap on other industries
  • Will provide additional $10 billion to the CEFC to finance new clean energy and storage projects
  • Electric vehicle target of 50% of new car sales by 2030 and the development of a new national electric vehicle strategy.
  • Will support completion of Snowy 2.0
  • Will provide $2000 rebates to households for the installation of up to 100,000 batteries.
  • Has pledged $1.5 billion for the development of new gas pipelines.
  • Will not use Kyoto “carry-over” units to meet its 2030 target, but will consider the use of international offsets.
  • Has said the Adani Carmichael coal mine must “stack up environmentally and financially” but has stopped short of opposing the mine outright.

In their own words, Bill Shorten:
“Electricity bills, well they are out of control – so we’re going to fill the void and the thirteen energy policies of failure of this government and we are going to get more renewables into the mix, to get prices down.“ – Address to Labor campaign launch, 5 May 2019
“We choose renewables and we choose real action on climate change.” – budget in-reply speech, 4 April 2019
“I have no plans to review the approvals. But if we want to be fair dinkum, let’s be fair dinkum and let’s tell the voters the truth here, all of us. First of all if I’m Prime Minister I will adhere to the law of the land. I’m not going to be intimidated or bullied by environmental activists or big mining companies. For me it is all about the best science, the law of the land and not creating sovereign risk.”- on the Adani Mine, 23 April 2019.

What others have said about Labor:
Analysis by Climate Analytics rated the Australian Labor Party targets as being consistent with a Paris Agreement pathway, but only just.
Labor’s target scraped in at the low end of being compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees under the Paris Agreement, but fell short of being considered a “fair share” commitment.
The Australian Conservation Foundation gave the Labor Party a pass mark for their policies on climate change. The ACF score of 56% reflects stronger policies on renewable energy and for environmental protection. However, the ACF scored the Labor Party poorly on their policies to phase out fossil fuels, and a for its ambiguous position on the Adani coal mine.
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition likewise gave the Labor Party a middle-of-the-road score. AYCC awarded the Labor Party full marks for their policies to support solar on schools, but penalised the Labor Party for its commitment of funding to build new gas pipelines.
“Labor has a much better climate change policy than the Coalition.” – Former Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Labor Prospects
By all measures, Labor is the favourite to seize Government at this year’s election, however, it will be a close contest.
Polling and betting markets suggest that Labor will secure more seats than the coalition, but it’s unlikely to be a landslide result.
Projections from the ABC and Poll Bludger likewise suggest that Labor should win enough seats to control the House of Representatives in its own right, but depending on results in a few contests involving key independents, Labor may need to negotiate a hung parliament.
Either way, the prospects for stronger policies for climate change and renewable energy look good.


THE GREENS
As they have always done, the Greens have led the pack when it comes to climate change and energy policies. Which is no surprise for a party founded by environmentalists.
It’s therefore no surprise that the Greens have developed the most ambitious package policies and targets for climate action in 2019.
The Greens policy package, by design, is outlines targets and indicatives that aim higher and would deliver more than both the Labor and Liberals respective platforms.
The Greens will be aiming for securing the balance of power in either, or both, houses of parliament – with a likely strategy of seeking to negotiate with a potential new Labor Government, as they were able to do under Julia Gillard in 2010.

What the Greens are promising:
  • 63% to 82% emissions reduction target by 2030.
  • 100% Renewable Energy Target by 2030
  • Will provide additional $10 billion to the CEFC
  • Will provide an annual budget to ARENA of $300 million
  • Create a $1.7 billion Clean Energy Export Development Fund
  • Will introduce a ban on new coal mines, fracking and conventional gas and oil fields.
  • Establish Power Australia, a publicly owned, not for profit, electricity retailer
  • Opposes the Adani Carmichael coal mine.

In their own words, Richard Di Natale:
“This is the climate change election. Only the Greens have a real plan to tackle dangerous climate change and transition Australia out of coal to a jobs-rich, renewable economy. The Greens have a plan that is based on science, not politics.” – 11 April 2019
“We are in the middle of a climate emergency, and we can’t be opening up any more coal, oil or gas fields if we are going to hand over a sustainable environment to our children and grandchildren,” – 23 April 2019
“A transition away from coal is urgent and necessary, but the Greens want to ensure that it doesn’t leave workers and communities stranded.”- 26 February 2019

What others have said about the Greens:
Analysis by Climate Analytics found that the Australian Greens’ emissions reduction targets were within the “fair share” range based on scientific research.
The Greens’ targets were the most ambitious of the three largest parties and were compatible with a 1.5-degree warming target under the Paris Agreement.
The Australian Conservation Foundation gave the Greens an almost perfect score for their environment and climate change policies, awarding the Greens a score of 99%.
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition went one better and gave the Greens a perfect 25 out of 25 in their own election scorecard.
“[Greens Senator] Sarah Hanson-Young is one of the few in our parliament who has a genuine commitment to decisive and urgent climate action — a leader when so many lag,”, former Liberal leader Dr John Hewson.

Greens Prospects
The Greens face a tough test at the 2019 election. Due to the way Senate terms are allocated following a double dissolution election, the Greens have a senator up for re-election in each of the six States.
Polls suggest that the Greens have held their vote at similar levels to that of the 2016 election, which should see Senators returned from WA, Tasmania and Victoria. However, the battle for re-election in South Australia, NSW and Queensland will be a lot tougher.
Polling suggests they should also retain Adam Bandt’s lower house seat in Melbourne and will be very competitive in the contests for the seats of Higgins and Kooyong.
If the Greens can hold on to most of their representation within the Senate, they will be in a strong position to hold the balance of power in the Senate.

THE INDEPENDENTS
One of the unique features of the 2019 election has been the emergence of a large number of independent challengers that are looking to win seats in Parliament on a platform of strong action of climate change.
Five of the independent candidates to watch:
  • Zali Steggall – Warringah
    Steggall has run the strongest campaign of all of the independents, in her bid to unseat former Prime Minister Tony Abbott from his north-shore Sydney seat of Warringah. The former winter Olympic medallist turned barrister has tapped into growing dissent amongst Warringah voters, is a slight favourite to end the political career of one of parliaments most notorious climate wreckers.
  • Kerryn Phelps – Wentworth
    Phelps won the eastern suburbs seat of Wentworth at last year’s by-election following the resignation from Parliament of another former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. Phelps won on a platform of climate change action and compassionate treatment for refugees. Phelps faces a tough task for re-election, as her electorate’s anger from the ousting of Turnbull as PM may have subsided, but incumbency is always an advantage.
  • Oliver Yates – Kooyong
    The former head of the CEFC has run a high profile campaign in an attempt to unseat Treasurer and former energy minister Josh Frydenberg. Frydenberg holds the seat with a 12.8% margin, but may be defeated by strong campaigns in the seat run by Yates, along side Labor and the Greens, whose candidate Julian Burnside remains an outside chance.
  • Helen Haines – Indi
    Helen Haines is contesting the regional Victorian seat of Indi, with the endorsement of Cathy McGowan, who has retired from federal politics. The former nurse and midwife has campaigned strongly for action on climate change
  • Rob Oakshott – Cowper
    Rob Oakshott is tipped to return to the Federal Parliament through the regional NSW seat of Cowper. Oakshott played a key role in the passage of the Gillard Government’s clean energy future package, having shared the balance of power in the House of Representatives following the 2010 election.
  • Wildcard – Clive Palmer
    Clive Palmer has spent up big during the 2019 election – a tactic that worked for him in 2013, which saw him both the hero and enemy of climate campaigners and the renewable energy sector. Palmer is hoping to win a seat or two in the Senate, where we previously controlled a set of balance-of-power crossbenchers, before the alliance disintegrated.
    Palmer used his position to repeal the carbon price, but also to protect funding for ARENA and the CEFC and to prevent efforts to repeal the RET. Palmer is running on a populist platform, driven primarily out of self-interest – and perhaps his coal assets in the Galilee Basin next to Adani – so its hard to predict what impact he may have on the 46th parliament.
Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative