(AU) NSW Planning Commission Approves Santos's Narrabri Gas Field Project

Sydney Morning Herald - Peter Hannam | Nick Toscano

NSW's Independent Planning Commission has given "phased approval" for Santos' proposed $3.6 billion Narrabri coal seam gas field, removing the last major hurdle for the controversial project to proceed.

In an announcement posted on its website on Wednesday morning, the commission gave the project in northern NSW its approval, provided a slew of what it described as 134 "stringent conditions" were met.

The Independent Planning Commission has given the go-ahead for the Santos coal seam gas field in northern NSW. Credit: Bloomberg

"Following its detailed deliberations, the commission concludes the project is in the public interest and that any negative impacts can be effectively mitigated with strict conditions," the IPC said in a statement accompanying its decision.

"The commission has granted a phased approval that is subject to stringent conditions, which means that the applicant must meet specific requirements before the project can progress to the next phase of development."

Shares of Santos fell after they emerged from an initial trading halt on Wednesday. In a statement to the sharemarket, the company said it welcomed the IPC's approval and accepted the conditions. It would now work with the federal government to secure final approval under national biodiversity laws.

"Santos is excited about the prospect of developing the Narrabri Gas Project, a 100 per cent domestic gas project that can provide the lowest cost source of gas for NSW customers," chief executive Kevin Gallagher said.

"As the economy recovers from COVID-19, game-changing projects like the Narrabri Gas Project are critical to creating jobs, driving investment, turbo-charging regional development and delivering more competitive energy prices."

Once all approvals are in place, Santos would commence 12-18 months of appraisal drilling, which would inform the final plans for its phased development of the Narrabri project.

Santos says the Narrabri field can supply as much as half of NSW's gas needs. Credit: Brendan Esposito

In an indication that Santos still has regulatory hurdles to clear, the IPC said its consent for the project did not extend to the proposed gas-fired power station at Leewood, the Westport workers accommodation or non-safety flaring infrastructure.

The phased approval covers four stages of the project's development, covering appraisal, construction, production and finally rehabilitation once the two decade-plus project involving 850 gas wells ends.

Addressing some of the concerns – the project drew some 23,000 submissions, most of them opposed to the gas field – the commissioners laid out a range of conditions that indicate Santos still has a lot of work to do before the first joules of gas get piped to customers.

Among the key conditions are those relating to groundwater, greenhouse gas emissions and the need to dispose of as much as 840,000 tonnes of crystallised salt during the project's life.

Santos's planned 850-well gas field near Narrabri

Source: Independent Planning Commission

On groundwater, the IPC said that, while the proponent's impact modelling was "fit for purpose for this approval", it still needed more information before the project could proceed to construction "to reduce the level of uncertainty".

"The imposed conditions do not permit [Santos] to establish the production field (Phase 2) if the revised groundwater model predicts an exceedance of the water management performance measures identified in the consent," the IPC said.

On the contentious issue of whether tapping methane from the coal seams would have less of a climate change impact than coal, the IPC said such an emissions advantage "may be jeopardised by an underestimation of fugitive emissions" escaping to the atmosphere.

Santos's CSG storage ponds in the Pilliga State Forest. Approval will open the way for 850 wells in the gasfield. Credit: Dean Sewell

To counter that, the IPC will require Santos to fully offset any exceedances of its emissions predictions during the extraction and transport, or so-called Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions.

Santos said the Scope 1 emissions would be the equivalent of 15.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, with 18 million tonnes for Scope 2 and 94.3 million tonnes from so-called Scope 3 or downstream combustion.

"The applicant will also be required to consult with an expert advisory group in measuring, minimising and reporting these emissions," it said.

Santos, too, will have more work to do to proceed even to the first phase of the project when it comes to disposing of the mountains of salt expected to be brought to the surface along with water as Santos tries to extract the gas.

While the commission was "satisfied" the waste salt could be disposed of appropriately, with landfills considered a last resort, it added extra conditions.

The NSW Environment Protection Authority, as lead regulator, will have to confirm Santos is meeting its pledge to minimise on-site storage of the salt, and will "require arrangements for beneficial reuse or landfill disposal at an appropriately EPA-licensed facility to be in place prior to Phase 1" of the project.

Georgina Woods, a co-ordinator of the Lock the Gate Alliance, said the approval was "disappointing" but the conditions mean Santos "is a long way from the starting gates".

The requirement for the company to redo the groundwater model so that it meets a Class-3 confidence level before project construction can proceed will be particularly challenging, she said.

"Santos is really going to struggle to proceed with this gasfield," Ms Woods said.

Ms Woods noted the IPC had highlighted that some 71 per cent of the local submissions were opposed to the project, dousing commentary that the region supported the gasfield.

The panel of three commissioners – chaired by Stephen O'Connor with John Hann and Professor Snow Barlow – said that "on balance" the project was likely to provide "a net economic benefit for the local community, region and state".

Opponents are not likely to give up on their battle to prevent the Narrabri gas field from proceeding even with the IPC's verdict. Credit: Nic Walker

It also had the potential "to improve gas security for Australia’s east coast domestic market".

Santos chief Mr Gallagher told the IPC in July his firm had spent $1.5 billion on a gasfield with the potential to meet half of NSW's gas needs. The state currently imports 95 per cent of the fuel, much of it from Santos's operations in the Cooper Basin of South Australia.

During construction, Santos has said the venture would employ as many as 1300 people, with up to 200 of the jobs ongoing. Royalties will tip $1.2 billion into state coffers.

Whether the added conditions will make the project commercially unviable remains to be seen. Likewise, it is not clear whether added supply will make much if any difference to gas prices.

Santos has pointed to a 2020 report by the Australian Energy Market Operator where the production cost in Narrabri was put at $6.40 per gigajoule - excluding transportation costs.

Gas curve

2P is "proven plus probable" reserves, while 2C is a best estimate of contingent reserves.

Source: AEMO/Santos

The Australia Institute has pointed out modelling for that figure was from Santos itself. Previous AEMO estimates put the cost at $7.28-$9.36 per gigajoule.

By contrast, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission is predicting gas prices to average $5.63 per gigajoule in 2021.

Pressure transmitters display readings on a Santos pilot well operating in the Pilliga forest in Narrabri. Credit: Bloomberg

The push to lift gas supply in Australia's south-eastern states has been taking on increasing urgency in recent years as gas-reliant manufacturers struggle in the face of a three-fold rise in contract prices.

Union officials in the manufacturing sector, which uses gas for energy or as a feedstock, said the Narrabri green light had the potential to greatly alleviate supply-and-demand pressure and drive down prices.

"More gas should mean more affordable gas; more affordably gas means more competitive manufacturing and cheaper electricity," Australian Workers Union secretary Daniel Walton said.

"New South Wales should be a thriving global heavy manufacturing hub, and that's exactly what we can become if we better harness our gas wealth. This approval is an excellent step."

Mr Walton called on the NSW government to ensure that Santos remained committed to ensuring that Narrabri gas would be kept for local consumption and not be sold on the export market.

Oil and gas industry representatives say the Narrabri project would unlock gas reserves for NSW homes, small businesses, major industries and electricity generators.

"The clearest way to put downward pressure on gas prices for customers, including manufacturers, is to increase supply and competition," Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association chief Andrew McConville said on Wednesday. "The Narrabri Project does just that. This is an important outcome for energy security and reliability for the state of NSW."

Graeme Bethune, chief excutive of advisory firm EnergyQuest, said Narrabri "certainly should be extremely competitive on the east coast".

Mr Bethune described the project as "critical ... if it doesn't go ahead the [gas] price will go back up".

Remaining hurdles include securing investment and approvals for a gas pipeline to take the Narrabri gas to market, and also possible legal challenges.

Tony Pickard, a local farmer in the region near the proposed Santos coal seam gasfield near Narrabri inspects vegetation killed from saline water produced from pilot wells. Credit: Jacky Ghossein

David Morris, chief executive of the Environmental Defenders Office, said giving approval of the gasfield placed "the groundwater, ecosystems and local communities around the Pilliga at risk".

"It adds another source of powerful greenhouse gas emissions to our atmosphere at a time when what is urgently needed is rapid and deep reductions in emissions," he said, adding the organisation would be meeting clients in coming days to discuss legal options to block the project.

The venture involves contruction of as many as 425 well pads and the clearing of about 1000 hectares within the 95,000 hectare project area.

Eleanor Lawless, a campaign manager at the Wilderness Society, said the approval was "devastating for Australia’s natural and cultural heritage".

The long-running campaign, including from the Morrison government, to pressure the IPC to approve the gasfield "undermined our democracy and corrupted proper process", Ms Lawless said.

Market analysts described Wednesday's decision as positive news for Santos following years of public opposition and long delays that forced the company to write down the value of the asset to zero in its accounts.

"We view this final regulatory decision as a positive outcome for Santos, particularly after the company has struggled with this asset for many years," said Gordon Ramsay, a Sydney-based energy analyst with the Royal Bank of Canada.

Several companies have lined up to buy gas from Narrabri, including brick manufacturer Brickworks, gas wholesaler Weston Energy and fertiliser maker Perdaman.

Links

• Independent Planning Commission NSW: Narrabri Gas Project
• Australia approves major new fossil fuel projects
• Narrabri coal seam gas project gets green light from NSW Independent Planning Commission
• Why Santos isn't celebrating the Narrabri gas approval
• Santos coal seam gas project in Narrabri splits town as government announces $2b plan
• Santos coal-seam gas project at Narrabri not worth the risk, scientist says
• The high hurdles Santos must clear before gas emerges at Narrabri
• Santos under fire after Narrabri gas win
• Coal, gas leading to 'quite dramatic' increases in methane emissions
• NSW makes pitch for hydrogen leadership

(USA) Manhattan’s Famous Digital Clock Is Now Counting Down To Climate Disaster

Fast Company - Adele Peters

The Metronome in Union Square now displays the time left before we burn all the carbon that will push the planet over the key 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. 

Photo: Zack Winestine/courtesy The Climate Clock

Seven years, 105 days, and 22 hours. That’s one estimate of the time that the world has left, as of 4:00 p.m. today, before we run through our total carbon budget at current rates of emissions.

The Climate Clock is a new digital clock counting down the seconds that are left in the carbon budget—the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted while still having a 67% chance of keeping the world under 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

It’s now plastered on the side of a building in Union Square in New York City on the Metronome, a public artwork that previously displayed the time of day.

Wow. NYC just turned the Metronome in Union Square into @theclimateclock, which counts down the 7 years and 102 days we have left to dramatically reduce carbon emissions. pic.twitter.com/AO7s55Oset

— #VoteForScience (@MarchForScience) September 20, 2020

“We felt a monumental challenge like this needed something monumental in scale—a monument,” says Gan Golan, a designer and artist who collaborated on the project with climate artist and activist Andrew Boyd.

“And we also wanted it to be in public, something that you couldn’t push out of sight, out of mind. We wanted something that would bring public attention to the climate on a daily basis, so it’s something that we can’t ignore.”

Keeping global warming under 1.5 degrees can help avoid some of the worst impacts of climate change. The clock shows just how little time is left to make that possible.

“We have this incredible stark deadline that we have to reckon with,” Golan says.

“But the good news is that the number isn’t zero. It’s clarifying this time window that we have to take bold action. And so we think of this not just as a deadline, but as a lifeline, as really outlining the opportunity that we have to make the kinds of bold, transformative change that is necessary.”

Climate Clock 2020

In an accompanying app, the artists include more detail about solutions. Another number tracks the current percentage of renewable energy in the world. An interactive tool shows how to “flatten the climate curve” and how much difference it makes to invest more now, and to move more quickly.

A DIY maker kit explains how to make a countdown clock of your own. (The artists made one for Greta Thunberg at her request, and are hoping that more public clocks will be installed in other cities.)

As emissions drop, more time can be added to the clock.

“This is not meant to be static,” says Golan. “This is not a statue just sitting there in our public environment. This is a dynamic message, and one that we hope people respond to so it becomes a catalyst for action.

"We’re hoping that the clock serves as a tool for climate organizations and advocates and activists to be able to reference to hold governments and corporations accountable. Because we can all point to this clock and say, ‘This is how much time we have left. We all need to be doing more.'”

Devastating wildfires and rampant cyclones -- the Earth has a DEADLINE: 7 years, 102 days, and counting. In NYC and every city on earth, let’s turn it into a LIFELINE. https://t.co/m2JSk0wpkB pic.twitter.com/nWbXelqt6C

— TheClimateClock (@theclimateclock) September 19, 2020

Links

• A New York Clock That Told Time Now Tells the Time Remaining
• The Carbon Clock is ticking
• Manhattan’s Climate Clock to go to Paris next, and it’s ticking
• New York’s New Climate Clock Now Counts Down to Global Deadline
• The Climate Clock: Counting down to 1.5c
• Wikipedia: Climate Clock

(AU) We Looked At 35 Years Of Rainfall And Learnt How Droughts Start In The Murray-Darling Basin

The Conversation - Chiara Holgate | Albert Van Dijk | Jason Evans

AAP Image/Dan Peled 

Authors Chiara Holgate Hydrologist & PhD Candidate, Australian National University Albert Van Dijk Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University Jason Evans Professor, UNSW

The extreme, recent drought has devastated many communities around the Murray-Darling Basin, but the processes driving drought are still not well understood.

Our new study helps to change this. We threw a weather model into reverse and ran it back for 35 years to study the natural processes leading to low rainfall during drought.

And we found the leading cause for drought in the Murray-Darling Basin was that moisture from oceans didn’t reach the basin as often as normal, and produced less rain when it did.

In fact, when moisture from the ocean did reach the basin during drought, the parched land surface actually made it harder for the moisture to fall as rain, worsening the already dry conditions.

These findings can help resolve why climate models struggle to simulate drought well, and ultimately help improve our ability to predict drought. This is crucial for our communities, farmers and bushfire emergency services.

There’s still a lot to learn about rain

The most recent drought was relentless. It saw the lowest rainfall on record in the Murray-Darling Basin, reduced agricultural output, led to increased food prices, and created tinder dry conditions before the Black Summer fires.

A water restrictions sign at the entrance to Stanthorpe, Queensland, in October 2019. Then, the Storm King Dam water level was at just 25%. AAP Image/Dan Peled

Drought in the Murray-Darling Basin is associated with global climate phenomena that drive changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation. These climate drivers include the El Niño and La Niña cycle, the Indian Ocean Dipole and the Southern Annular Mode.Each influences the probability of rainfall over Australia.

But drivers like El Niño can only explain around 20% of Australian rainfall — they only tell part of the story.

To fully understand the physical processes causing droughts to begin, persist and end, we need to answer the question: where does Australia’s rainfall come from? It may seem basic, but the answer isn’t so simple.

Where does Australia’s rainfall come from?

Broadly, scientists know rainfall derives from evaporation from two main sources: the ocean and the land. But we don’t know exactly where the moisture supplying Australia’s rainfall originally evaporates from, how the moisture supply changes between the seasons nor how it might have changed in the past.

To find out, we used a sophisticated model of Australia’s climate that gave data on atmospheric pressure, temperature, humidity, winds, rainfall and evaporation.

We put this data into a “back-trajectory model”. This traced the path of water from where it fell as rain, backwards in time through the atmosphere, to uncover where the water originally evaporated from. We did this for every day it rained over Australia between 1979 and 2013.

Not surprisingly, we found more than three-quarters of rain falling in Australia comes from evaporation from the surrounding oceans. So what does this mean for the Murray-Darling Basin?

Up to 18% of rain in the basin starts from the land

During the Millennium Drought and other big drought years (such as in 1982), the Murray-Darling Basin heavily relied on moisture transported from the Tasman and Coral seas for rain.

Moisture evaporated off the east coast needs easterly winds to transport it over the Great Dividing Range and into the Murray-Darling Basin, where it can form rain.

This means low rainfall during these droughts was a result of anomalies in atmospheric circulation, which prevented the easterly flow of ocean moisture. The droughts broke when moisture could once again be transported into the basin.

A lack of vegetation on the land can exacerbate drought. Shutterstock

The Murray-Darling Basin was also one of the regions in Australia where most “rainfall recycling” happens. This is when, following rainfall, high levels of evaporation from soils and plants return to the atmosphere, sometimes leading to more rain – particularly in spring and summer.

This means if we change the way we use the land or the vegetation, there is a risk we could impact rainfall.

For example, when a forest of tall trees is replaced with short grass or crops, humidity can go down and wind patterns change in the atmosphere above. Both of these affect the likelihood of rain.

In the northern part of the basin, less evaporation from the dry land surface exacerbated the low rainfall.

On the other hand, when the drought broke, more moisture evaporated from the damp land surface, adding to the already high levels of moisture coming from the ocean. This meant the region got a surplus of moisture, promoting even more rain.

This relationship was weaker in the southern part of the basin. But interestingly, rainfall there relied on moisture originating from evaporation in the northern basin, particularly during drought breaks. This is a result we need to explore further.

Summer rain not so good for farmers

Rainfall and moisture sources for Australia and the Murray-Darling Basin are changing. In the past 35 years, the southeast of the country has been receiving less moisture in winter, and more in summer.

This is likely due to increased easterly wind flows of moisture from the Tasman Sea in summer, and reduced westerly flows of moisture from the Southern Ocean in winter.

Southeast Australia has been getting more rain in summer and less in winter over the past 35 years. AAP Image/Dean Lewins

This has important implications, particularly for agriculture and water resource management.

For example, more rainfall in summer can be a problem for horticultural farms, as it can make crops more susceptible to fungal diseases, decreases the quality of wine grape crops and affects harvest scheduling.

Less winter rain also means less runoff into creeks and rivers — a vital process for mitigating drought risk. And this creates uncertainty for dam operators and water resource managers.

Understanding where our rainfall comes from matters, because it can improve weather forecasts, seasonal streamflow forecasts and long-term rainfall impacts of climate change. For a drought-prone country like Australia — set to worsen under a changing climate — this is more crucial than ever.

Links

• (AU) The Mystery Of The Murray-Darling’s Vanishing Flows
• (AU) New FOI Ruling Orders Disclosure Of CSIRO Internal Documents On Its Response To Murray-Darling Criticisms
• (AU) Australia’s Water Is Vanishing
• (AU) 6,000 Years Of Climate History: An Ancient Lake In The Murray-Darling Has Yielded Its Secrets
• (AU) No Water, No Leadership: New Murray Darling Basin Report Reveals States’ Climate Gamble
• Morrison government plan to scrap water buybacks will hurt taxpayers and the environment
• Yes, it's been raining a lot – but that doesn't mean Australia's drought has broken
• Aren't we in a drought? The Australian black coal industry uses enough water for over 5 million people
• 6,000 years of climate history: an ancient lake in the Murray-Darling has yielded its secrets
• Need a mood lift? We’ve tracked 4 ways Australia’s environment has repaired itself in 2020

(AU) David Attenborough Urges The World To Act On Climate Change

ABC 7:30 - Leigh Sales

David Attenborough is probably the world's best known naturalist. He has written and produced dozens of documentaries, delighting generations of TV viewers. But for the past few years he's had a much more urgent mission - convincing the world to take action on climate change.



Transcript

LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER:
He's probably the world's best-known naturalist and he has written and produced dozens of documentaries, delighting generations of TV viewers.

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
We're so similar. Their sight, their hearing, their sense of smell - they're so similar to ours that we see the world in the same way as they do.

MICHAL KURTYKA, PRESIDENT, COP24:
Please welcome, Sir David Attenborough.

LEIGH SALES:
But for the past few years, he has had a much more urgent mission - convincing the world to take action on climate change.

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
We are facing a man-made disaster of global scale.

LEIGH SALES:
Sir David, in your book, A Life On Our Planet, you write, "We live our comfortable lives in the shadow of a disaster of our own making." What do you mean by that?

SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH, NATURALIST AND BROADCASTER:
Well, I mean that we are living more comfortably, more of us are living more comfortably than ever in history.
I mean, we are living in a controlled temperature, or at least most of us are, or lots of us are, certainly, I won't do the figures, but humanity by and large has taken what it wants from the natural world and built its own construct, its own surroundings, which we tend to think of our world and now we are realising that it isn't our world, actually.
We don't control as much as we think we do, and we are heading for disaster, because we think, we have thought that we could simply take whatever we wanted if it was there.

LEIGH SALES:
When you say, "Heading for disaster," what do you think are the most pressing threats?

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
One that is lurking is that the icecaps are going to melt. For the first time now you can sail from the Pacific into the Atlantic across the North Pole in the summer and before long it looks as though you are going to be able to do that the year round and if you do that, the consequences, that is what people call a tipping point, when in fact it is not reversible.
If you are going to have all of those thousands of tons of freshwater in the icecaps, melting and going into the sea, rising the sea level, changing the salinity, changing the climate and the way the winds circulate around the world, you are interrupting and changing a fundamental rhythm that our world has lived with for centuries, millennia, and what the consequences will be is anybody's guess.

LEIGH SALES:
To be blunt, messages like yours have so far failed. Political leaders have failed to act decisively, the public is insufficiently motivated to force them to do so. Why do you think that is, and what's the answer?

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
Why it hasn't happened is because it's not going to happen tomorrow. It's going to happen the day after tomorrow, and newspapers and ourselves, I mean, let's not blame newspapers, but we ourselves are concerned with what happens tomorrow, that seems urgent and if someone says, look a little farther down the road, oh, yes, we ought to be doing something about that, and then something else happens, and we need to deal with that tomorrow.
This problem has been delayed again, and yet again, and yet again, and if we go on delaying it, it will be tomorrow and then it will be too late.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by A Life On Our Planet (@davidattenborough) on Sep 24, 2020 at 2:00am PDT

LEIGH SALES:
Your new BBC series is "Extinction: The Facts". In the history of the world, species have always become extinct. What's different now?

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
What's different now is that they're becoming, hundreds of species are becoming extinct together, right now. I mean, the dinosaurs was an unearthly body hitting the earth suddenly and that was one big effort.
Previous extinctions happened over centuries and even the dying out of the dinosaurs took several decades, we know, if not more than that.
But this is happening right now, and it's happening and it can be happening very, very quickly indeed across every aspect of the world's life.

LEIGH SALES:
Nobody can really travel with ease at the moment but let's say you could magically click your heels and transport yourself to anywhere you wanted to be in the world. Where would you go?

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
I wouldn't mind being on your side of the world, really. I have a great time when I come to Australia and I've been to Australia fairly regular and I haven't now and I doubt whether I shall be able to do so again because of the restrictions on air travel and one thing and another.
But I've had marvellous times in Australia particularly up north, up in Arnhem Land and down on the Queensland coast, but also in the south. I mean, listening to lyre birds is one of the great experiences of life. It is unbelievable. You probably have.
Well, for me it is just echoes in the mind and just sitting there and hearing this fantastic bird singing this huge range of all the bird calls that's around and then, on top of that, imitating the chainsaws that are cutting down the very forests in which it lives. I mean that's a heart-rending thing to hear, which I have.

LEIGH SALES:
You are 94 now. When you survey the landscape of your life from this vantage point, what most stands out to you?

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
In my life? Well, I suppose, it's quite a conventional reply, but it is the true one so I might as well say it, I mean, what stands out was the time I met what I thought were wild gorillas, mountain gorillas that was in Rwanda, and it stands out because I'm not allowed to forget it!
I mean, we filmed it and I wasn't expecting to get that close to them and for them to come out of the forest and then sit on me, I can honestly, truthfully say, I wasn't for a microsecond concerned.
I mean, there was this animal who could rip my arm off if it wanted to, you know, and yet there she was, she just sat alongside and put her hand on my head and put her finger in my mouth and looked inside my mouth and just - unbelievable.
And then her son, her young son, came and sat on my legs, and started pulling my shoelaces apart and how long I sat there, I mean, it was, it was certainly the most meaningful first encounter with another animal that I've ever had.

LEIGH SALES:
Well, you and your team have brought many magical moments like that one to the public, thank you for them and thank you for your time this evening.

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH:
Okay, thank you.


"We've overrun the planet" - Sir David Attenborough speaks in an exclusive interview with BBC Breakfast

Links

• David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet Review – Stark Climate Emergency Warning
• David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet Trailer
• WWF - Attenborough: A life on our planet
• Netflix - David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet
• David Attenborough to publish 'witness statement' on climate crisis
• The real David Attenborough
• The Guardian view on Planet Earth: its life in our hands
• David Attenborough Instagram
• Lethal Heating: David Attenborough Posts
• Sir David Attenborough warns of climate 'crisis moment'
• David Attenborough Says Australia's Bushfires A 'Major International Catastrophe' And Calls For Climate Action
• David Attenborough Slams Australian PM On Climate Record
• David Attenborough Takes Aim At Australia For Lack Of Climate Action
• VIDEO: David Attenborough Climate Change TV Show A 'Call To Arms'

(AU) What Are The Key Technologies In The Coalition's Low Emissions Roadmap, And Can They Deliver?

The Guardian - Royce Kurmelovs

From clean hydrogen, energy storage and low-carbon materials to carbon capture and storage, and soil carbon

The Coalition’s Low Emissions Technology Statement has won a mixed response from energy experts. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

The Coalition government this week released its much-anticipated Low Emissions Technology Statement that targeted five different technologies for rapid development:

• clean hydrogen
• energy storage
• low-carbon materials (steel and aluminium)carbon capture and
• storage and soil carbon

The plan was immediately criticised by many experts for shunning proven renewable energy generation, but others were cautiously optimistic. Here we take a closer look at some of the key technologies mentioned and whether they can deliver.

‘Clean’ hydrogen

It may be a colourless gas, but the industry has a colourful way of talking about hydrogen. In the simplest terms, “brown hydrogen” is turning coal into gas from which hydrogen can be extracted.

An alternative method, and the one the government is spruiking, relies on creating hydrogen using natural gas via a process known as steam-methane reforming (natural gas is primarily made up of methane).

How does it work?

In this process, high-temperature steam (up to 1,000C) reacts with methane under pressure (equivalent to about 25 atmospheres) in the presence of a catalyst, such as nickel, to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide – emissions which the government is hoping can be captured and stored underground.

This method of hydrogen production has been around since the 1930s, so it is relatively well understood, and is now used in more than 90% of all hydrogen production worldwide.

“Green hydrogen” is made using an electrolyser to run an electrical current through water separating it into hydrogen and oxygen. The electricity needed is provided by renewable energy such as wind or solar, eventually allowing for the creation of carbon-neutral industrial products including green steel.

Why does this matter?

It is not possible to decarbonise by electrifying everything. Some industrial processes such as steel or glass making require extremely high temperatures. While this process has relied on coal in the past, hydrogen can serve as a replacement. Hydrogen also has promise as an aviation fuel and in other modes of transport.

What’s the catch?

The government wants to generate hydrogen for under $2 a kilogram as fast as possible. Though it claims agnosticism as to method, it says hydrogen in Australia will be made by coal or natural gas in the short-term and then “underpinned” by carbon, capture and storage (CCS) to deliver “clean hydrogen”.

Dr Emma Aisbett, associate director at the Australian National University’s Grand Challenge Zero-Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific, says this may be harder to achieve than the government anticipates as the price of gas grows with demand.

“On the one hand they’re saying they need to get the price of gas down, but on other hand they’re planning to increase demand that will increase the price of gas,” Aisbett says.

The other issue the damage it may do to “brand Australia”.

“Truly green hydrogen is already in use and is likely to become cost-competitive with hydrogen produced from gas in the near future, particularly in locations such as Australia which have the ability to produce very cheap renewable energy,” Aisbett says. “So within a decade we can expect investments in CCS for capture of carbon from reforming fossil fuels could be redundant.”

Carbon capture and storage

The basic principle of CCS is simple enough: carbon dioxide is extracted directly from the atmosphere or siphoned off from an industrial byproduct and bottled up in a void deep within the earth.

Has it been done?

Internationally the International Energy Association says there are 20 commercial CCS projects worldwide, with 30 more in development amounting to a $27bn investment. While the field has become heavily politicised it does have potential uses.

According the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, such “negative emissions” technologies are needed to help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The catch?

Price. The government aims to reduce the cost of CCS to $20 a tonne, but fossil fuel companies have been working on CCS for decades and not come near this.

Done poorly, the process of capturing, transporting and locking away carbon dioxide may generate more CO2 than what it stores. Then there are questions about long-term responsibility, especially given the potential for leaks.

The places where CCS is most successfully used are actually in oilfields where pumping carbon dioxide back into the field helps extract more oil, which is not exactly helpful in acting on climate change.

On top of this, there are inherent limits. There are a finite number of geological formations that can be used for CCS, making them a scarce resource that should only be reserved for the most essential industrial processes that are hard to decarbonise – in other words, probably not hydrogen fuels or electricity generation.

Soil carbon

“Soil carbon” refers to the amount of decomposing plant matter in soil. Gardeners and soil scientists know this “organic matter” as a measure of soil quality, but thinking about soil as a carbon sink may offer another way to soak up CO2.

Some projections suggest it has the potential to trap 9bn tonnes of CO2 each year globally. But this process takes time, and can be quickly undone. Some calculations suggest 150bn tonnes of soil carbon has been lost since the advent of agriculture.

How does it work?

While Tuesday’s statement talks about soil carbon, more specifically it aims to bring the price of measuring organic matter down below $3 a hectare on the basis it may better open ways to use soil to lock away carbon. One approach is to develop fine-tuned sensors that sit permanently within the soil to collect data in real time, which can then be used to generate accurate models of the landscape.

The attraction of the government to soil carbon is partly political. The cost of measurement was a factor that made its emissions reductions fund – that pays farmers to increase the carbon stored in soil – uneconomic.

Dr Annette Cowie, principal research scientist in New South Wales Department of Primary Industries’ climate branch says while achieving a cost of $3 a hectare is unlikely, driving down the cost is necessary as until it changes farmers and soil scientists are flying blind.

“Organic matter is hard to build up and easy to lose,” Cowie says. “We have the technical capacity to measure it easily, but not cheaply.

“Soil carbon is quite variable. It changes depending on geology and geography. [Right now] you need to collect a lot of samples to get a good reading, multiple samples per hectare and then send it all to a lab.”

The verdict

By focusing purely on short-term developments, the Coalition is pinning its response to climate change on a sudden technological breakthrough – without doing the necessary heavy lifting.

As an exercise in green industry policy – where government attempts to drive industrial and technological development – this is welcomed in some quarters. The problem is that the Coalition remains wedded to ideas like CCS and so has set aside $18bn as an implicit subsidy for fossil fuel industry.

“Wind and solar are mature technologies that can produce energy cheaper than coal or gas,” Aisbett says. “The remaining market failures inhibiting emissions reduction are mainly around how to integrate, store and use this cheap, clean energy.

“This is where government policy and taxpayer resources should be directed. The emphasis on the use of dirty, expensive energy from gas, and ways to make it more expensive though slightly cleaner in the technology roadmap is not technology neutral and not an efficient use of taxpayer money.”

Links

• By 2020 standards, Angus Taylor's low-emissions technology statement is not really a climate policy
• The Coalition's tech roadmap is a strategy based on an old and discredited argument
• AGL says it will link bosses’ bonuses to lowering emissions
• Green steel industry could secure jobs future for Australia's coalmining heartland
• Australia's carbon emissions fall just 0.3% as industrial pollution surges
• Importing gas to replace domestic supply could push emissions up 20%, AGL says
• Half of Australia's emissions increase linked to WA's Gorgon LNG plant
• Forget coal wars, says Alan Finkel – look at emission outcomes
• Australia's peak business lobby calls for emissions intensity scheme
• Renewable energy spike led to sharp drop in emissions in Australia, study shows

China Changes The Game On Climate Action, For Renewables And For Coal

RenewEconomy - Michael Mazengarb



China’s newly announced commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060 is set to be a game-changer, both for a renewables industry that will be tasked with an unprecedented roll-out of new wind, solar and storage capacity, as well as the fundamental shift it represents in the geopolitical environment of international climate change negotiations.

The scale of a Chinese commitment to achieving zero net emissions cannot be underestimated. Official greenhouse gas measurements place China as the world’s largest emitter, at almost 12,500 million tonnes a year, representing more than a quarter of all global emissions, almost double the emissions of the United States and more than 20-times larger than those of Australia.

To meet its new target, China will need to undertake an unprecedented deployment of zero-emissions technologies, building upon the country’s already significant portfolio of wind and solar capacity. To give a sense of the scale of the shift that will be needed; China currently consumes around 7,250 TWh of electricity, more than 25-times Australia’s total electricity demand.

Conservative estimates suggest that China could require thousands of gigawatts of new wind and solar capacity to be added over the next four decades just to shift existing electricity demand to zero emissions sources, before demand growth is taken into account, and presumes its current fleet of nuclear and hydroelectricity plants are maintained.

China will need to replace its 1,300GW fleet of coal generators and around 85GW of gas generation with zero emissions sources.

It would also require an unprecedented deployment of storage infrastructure, through the construction of new shorter-term battery storage capacity and an expansion of China’s hydroelectric capacity to provide pumped-hydro energy storage capacity.

It also spells doom for Australia’s coal sector, with China ranking as Australia’s second-largest export market for coal, purchasing around $15 billion worth of Australian coal annually.

In revealing the target in an address to the United Nations General Assembly last week, Chinese president Xi Jinping tied the need to act on climate change and to invest in new technologies with the need to drive economic development in a post-Covid-19 recovery.

“China will scale up its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions by adopting more vigorous policies and measures,” Xi Jinping said. “We aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.

“We call on all countries to pursue innovative, coordinated, green and open development for all, seize the historic opportunities presented by the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, achieve a green recovery of the world economy in the post-COVID era and thus create a powerful force driving sustainable development.”

Climate Action Tracker, which assesses national climate policies against the level of action required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and keep global warming to within safe levels, estimated that China’s target would lower global warming projections by around 0.2 to 0.3°C.

“This is the most important announcement on global climate policy in at least the last five years,” NewClimate Institute’s Niklas Höhne said, which partners with Climate Action Tracker.

“This would mean that China, responsible for a quarter of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions, would phase out any conventional use of coal, oil and gas by the middle of the century, unthinkable a few years ago.”

Analyst estimates suggest China’s target could lead to as much as 215 billion tonnes of avoided emissions by 2060, while helping to boost China’s GDP growth by as much as 5 per cent, driven by the huge investment required to build the new wind and solar projects needed to achieve the target. It will have a dramatic impact on China’s emissions trajectory, as evidenced by projections prepared by Carbon Brief.

However, China’s announcement could have an even wider reaching impact, achieving more than just a reduction in China’s own emissions, by placing pressure on other big emitters to ramp up the strength of their own targets.

Analysts at the World Resources Institute said the target would have massive ramifications in the geopolitical environment around climate action.

“This announcement will send positive shockwaves through diplomatic circles and should prompt greater climate ambition from other major emitters,” the World Resources Institute’s vice president for climate and economics Helen Mountford said.

“The case for ambitious climate action is stronger than ever and can deliver a strong economic recovery from COVID-19. Bold climate policy measures can grow China’s economy, create jobs and position the country well to compete and lead in a low-carbon 21st century economy.”

With China committing to achieving the zero emissions goal by 2060, and a prospective Biden administration promising to commit the United States to net-zero emissions no later than 2050, the Morrison government is becoming increasingly isolated in its refusal to adopt a zero emissions target.

This is a refusal that has again been reiterated in recent weeks, with prime minister Scott Morrison saying that he would not commit to a net zero emissions target by 2050, as has been advocated for by both environmental and business groups alike, instead pointing to the comparatively vague wording contained within the Paris Agreement that requires zero net emissions to be achieved sometime in the ‘second half of the century’.

Federal energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor told ABC’s 730 report that he did not think the Paris Agreement even required individual countries to commit to achieving zero net emissions, suggesting instead that this was a ‘global commitment’.

“There is not, as you say, a commitment from individual countries in Paris to be net zero by 2050,” Taylor said. “The commitment is a global commitment to get to net zero in the second half of the century, and that’s why technology is so critical. We want to bring that forward to as soon as possible, but ultimately this is a global commitment and it’s going to require global solutions.”

Links

• Climate Change: China Aims For 'Carbon Neutrality By 2060'
• China's Surprise Climate Pledge Leaves Australia 'Naked In The Wind', Analysts Say
• China’s 2060 Climate Change Gambit
• China’s zero carbon pledge: What does it mean for the global climate change fight?
• Spotlight: China's pledge to cut CO2 emissions boosts global confidence in climate change
• Analysis: Going carbon neutral by 2060 ‘will make China richer’
• China’s New Climate Pledge Is Extraordinarily Ambitious
• Experts praise China’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2060—but more could be done

(AU) Climate Change Action Stymied By Australian Business Lobby, UK Think Tank Finds

ABC News - Elysse Morgan


Extended interview with Edward Collins (Elysse Morgan)

Key Points A new report finds the Minerals Council of Australia is the "single largest negative influence on Australian climate-related policy" The Business Council of Australia, two state-based minerals councils and the main oil and gas lobby group are also fingered in the report InfluenceMap, which wrote the report, has previously found Australia's climate policies are consistent with a 3-4 degrees Celsius temperature rise

A UK-based climate think tank has named the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the NSW Minerals Council as the three organisations most responsible for undermining climate policy in Australia.

Mining giants BHP, Santos, Rio Tinto and Glencore were found to have the most concentrated network of links to industry associations that "continue to work against Paris-aligned policy for Australia".

The new report was written by InfluenceMap, which was launched shortly before the Paris Agreement in 2015 and provides data and analysis to major shareholders and investors on how businesses are affecting climate policy around the world.

It is a think tank funded by environmentally focused charities and organisations, including the IKEA Foundation and the European Union.

The report into Australia's industry associations and their climate policy footprint finds three-quarters of Australia's most influential industry associations are having an overwhelmingly negative impact on climate policy, taking positions against climate regulations and promoting a pro-fossil-fuels agenda.

The report also argues there has been limited public scrutiny of these activities.

Minerals Council 'single largest negative influence'

InfluenceMap looked at 20 industry associations — including the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), the Business Council of Australia (BCA), the NSW and Queensland minerals councils, and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) — based on their active involvement in climate and energy policy.

The report cites the MCA's recent advocacy for reduced taxes and faster project approval for mining, its opposition to strong international climate commitments, and its calls to water down clean-energy targets as some of the evidence against it.

---

10 years of climate policy inertia

Ten years ago one man's plan blew apart Australia's two great parties irrevocably just as they teetered toward consensus on climate change, the most divisive issue of the Australian political century. Read more 

---

It highlights the BCA's push for the Government to support gas as part of the energy transition, that it has opposed renewable-energy policies in favour of "technology-neutral" policies and lobbied against state-based renewables targets.

The report notes the Minerals Council of Australia is the "single largest negative influence on Australian climate-related policy", while the BCA was named as the fourth biggest drag.

This is perhaps surprising given the BCA states publicly: "We support the need for a market-based carbon price to drive the transition and incentivise investment in low and no-emissions technology."

It also says it supports the science of climate change, the Paris Agreement, and investment in technology to get Australia to a net-zero-emissions future.

But the InfluenceMap report finds, despite the positive public statements it has made, the group's actions show it "continues to oppose Paris-aligned climate policy".

Shareholder pressure ramping up

The report comes as activists and shareholder groups increase their pressure on companies, demanding boards take a more active approach to reducing emissions and review the lobby groups they belong to.

As a result of shareholder pressure, BHP has reviewed its membership of organisations such as the BCA and MCA every year since 2017.

Just last month, BHP announced new global climate policy standards, including national emissions reduction targets consistent with the Paris Agreement, and further scrutiny of its lobby group membership.

It faces a vote at its annual general meeting on a recommendation the mining giant suspends memberships of industry associations that have advocated for COVID-19 economic stimulus measures inconsistent with the Paris Agreement's goals.

BHP's board has not endorsed the item, stating: "It does not take account of recent changes to BHP's approach to industry associations." The mining giant is aiming to make changes from within the tent.

In August it adopted policy positions, including net-zero emissions by 2050, and indicated it expected its positions to be reflected by associations it was a member of.

However, "the Big Australian" fares poorly in InfluenceMap's analysis.

"BHP has done a lot on the transparency front recently and I'm sure investors will see that as a positive step, but this assessment is really looking at them and their impact," report author Edward Collins told ABC's The Business.

"So that ranking for BHP is really coming from the fact that they have the largest network of links to industry associations that we judge to be the most negatively influential in Australia and, although we factor in the fact that they have distanced themselves from some of those positions, they've still come out as the worst in our analysis due to the strength and number of those links."

As with BHP, Rio Tinto is also facing shareholder pressure, as is Woodside Energy, which is Australia's largest oil and gas producer.

COVID-19 response highlights transparency problems

The analysis does not include the policy response to the pandemic and, in particular, the "gas-led recovery" pushed by energy sector veterans Nev Power and Andrew Liveris, who sit on the Federal Government's hand-picked economic advisory panel.

---

Gas-fired path to COVID recovery?

The Federal Government's National COVID Coordination Commission has a lot of gas industry players involved, and it appears to be showing in its policy recommendations. Read more

---

Mr Collins said the Government's urgent response to the need for stimulus out of COVID-19, and the potential for influential lobby groups to direct policy, only increased the need for transparency.

"One thing we are quite keen on is more meaningful transparency measures so external parties can understand the relationships between companies and government policy institutions and how these influences are taking place," he said.

"It would hopefully make our job redundant in the future."

InfluenceMap's 2019 report found Australian representative groups featured disproportionately among the world's most damaging lobbyists on climate.

According to a consortium of science institutes behind the Climate Action Tracker, Australia is headed for an 8 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, which would be aligned with global a temperature increase between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius if replicated globally.

Links

• In the fraught field of energy policy, Scott Morrison is taking the middle ground
• Federal Government threatens to build gas plant if electricity sector doesn't replace retiring coal-fired power stations
• Offsetting your emissions: Greenwashing or a win for the environment?
• Investors are trying to shut down fossil fuel companies from the inside — this is what they're doing
• (AU) Narrabri Gas Project Should Be Blocked, Says Ex-Chief Scientist
• (AU) Australia’s Shifting Mood On Climate Change
• (AU) Climate Change Policy: The Missing Middle
• The businesses that are — and are not — leading on climate change
• Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report