Climate Change Authority Says Turnbull Government Should Adopt New Low Emissions Target

Fairfax - James Massola | Heath Aston | Fergus Hunter

The Turnbull government should adopt a Low Emissions Target as a fall back option to help Australia reduce its carbon emissions and meet its Paris climate targets, according to the Climate Change Authority.

Trump's climate call
US President Donald Trump has withdrawn America from the Paris climate change agreement, but Australia will not follow according to the energy minister.

The call is contained in a new joint report by the Authority and the Australian Energy Market Regulator, requested by Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, on how to improve power security in Australia and reduce electricity prices.
Fairfax Media understands the recommendation is likely to be mirrored in chief scientist Alan Finkel's review of the electricity sector, which will be released at the next Council of Australian Governments meeting next Friday.
The report argues that an Emissions Intensity Scheme is still the best way to reduce emissions but the Turnbull government ruled out this policy after a revolt by the Coalition backbench late last year.
In the absence of an emissions intensity scheme, "a LET could support a wide range of generation technologies including gas and carbon capture and storage" the Authority stated.
The energy market regulator said it had not compared a Low Emissions Target with an Emissions Intensity Scheme in terms of its impact on the electricity market, including on prices and system security.
A low emission target operates in a similar way to the Renewable Energy Target and implementing one could help provide a path forward for the Turnbull government.

The Climate Change Authority says the Turnbull government should adopt a low emissions target. Photo: AP

It would require more electricity be supplied from – depending on its design – renewables, carbon capture and storage and highly efficient gas
A low emissions generation target could be set in a LET, and scaled up in future if needed, or a desired level of emissions intensity per unit of electricity generated could be set.

President Donald Trump speaks about the US role in the Paris climate change accord. Photo: AP

The report was released on Friday as Mr Turnbull stared down calls from his backbench to postpone the release of the Finkel review after the United States abandoned the Paris climate treaty.
A coalition of groups including the Business Council, ACTU, ACOSS, Conservation Foundation and the Climate Institute issued a joint statement on Friday that said Australia must remain a signatory to the Paris deal, which requires a 26-28 per cent emissions cut, against 2005 level, by 2030.

Malcolm Turnbull has rebuffed backbench climate change rebels. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

In Singapore, Mr Turnbull said President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris international climate change pact was not a surprise, but disappointing.
"We would prefer the United States to remain part of the agreement," he said.
Mr Trump's decision to pull out of the landmark accord – which seeks to limit global warming to 2 degrees celsius through emissions cuts from member nations – has been met with a swift global backlash.
Mr Turnbull also rebuffed calls by senior conservative Eric Abetz to put the Finkel Review on ice and ask its author to consider the local ramifications for a Paris accord that does not include the US, including putting beef producers at a competitive disadvantage.
Fairfax Media revealed on Thursday that five Coalition backbenchers – Ian Goodenough, Senator Abetz, Ian MacDonald, Tony Pasin and environment committee chair Craig Kelly – want the government to reassess the Paris agreement.
But Mr Turnbull said the timing of the release of the Finkel Review will not change and that the nation needed an "informed, hard-headed, practical approach" to the future of the electricity system.
Labor Climate spokesman Mark Butler said "any notion that the Turnbull government's opposition to an EIS is based on rational concerns for impacts on electricity affordability, reliability or policy effectiveness is demolished by this latest report".
Greens climate spokesman Adam Bandt said that a low emissions target was a "second best option".
This week Dr Finkel told a Senate hearing that his report would cover Australia's responsibilities to cut total emissions under the Paris agreement but did not say whether it would advocate placing a price on carbon.
Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg told the ABC on Friday that an EIS pushed by business leaders would not solve the major issue of reliability, typified by the South Australian blackout earlier this year.
"Our position on an emissions intensity scheme is clear: we believe that that does punish some of the existing coal-fired power generators in the country," he said.
Environment groups are pushing for a faster transition to a 100 per cent renewable power grid.
The ACF, Wilderness Society and Solar Citizens on Friday released a document that called for an "urgent energy system overhaul that provides a clear pathway to a clean, reliable, affordable, inclusive and equitable renewable energy future for all Australians".

Links

• Trump climate pullout 'disappointing', Turnbull says
• World leaders react as Trump withdraws US from Paris climate deal
• 'Disastrous': Australia's Carbon Emissions Jump As Coal-Fired Power Ramps Up
• NSW Sets Net-Zero Carbon Emissions Goal By 2050 As Australian Pollution Climbs
• Departing Green Finance Chief Oliver Yates Says Australia Must Improve On Climate
• US Emissions Set To Miss 2025 Target In Paris Climate Change Deal, Research Finds
• Victoria To Stop Pumping Out Carbon Dioxide By 2050, Premier Daniel Andrews Promises
• Six Months after Paris Accord, We’re Losing the Climate-Change Battle
• Labor Proposes Two Emissions Trading Schemes Costing $555m
• India Unveils Climate Target Ahead Of Paris Summit With Pledge To Cut Carbon Emissions 'Intensity'

Will India Ever Need Another Coal Plant?

CityLab - Krutika Pathi

The country’s energy infrastructure is changing rapidly as solar prices plummet.

Amit Dave/Reuters

In 2010, India was experiencing a massive boost in coal power—but not everyone was benefitting. Those in the Siddhi community, spread across the foothills of the Western Ghats, were almost entirely left in the literal dark. Francis Wilson relied entirely on kerosene lamps since the power grid didn’t cover his area. Mohan Appu had no direct connection to electricity because he had no documents to prove ownership of the house he had lived in for years. Residents of this rural community would have to travel almost 13 miles to charge a mobile phone.
This scenario, which plays out often across pockets of rural areas in the country, reflects the curious situation of India’s energy landscape. For the past two years, there’s been an overabundance of coal power, even though 240 million people in India still have little to no access to electricity. Meanwhile, over the last five months, the price of renewable energy has plummeted so low that analysts have hailed it as both “record-breaking” and “unsustainable” in the same breath. In fact, the pace of change in the country’s energy infrastructure has been so swift that even researchers are scrambling to keep a steady pulse on a constantly developing beat.
As China slowly cut down on its own coal infrastructure, the International Energy Agency in 2015 projected India to be the next coal center in the near future. It stated that “half of the net increase in coal-fired generation capacity worldwide [through 2040] occurs in India.” Nearly a year later, in July 2016, the nonprofit CoalSwarm put out a report that found 370 proposals for coal plants in the works across the country.
The findings revealed a pretty explosive conclusion: that India’s outsized plans for coal energy would wipe out climate goals set out in the Paris Agreement. Merely a few months after the report, the researchers at CoalSwarm were surprised by a new twist. In December 2016, the Central Authority of India (CAI) laid out an electricity plan that said no new coal plants, beyond those already under construction, are needed for at least the next decade. The CAI also put forth new renewable energy goals—a production of 275 gigawatts (GW) generated from solar, wind, and hydro by 2027.

“You can’t keep building expensive coal-fired power plants that pollute the country and think there’s going to be demand—[some residents] just can’t afford it.”

This means that the majority of the plants that CoalSwarm tracked are now going to be shelved. It’s also a show of India’s push towards reforming its energy infrastructure: the country added more renewable power than thermal in the 2016 fiscal year. “It was hard to keep up,” says Christine Shearer, a senior researcher at CoalSwarm and lead author of the report. “The country is supposed to be at the heart of coal plant growth, but it’s interesting to see the tide go against what we often hear about China and India—that they’re going to keep building coal plants—when actually, they’re both stalling production.”
The glut of power doesn’t mean that every corner of the country is electrified— rather, it gestures strongly towards inertia, uneven distribution, and redundancy. “There are many coal plants which aren’t functioning at full capacity,” says Ashish Fernandes, a senior campaigner at Greenpeace. This underutilization, he points out, has led to an abundance of stale power contained inside state-owned distribution companies.
Another reason for the overabundance: rural areas that lack electricity can’t seem to afford the price of it. The cost can range from around Rs. 120 ($1.86 USD) to Rs. 500 ($7.75 USD) per month for domestic utilities, depending on the state. “If [residents] can’t afford the power, it doesn’t matter what fuel they use,” says Tim Buckley, a director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). “You’ve got to solve energy poverty, education, and employment to address that problem,” he adds.“You can’t keep building expensive coal-fired power plants that pollute the country and think there’s going to be demand—[some residents] just can’t afford it.” Even when data shows an area as having electricity, it may not mean much, Fernandes says. “We need to look at individual households that have power. According to the government data, if you have one building or streetlight in a rural area that has power, the entire town is considered to be connected,” he adds.

A look at the annual growth of coal capacity, in megawatts, added in India between 1960-2015, right before the country declared an oversupply of coal power. (Courtesy of CoalSwarm)

A report by Greenpeace published in October 2016 identified 65GW of coal power stations under construction in India and an additional 176GW of projects at various stages of obtaining permissions. The report forecast that 94 percent of the capacity being built would not be needed by 2022, representing a waste of $49 billion in investments. This could partly explain why a $150 million coal plant in the state of Maharashtra is currently sitting idle, with a lack of demand from power generators. And it could also explain why another state in India, Gujarat, has walked away from a $4 billion coal plant of 4000 megawatts this month. “There is no financial investment to fund coal in the Indian market because they’re simply not competitive against solar energy prices right now,” says Buckley.
As prospects for India’s coal sector are falling, so is the price of renewable energy. In turn, the country’s future outlook, if all goes accordingly, is pretty good news for the planet. India first set a record-low price in February this year when a kilowatt-hour of solar energy was selling at Rs. 2.97 ($0.046 USD). This month, the country hit another record low—the price of solar dropped 12 percent further, currently selling at Rs. 2.62 ($0.041 USD) per kilowatt-hour. “To spell it out, new solar is 15 percent cheaper than existing domestic coal. No one, anywhere in the world, was expecting solar to get that cheap for at least a decade,” Buckley says, “and India just got there this year.” It’s a marked shift for India—which, in a matter of months, went from potentially thwarting global climate goals to possibly saving them.
The news of falling solar prices in India, and the country’s recent (but significant) efforts to divest from coal as the fundamental energy source, stands in contrast to the current scenario in the U.S. Analysts fear that President Trump’s “America First Energy Plan” will put the country behind China and India in the push to reinvigorate renewable solutions. “What gives me hope is that at a time when Trump is busy trying to destroy the Paris Agreement, the two most important countries in the world for the agreement are China and India,” says Buckley.
According to a study released last week by the Climate Action Tracker, India and China are on pace to “overachieve” their climate goals by 2030. While Trump has taken recent action to revitalize the coal industry, the report finds that China and India’s recent aggressive stances on carbon emissions “significantly outweigh” America’s lack of clean energy initiatives. Ultimately, Buckley points out that it might come down to those two countries taking the lead. “If Trump backs out of the Paris Agreement, which [is] a very likely scenario, he would be ceding America’s leadership in energy markets to China and India,” Buckley says.
Out of the world’s top three carbon transmitters, the U.S. is the only one at risk of missing its target goal, the Climate Action Tracker report concludes. An energy blueprint released this week by the Indian government predicts that 57 percent of total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027—exceeding the Paris Agreement’s target of 40 percent by 2030. Currently, almost 33 percent of the country’s total energy comes from non-fossil fuel, which makes the Paris target relatively unambitious—it looks like India is almost three-and-a-half years ahead of schedule.
The research is undoubtedly positive and the numbers trumpet a new standard being set by two unlikely countries. But in terms of large-scale implementation, neither solar nor coal are easy options in India. For solar energy to be reliable and widespread, the country would need to build grid infrastructure on an unprecedented scale. The dwindling prices of non-fossil fuel energy is encouraging, and the slow-but-steady withdrawal from coal is optimistic, but is it enough to plug the gaps? Fernandes doesn’t think so. “The biggest threats to renewable expansion are the distribution companies,” he says, adding that this is the root of the problem. “Unless the distribution model is overhauled, the same issues will be transferred.”
Solutions like off-grid solar panels are one kind of sustainable technology that could address the distribution problem, says Harish Hande, co-founder of SELCO, an enterprise that introduced off-grid solar energy in the Siddhi community in 2010. Within a year, 100 homes in the area were connected to power in the Western Ghats region. SELCO has been nationally awarded for its energy work in under-served households and areas—but, as Hande points out, a long-standing solution has to go beyond the mere mechanics of the supply chain. “It’s much larger than providing electricity,” he says, “and there have to be enough public-private partnerships that cross over education, health, and the bigger ecosystem for sustainable energy services to become more accessible.”

Links

• India cancelling huge coal power station because it wants to focus on renewable energy
• Selling Solar Power in India's Slums
• Mapping India's Electricity Deserts
• India's Revolutionary Plan to Make All Its Cars Electric
• Electric Vehicles Are Cleaning Up

Fact-Checking President Trump’s Claims On The Paris Climate Change Deal

Washington Post - Glenn Kessler | Michelle Ye Hee Lee



In his speech announcing his decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord on climate change, President Trump frequently relied on dubious facts and unbalanced claims to make his case that the agreement would hurt the U.S. economy. Notably, he only looked at one side of the scale — claiming the agreement left the United States at a competitive disadvantage, harming U.S. industries. But he often ignored the benefits that could come from tackling climate change, including potential green jobs.
Trump also suggested that the United States was treated unfairly under the agreement. But each of the nations signing the agreement agreed to help lower emissions, based on plans they submitted. So the U.S. target was set by the Obama administration.
The plans are not legally binding, but developing and developed countries are treated differently because developed countries, on a per capita basis, often produce more greenhouse gases than developing countries. For instance, on a per capita basis, the United States in 2015 produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions of China — and eight times more than India.
Here’s a roundup of various statements made by the president during his Rose Garden address. As is our practice, we do not award Pinocchios in roundups of speeches.

“We’re getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.”

Each country set its own commitments under the Paris Accord, so Trump’s comment is puzzling. He could unilaterally change the commitments offered by President Barack Obama, which is technically allowed under the Accord. But there is no appetite to renegotiate the entire agreement, as made clear by various statements from world leaders after his announcement.

“China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020.”

This is false. The agreement is nonbinding and each nation sets its own targets. There is nothing in the agreement that stops the United States from building coal plants or gives the permission to China or India to build coal plants. In fact, market forces, primarily reduced costs for natural gas, have forced the closure of coal plants. China announced this year that it would cancel plans to build more than 100 coal-fired plants.
Gary Cohn, chairman of Trump’s National Economic Council, recently told reporters that “coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock. Natural gas, which we have become an abundant producer, which we’re going to become a major exporter of, is such a cleaner fuel.”

“Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need.”

Trump cited a slew of statistics from a study that was funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for Capital Formation, foes of the Paris Accord. So the figures must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Moreover, the study assumed a scenario that no policy analyst expects — that the United States takes drastic steps to meet the Obama pledge of a 26 to 28 percent reduction in emissions by 2025.
Moreover, the study did not consider possible benefits from reducing climate change. A footnote says: The study “does not take into account potential benefits from avoided emissions. … The model does not take into consideration yet-to-be developed technologies that might influence the long-term cost.”
Trump also cited the impact by 2040, including a “cost to the economy” of nearly $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product. But in addition to an unrealistic scenario, that number must be viewed in context over more than two decades, so “$3 trillion” amounts to a reduction of 6 percent. The study concludes coal usage would almost disappear, but innovation in clean energy sources would slow considerably, which also raises the cost of complying with the commitments.
Environmentalists say greater investment in clean energy will lower costs and spur innovation. That may not be correct either, but it demonstrates how the outcomes in models of economic activity decades from now depend on the assumptions.

“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that, this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount.”

Trump is referring to research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a 2015 report. Researchers found that proposed emissions cuts in the Paris plan would result in about 0.2 degrees (Celsius) less warming by 2100, if the cuts were not extended further.
John Reilly, lead author of the report, said he “disagrees completely” with Trump’s characterization that the 0.2 degree cut is a “tiny, tiny” amount that is not worth pursuing. As a part of the deal, countries reexamine their commitments and can exceed or extend their pledges beyond 2030. The intent of the research was to say the Paris deal was a small step, and that more incremental steps need to be taken in the long run.
“The logic that, ‘This isn’t making much progress on a serious problem, therefore we’re going to do nothing,’ just doesn’t make sense to me. The conclusion should be — and our intended implication for people was — not to overly celebrate Paris, because you still have a long journey in front of you. So carb up for the rest of the trip,” Reilly said.

“The green fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion. Nobody else is even close. Most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism. That’s where they came.”

It is incorrect that other countries have not contributed to the Green Climate Fund. In fact, 43 governments have pledged money to the fund, including nine developing countries. The countries have pledged to pay $10.13 billion collectively, and the U.S. share is $3 billion. As of May 2017, the United States has contributed $1 billion of the $3 billion it pledged.
Trump implies that the money was taken out of U.S. defense monies. But the U.S. contributions were paid out of the State Department’s Economic Support Fund, one of the foreign assistance programs to promote economic or political stability based on U.S. strategic interests. Republican lawmakers have criticized the use of this fund, saying Congress designated the money to prioritize security, human rights and other efforts unrelated to climate change. However, the payments were made with congressional notification and meetings with congressional staff.
Trump also claimed in the speech that the Green Climate Fund “calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries.” But, as we noted, it’s actually $10 billion.

“China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years, 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.”

China, in its Paris Accord commitment, said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would seek to cut its carbon emissions by 60 to 65 percent per unit of GDP by 2030. India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 to 35 percent below 2005 by 2030; the submission does seek foreign aid to meet its goals and mitigate the costs.
Both countries pledge to reach these goals by 2030, meaning they are taking steps now to meet their commitments. India, for instance, seeks to have renewable power make up 40 percent of its power base by 2030, so it is investing heavily in solar energy. The country is now on track to become the world’s third-largest solar power market in 2018, after China and the United States. China is also investing heavily in renewable energy.

“Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.”

Trump is referring to concerns raised by White House counsel Don McGahn that staying in the Paris agreement would bolster legal arguments of climate advocates challenging Trump’s decision to roll back the Clean Power Plan.
The Clean Power Plan is a flagship environmental regulatory rule of the Obama administration, and proposes to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. It is crucial to the United States meeting its carbon emissions reductions pledge in the Paris agreement. But it has been placed on hold while under litigation.
According to Politico, McGahn raised concerns that the Paris agreement “could be cited in court challenges to Trump’s efforts to kill Obama’s climate rules. McGahn’s comments shocked State Department lawyers, who strongly reject both of those contentions, the sources said.”

“As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States, which is what it does.”

For years, Trump has touted his strong record on the environment. But the evidence is quite slim. We awarded Four Pinocchios to his claim that he is a “very big person when it comes to the environment,” who has “received awards on the environment.”
Environmentalists have criticized many of Trump’s projects, particularly for his plans to build a golf course on protected sand dunes and chopping down hundreds of trees for a golf course renovation. As a businessman, Trump or his property did win two environmental awards. In 2007, the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., received an award for “environmental stewardship through golf course maintenance, construction, education and research.” Three years later, the golf course was cited for a series of environmental violations.
In 2007, Trump won a “Green Space Award” for donating 435 acres of land to the state of New York. He had purchased the land to build a golf course, but withdrew plans after opposition from local residents and environmental restrictions. The land was never developed into a park, and New York closed it after budget cuts in 2010.

Links

• Obama: A virtual museum of his presidency
• China Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity
• Trump Chief Economic Adviser Contradicts Campaign Promise: Coal ‘Doesn’t Even Make That Much Sense Anymore’
• State Dept's $500 Million Transfer to the U.N.
• Trump’s lawyer raises concerns about remaining in Paris climate accord, sources say
• Trump’s unsupported claim he has ‘received awards on the environment’

French President To U.S. Scientists: Come Work With Us On Climate Change

Huffington Post - Carla Herreria

Emmanuel Macron wants to "make the planet great again" with the help of American citizens.

President Macron makes his disapproval clear, saying "the Paris agreement remains irreversible and will be implemented."

After President Donald Trump dealt a blow to the global community by pulling the United States out of the Paris agreement to fight climate change, the president of France turned to another American ally: the American citizen.
In an official statement released Thursday evening, French President Emmanuel Macron said he respected Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord but called the move "an actual mistake." He then called on American scientists and citizens to sidestep Trump by working directly with France and European researchers on solving the global issue of climate change.
"To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the president of the United States, I want to say that they will find in France a second homeland," Macron said in a video posted to Facebook.
"I call on them, come and work here with us to work together on concrete solutions for our planet, our environment. I can assure you France will not give up the fight."

President Donald Trump announced on Thursday plans for the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change

Leaders from Italy and Germany joined the French president in a separate statement released Thursday, saying they regret Trump's decision and noting that the Paris climate agreement could not be renegotiated.
When Macron was still a presidential candidate in February, he also asked climate scientists, researchers and entrepreneurs in the U.S. to seek refuge from Trump's climate change skepticism and join French efforts.
"Please, come to France. Your are welcome, it's your nation," Macron said in a video published earlier this year. "We want innovative people. We want people working on climate change, energy, renewables and new technologies."
Trump's decision to withdraw from the historic deal makes the U.S. one of only three countries in the world not participating in the international agreement to curb global warming. The other two countries are Syria, which is in the midst of a civil war, and Nicaragua, whose leaders argued that the agreement wasn't strong enough.
Macron concluded his statement on Thursday with one of Trump's familiar refrains, only this time, it was edited to fit the Paris agreement's main purpose: "Make our planet great again. Thank you."

Links

• 9 Times Trump Twisted Facts In His Speech Quitting Paris Accord
• Donald Trump Has Betrayed His Youngest Child's Future
• Paris Agreement 'Very Meaningful' Despite U.S. Withdrawal, Government Insists
• Donald Trump's Paris Agreement Announcement And 11 Times It Made No Sense
• The Weather Channel Is Not Messing Around When It Comes To Climate Change
• Obama: Trump Administration Showing 'An Absence Of American Leadership' On Paris Accord

Trump Announces U.S. Will Exit Paris Climate Deal

Washington Post - Philip Rucker | Jenna Johnson


President Trump has decided to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. Here's what you need to know. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

President Trump announced Thursday afternoon that he is withdrawing the United States from the landmark Paris climate agreement, a move to honor a campaign pledge that dismayed America’s allies and thwarted the global effort to address the warming planet.
Trump’s decision alarmed leaders around the world, drawing swift and sharp condemnation from foreign officials as well as top U.S. environmentalists and corporate titans, who decried the U.S. exit from the Paris accord as an irresponsible abdication of American leadership.
But Trump cast his decision as a “reassertion of America’s sovereignty,” arguing that the climate pact as negotiated under President Obama was grossly unfair to the U.S. workers he had vowed to protect with his populist “America First” campaign platform.
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump proclaimed in a forceful, lengthy and at times rambling speech from the Rose Garden of the White House.
The United States now joins only two countries — Nicaragua and Syria — in opposing a climate agreement reached by all other nations in 2015. A signature diplomatic achievement for President Obama, the Paris accord was celebrated at the time as a universal response to the global warming crisis.

President Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement on June 1, after saying he would "cancel" the deal while on the campaign trail. (Reuters)

Trump argued Thursday that the deal had negative ramifications for domestic manufacturing and other industries, and put the United States at a “permanent disadvantage” with China, India and other rising powers. He said the agreement’s restrictions on future greenhouse gas emissions would be tantamount to putting America’s vast energy resources “under lock and key.”
The U.S. withdrawal of the Paris agreement cannot actually be finalized until near the end of Trump’s term. In a gesture to those who had encouraged him to remain in the accord, Trump said he was open to negotiating a new climate deal that, in his assessment, would be more fair to U.S. interests.
“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers,” Trump said.
“We’re getting out,” he added, “but we will start to negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. If we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine.”
The leaders of France, Germany and Italy issued a joint statement voicing “regret” about Trump’s move, promising to redouble their efforts to implement the Paris agreement and asserting it cannot be renegotiated.
“We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” read the statement from French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni.
Following Trump’s speech, Macron spoke with the president by phone for five minutes and “indicated that nothing was renegotiable in the Paris Accords,” according to a French official briefed on the conversation.

All but two countries are in the Paris climate agreement. The U.S. could be the third. View Graphic

“The United States and France will continue to work together, but not on the subject of the climate,” the official added.
Erik Solheim, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, said in an interview that “the biggest losers will be the American people.”
“It’s obviously regrettable,” he said. “The world needs American leadership. However, the impact is less than most people would believe, because China, India and Europe will provide leadership.”
Central to Trump’s rationale was his feeling that the United States had been taken advantage of. He argued that the Paris agreement would “punish” Americans and stymie economic growth. The president claimed that meeting the accord’s greenhouse gas emission standards would cost the United States close to $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product and 6.5 million industrial jobs.
Trump argued the Paris accord was so unfavorable to U.S. interests that other countries were laughing at America.
“The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris agreement,” Trump said. “They went wild. They were so happy. For the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage.”
The president, who recently returned from his maiden foreign trip, added, “We want fair treatment for its citizens and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore — and they won’t be.”
Obama strongly defended the Paris agreement as a measure to “protect the world we leave to our children.” In a statement released Thursday, he said it was the product of “steady, principled American leadership on the world stage,” pointing out that it had broad support from the private sector because the accord “opened the floodgates” for high-tech, low-carbon investment and innovation.
“I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack,” Obama said. “But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.”
Gina McCarthy, Obama’s EPA administrator when the Paris agreement was negotiated, said in a statement: “It’s a disappointing and embarrassing day for the United States.”
The atmosphere in the Rose Garden was celebratory, with a military band performing “Summertime” and other jazz hits as Cabinet members, White House staffers, conservative activists and other Trump supporters took their seats in the garden under a bright sun.
The scene was a reflection of the deep divide within the Trump administration over Paris. The president took much of the spring to make up his mind amid an intense campaign by both sides to influence his decision.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and adviser, are among those who urged him to stay in the deal, arguing it would be beneficial to the United States to remain part of negotiations and meetings surrounding the agreement as a matter of leverage and influence. Neither was in attendance for Thursday’s ceremony.
White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt pushed for a withdrawal. When Trump announced that he would pull out, there was a burst of applause and some whoops from the assembled crowd in the Rose Garden — and Bannon held his hands up in the air, clapping enthusiastically.
Introducing Trump, Vice President Pence said the climate decision was an example of the president putting what he sees as the interests of the United States above all else.
“Our president is choosing to put American jobs and American consumers first,” Pence said. “Our president is choosing to put American energy and American industry first. And by his action today, President Trump is choosing to put the forgotten men and women first.”
Pruitt later commended Trump for his “fortitude, courage and steadfastness” to exit the Paris accord and fulfill a campaign promise.
“You’re fighting for the forgotten men and women across this country,” Pruitt said of his boss. “This is an historic restoration of American economic independence.”
Condemnations of Trump’s decision were immediate and strongly-worded.
Former vice president Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work raising awareness about global warming, said the president’s decision was “reckless and indefensible.”
“It undermines America’s standing in the world and threatens to damage humanity’s ability to solve the climate crisis in time,” Gore, who called Trump last month to try to persuade him to keep the United States in the Paris agreement, said in a statement.
Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of General Electric, tweeted: “Disappointed with today’s decision on the Paris Agreement. Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government.”
In Europe, the top climate official at the European Union, Miguel Arias Canete, decried the U.S. action.
“A sad day for the global community, as the US turns its back on the fight against climate change. EU deeply regrets this unilateral decision,” Canete wrote on Twitter. “The EU will strengthen existing partnerships and seek new alliances from the world’s largest economies to the most vulnerable island states.”
A top German politician slammed Trump’s decision to pull out from the agreement, mocking him for his brusque brush-aside of a Balkan leader last week at a NATO meeting in Brussels.
“You can withdraw from a climate agreement but not from climate change, Mr. Trump,” Social Democratic leader Martin Schulz wrote on Twitter. “Reality isn’t just another statesman you shove away.”
On Capitol Hill, Democrats were fierce in their criticism. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who regularly speaks from the Senate floor about the perils of global warming, said Trump was “betraying the country.”
“Ignoring reality and leaving the Paris Agreement could go down as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our nation’s history,” Whitehouse said in a statement. “Trump is betraying the country, in the service of Breitbart fake news, the shameless fossil fuel industry, and the Koch brothers’ climate denial operation. It’s sad.”
But Republican congressional leaders praised Trump’s move.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement, “I applaud President Trump and his administration for dealing yet another significant blow to the Obama Administration’s assault on domestic energy production and jobs.”
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said, “The Paris climate agreement was simply a raw deal for America … I commend President Trump for fulfilling his commitment to the American people and withdrawing from this bad deal.”
More than 190 nations agreed to the accord in December 2015 in Paris, and 147 have since formally ratified or otherwise joined it, including the United States — representing more than 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
It’s also heavily backed by U.S. and global corporations, including oil giants Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil and BP. Large corporations, especially those operating in international markets, have had years to get used to the idea that there are likely to be reductions on carbon emissions, and they have been adapting their businesses accordingly for some time.
Withdrawing the United States from the agreement could take years due to the accord’s legal structure and language, but such a move would weaken its goals almost immediately. The United States is the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter and would otherwise have accounted for 21 percent of the total emissions reductions achieved by the accord through 2030.

Links

• Donald Trump labelled 'climate criminal' as Australian politicians react to US exit from Paris climate agreement
• Frydenberg fully committed to the Paris Accord
• Trump labelled 'climate criminal' over Paris deal decision
• Exiting Paris climate deal to backfire on US and beyond
• Elon Musk quits Trump advisory councils, saying, 'Climate change is real'
• New York, California Governors Form Climate Change Alliance
• ‘Climate change is real’: CEOs share their disappointment over Trump’s Paris accord exit
• CEOs 'deeply disappointed' about Trump move
• A Great And Terrible Day For The Fight Against Climate Change
• The Energy 202: Trump made up his mind on Paris. Now the rest of the world will do the same on him
• Transcript: President Trump’s remarks on leaving the Paris climate deal, annotated
• Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement

Key Greenhouse Gases Higher Than Any Time Over Last 800,000 Years

Melbourne University - Dr Malte Meinshausen | Dr Pep Canadell | Dr Cathy Trudinger | 
Dr David Etheridge  |  Dr Paul Fraser  |  Paul Krummel

Worldwide compilation of data reveals the most complete picture ever showing the 43 greenhouse gases driving global warming

Greenhouse gases began with the onset of the industrial era around 1750. Picture: Pixabay

The most comprehensive collection of atmospheric greenhouse gas measurements, confirms the relentless rise of many of the most important greenhouse gases.
The data shows that today's aggregate warming effect of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄) nitrous oxide (N₂O) is higher than at any time over the last 800,000 years, according to the ice core records going back that far. Building on half a century of atmospheric measurements by the international research community, the data was compiled and analysed by a group of international scientists led by Malte Meinshausen, from the University of Melbourne, with colleagues there and at CSIRO.
Together, the data provides the most compelling evidence of the unprecedented perturbation of the Earth's atmosphere. The data clearly shows that the growth of greenhouse gases began with the onset of the industrial era around 1750, took a sharp turn upwards in the 1950s, and still continues today.
Research has demonstrated that this observed growth in greenhouse gases is caused by human activities, leading to warming of the climate – and in fact more than the observed warming, because part of their effect is currently masked by atmospheric pollution (aerosols).
The new collection of records comes from measurements of current and archived air samples, air trapped in bubbles in ice cores, and firn (compacted snow). The data covers the past 2,000 years without gaps and are the result of a compilation of measurements analysed by dozens of laboratories around the world including CSIRO, The Bureau of Meteorology Cape Grim Stations, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment, and Scripts Institution of Oceanography, among others.
This data includes 43 different greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from dozens of human activities and industrial processes. While CO2, CH4 and N2O are on the rise, some other greenhouse gases such as dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) are slowly starting to decline as a result of policies to ban their use.

The greenhouse gases
Most of us know about CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O as being among the principal causes of human-induced climate change. They are found in the atmosphere in the absence of human activity, but the rise in their concentrations are due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agriculture (livestock, rice paddies and the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers). They are all from biological or fossil fuel sources.
But there is much more when it comes to greenhouse gases. Our analysis features a further 40 greenhouse gases (among hundreds that exist), many of them emitted in very small quantities. Although many might play a small role, dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) and trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) are the third and fifth most important greenhouse gas in terms of their overall contribution to global warming.
Most of these gases are emitted exclusively by humans, the so-called synthetic greenhouse gases, and have been used variously as aerosol spray propellants, refrigerants, fire-extinguishing agents, and in the production of semiconductors, among other industrial applications.
Synthetic greenhouse gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and others. Several, most famously CFCs, also deplete the ozone layer, and are regulated under the Montreal Protocol. Others, such as HFCs, were actually first produced in large quantities to replace the ozone depleting substances, but unfortunately turned out to be potent greenhouse gases too.
Importantly, all 43 greenhouse gases offer opportunities to tackle climate change, either by reducing their emissions or, in the case of synthetic gases, finding non-greenhouse alternatives.

Not all greenhouse gases are the same
How much a greenhouse gas contributes to warming depends on three factors.
First, how much mass of a gas is emitted. Second, how effective any kilogram of gas in the atmosphere is in warming the planet. And third, how long the gas remains in the atmosphere.

The last 2000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations. Picture: Supplied

CO₂ is the most important greenhouse gas in warming the planet despite, per unit of mass, the fact it's greenhouse gas with the weakest warming potential. Its contribution to warming comes from the sheer scale of emissions 40 billion tonnes emitted each year, and the fact that a large part effectively hangs around in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years after emission. The resulting concentration makes CO₂ responsible for about 65 per cent of all warming due to greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
This makes CO₂ the most important factor in determining future global warming.
Unless we can cut CO₂ emissions to zero by the second half of this century, primarily by finding alternatives to fossil fuels, the world will continue to warm beyond the 2°C or the aspirational 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement.
Methane (CH₄) is the next most important greenhouse gas, with current concentration contributing about 15 per cent of overall human-induced warming.
Most synthetic greenhouse gases have very high global warming potentials. The one with the highest current emissions is the refrigerant HFC-134a, which is 1300 times more potent than CO2 (per mass unit emitted). Other synthetic greenhouse gases have even more extraordinary warming potentials with PFCs (from the aluminium and semiconductor industries) and SF6 (from industrial electricity transformers) being 6500 (CF4) and 23400 (SF6) times more potent than CO₂.

Ice cracks in the Arctic allowing methane in the top layers of the sea to escape into the atmosphere. Picture: NASA

Chlorofluorocarbon-12 (CFC-12), a former refrigerant, is both a potent ozone depleting substance and a powerful greenhouse gas. Although its emissions and atmospheric concentrations are now declining thanks to global compliance with the Montreal Protocol, it is still the third most important greenhouse gas and responsible for 6-7 per cent of all warming since the beginning of the industrial era.

What is this data good for?
Our new compilation of greenhouse gas data is the most complete and robust picture to date showing the main drivers of climate change, and how we humans are altering the Earth's atmosphere. Global temperature is now about 1℃ warmer on average than the pre-industrial temperatures.
The new database also serves as an accurate measure of greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from past human and natural emissions, which will in turn help to improve the performance of climate models.
Building trust and confidence in climate projections starts by testing and running models with real data during historical periods. The new climate projections will feed in the next major report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due to be released in 2021.
Continued greenhouse gas monitoring, including significant contributions by Australia, is crucial to understand how the planet reacts to human interference, and to better plan for adaptation to a changing climate.
Global and regional greenhouse data can help nations to track the long-term global targets under the Paris Agreement, and to inform actions needed to stabilise the climate.
New climate spiral. The global-mean CO2 concentrations since 1850.

Links

• Global stocktake shows the 43 greenhouse gases driving global warming
• Global warming could accelerate towards 1.5℃ if the Pacific Ocean gets cranky
• Our cities must become ecological cities
• Nitrogen pollution: Forgotten element of climate change
• When it comes to greenhouse gases carbon dioxide isn't the only culprit
• New CSIRO website shows steady rise of greenhouse gases
• Methane from food production might be the next wildcard in climate change
• Paris climate summit primer: what are greenhouse gases?

Renewables Grow To 17% Of Electricity Mix As Sector Calls For Certainty

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy

Clean Energy Council report says while Australia is on track to deliver the 2020 renewable energy target, ‘clear policy direction and support is required beyond 2020’

Solar panels are seen at the Williamsdale solar farm outside Canberra. A Clean Energy Council report notes a ‘signature’ trend of recent years has been the falling cost of large-scale solar power. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Renewable energy comprised 17% of Australia’s electricity generation in 2016, up from 14% the year before, but the industry is warning it needs policy certainty and support beyond 2020 if the growth trend is to continue.
A new report by the Clean Energy Council says 2016 was a year of recovery for the Australian renewables sector after the sustained policy uncertainty generated by the Abbott government’s review of the federal renewable energy target (RET) cost jobs and investment.
The report, to be released in Canberra on Tuesday, says the increased market share for renewables in 2016 was delivered by a 26% increase in hydro generation, which reflects improved rainfall in Tasmania and the snowy region.
While it says the current level of activity means Australia is well on track to deliver the 2020 RET, the industry needs policy certainty to go on delivering the transformation.
“Australia is realising the significant benefits of backing the renewable energy industry,” the new report says. “For these economic benefits to continue, clear policy direction and support is required beyond 2020.”

The report draws attention to the falling costs of renewable energy, noting one of the “signature” trends of recent years has been the falling cost of large-scale solar power.
It notes the ACT government’s reverse auction scheme also “led to the cheapest wind power ever contracted in Australia, for $73 a megawatt-hour (MWh) at Stage 3 of Neoen’s Hornsdale windfarm in South Australia”.
“AGL appears set to go one better, with electricity from the Silverton windfarm reported to be as low as $65/MWh.”
It quotes data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which has the levelised cost of energy at $61-$118 per MWh, combined-cycle gas generation at A$74-90/MWh, solar generation at A$78-140/MWh and ultra-supercritical coal fired generation at A$134-203/MWh.
It points out a new coal-fired power station using carbon capture and storage, by comparison, has a levelised cost of energy of approximately A$352/ MWh.
The Clean Energy Council chief executive, Kane Thornton, said large-scale solar power is now playing a major role in meeting the RET.
He said investments are scheduled to accelerate in 2017. “While total investment in large-scale renewable energy was $2.56bn last year, $5.20bn worth of projects have secured finance in just the first five months of 2017 and have either started construction or will begin this year.”
Thornton said current employment figures for the industry reflect the fact renewables is still emerging from the Abbott government-induced doldrums.
“While the latest available employment figures show an industry contraction to 11,150 direct jobs in the 2015-16 financial year, these figures cover a low point for the sector following the Abbott government’s RET review,” he said.
“Employment figures are likely to increase substantially in 2017 with over 35 large-scale projects already under construction or starting this year, adding up to more than $7.5bn in investment and more than 4,100 additional direct jobs.”
The Turnbull government has signalled its current review of the Direct Action climate policy could see an overhaul of the federal RET.
There is also a widespread expectation among industry stakeholders that the chief scientist, Alan Finkel, will use his final report into the national electricity market on 9 June to float a new low-emissions target along the lines John Howard proposed back in 2007.
Such a scheme would work in practice as a technology-neutral renewable energy target.
The Howard proposal required that a percentage of electricity be generated annually from “low-emissions” sources, which was defined in 2007 as emitting fewer than 200kg of greenhouse gas per megawatt of electricity generated.
Separately to the Finkel process, the government has flagged changing the investment rules of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to allow it to invest in more technologies, including high-efficiency, lower emissions (HELE) coal-fired plants.

Links

• Josh Frydenberg rules out carbon trading in electricity sector
• Carbon policy indecision creates 'investment strike' in renewables
• Renewables roadshow: how Broken Hill went from mining to drag queens and solar farms
• Renewables roadshow: how Canberra took lead in renewable energy race
• Renewables roadshow: how the 'nonna effect' got Darebin's pensioners signing up to solar
• Renewables roadshow – Darebin: 'I save money, and there's a feelgood factor' – video
• Renewables roadshow: how Daylesford's windfarm took back the power
• Battery-makers on Turnbull's Tesla chat: 'Give Australian companies a fair go'
• Tony Abbott rebuffed after attacking Turnbull government on renewable energy target
• Salt, silicon or graphite: energy storage goes beyond lithium ion batteries