How Did We Get Into This Energy Mess, And How Do We Get Out Of It?

Fairfax - Tony Walker

Let's start with the smelly, dead chicken the Turnbull government is seeking to hang around the Shorten opposition's neck.
In a variation of the children's party game, pass the parcel, or, should we say, pass the chicken, Malcolm Turnbull and his Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg, are seeking to impose on their political opponents responsibility for an energy mess, including crippling power bills.

The public could care less about the source of power as long as the lights remain on. Photo: Liam Driver

This is self-serving politics.
Culpability for two decades of policy paralysis going back to the Howard government's failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol – setting the tone for an aimless debate on climate and energy – rests with the political class of all stripes, including the hapless Greens.
In their failure back in 2009 to support reasonable proposals for an emissions trading scheme known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), the Greens scarred the Rudd prime ministership, contributed to Turnbull's demise as opposition leader and helped prolong a lost decade in energy policy.
Our purpose is not to argue the merits, or otherwise, of the case for sustaining AGL's Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley beyond a five-year shelf life, but to ask a simple question.
How did we get into this mess, and how do we get out of it?
In answering this question, history is important.
As far back as the 1990's the Coalition debated in its internal processes the merits of an emissions trading scheme as a means of setting a price on carbon, thereby constructing a rational energy policy for the 21st century. Several proposals were discussed in cabinet, one in 2000 and the other in 2003.
Neither made it past the opposition of cabinet climate sceptics, including then prime minister John Howard himself.
However, by 2007 with defeat in prospect, Howard capitulated.
On July 17, 2007 he said: "Implementing an emissions trading scheme and setting a long-term goal for reducing emissions will be the most momentous decision Australia will take in the next decade."
More than a decade later, Howard's forecast remains stillborn, ensnared by rancid politics in which Kevin Rudd squibbed an opportunity for a double dissolution election on the Senate's rejection of his CPRS.
To her great cost, Julia Gillard introduced a carbon tax after having pledged not do so. Then Tony Abbott replaced it with a Direct Action plan to compensate emitters who reduced their carbon footprint, or got out of the emitting business altogether.
In one of politics' ironies, the problematical Direct Action plan – described by Turnbull in 2009 as "bullshit" – is subject to an internal review by the government with a result due by the end of the year.
Perhaps nothing has confused Turnbull's credentials more as an environmentally-responsible small 'l' liberal centrist than his positions on energy and climate policy under a Coalition agreement struck with the Nationals after he deposed Abbott.
Basically, Turnbull fell into line with his predecessor's policies on climate change, carbon taxes and emissions reduction targets.
Implicit in all of this was support for the coal industry.
On occasions, Turnbull has sought to edge away from these commitments such as when his energy minister talked about an emissions intensity target.
Under fire from his right flank over this heresy, Turnbull quickly disavowed any such idea.
In this latest period, we are witnessing an intense bout of blame-shifting in light of the most politically sensitive of cost of living issues – power prices.
The Turnbull government is also seeking to shield itself from the fury that would surely follow a summer of power outages due to insufficient baseload power.
In the debate about baseload power provided by coal-fired power stations versus renewables, the public could care less about the source of power, as long as the lights remain on.
What all this points to is a failure by successive Federal governments, Labor and conservative, to develop a national energy policy that provides a reasonable balance between conventional coal and gas-fired sources and renewables within a framework that satisfies Australia's international emissions-reduction obligations.
Speaking of gas, one of the more surprising aspects of the current debate is the lack of focus on gas as a cleaner energy alternative to coal. According to chief scientist Alan Finkel's National Electricity Market report, gas accounts for just 10 per cent of the country's power generation.
That could be increased significantly using existing modified infrastructure at a much lower emissions cost than coal: gas emits around 400kg/MWh compared with 1272kg/MWh for the highest emitting coal-fired plants.
One might have thought the country's secure energy future lies in a mix of gas and renewables, with Australia's ageing coal-fired plants being phased out over time, leaving aside the government vacillation on a Clean Energy Target recommended by Finkel.
Turnbull might serve the national interest more effectively by putting aside politics for a moment and listening to expert advice – from Finkel and the power generation industry itself – about the best energy mix.
Bullying corporate representatives in the manner of an early NSW governor named Bligh may serve a political purpose, but it hardly solves the problem.

Links

• Energy market operator says Liddell doesn't have to stay open
• Claims Australia won't meet Paris climate commitment if it keeps coal in CET
• Trust neither the generators nor the Prime Minister
• Carbon price the key to ending energy woes

The US, Climate Change And The Farmers Of Nepal

Al Jazeera - Gregory Reck* | Dinesh Paudel*

As climate change makes their lives increasingly precarious, Nepalis reflect on the US withdrawal from the Paris Accord.

Significant changes in weather patterns are affecting farming communities across Nepal [Gregory Reck/Al Jazeera]

Saipu, Nepal - Three weeks after US President Donald Trump announced that "as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the… Paris Accord," Shiva, a subsistence farmer in the Nepali village of Saipu, says: "It's like God is mad and has disappeared and something evil is taking over the sky."
"Look at my corn. It's thirsty, but there is no water any more." He pauses and then quietly adds, "climate change. The people who are causing this are killing us."
Trump promised to end the "draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country" because "we don't want other countries laughing at us any more". But Shiva and his fellow farmers aren't laughing as they speak about how climate change is threatening them all.
We were in Saipu to research the politics of reconstruction in post-earthquake Nepal. More than 80 percent of the structures in Saipu were rendered uninhabitable by the earthquakes of April and May 2015. Only about 20 percent have been repaired or rebuilt with the aid of government grants and loans that have burdened many with excessive debt.

'The whole cycle of life is changing'
Despite the suffering that they have endured for more than two years, Shiva and the other subsistence farmers who have gathered know that climate change is the real danger.
"The earthquakes destroyed our homes, school and health clinic, but those we will eventually rebuild," a man named Gopal interjects. "But erratic weather with little rain is already bringing the final disaster."


Scientists link Hurricane Harvey to climate change

Anguished expressions settle on their faces as the conversation escalates. "It rained heavily in March when we needed dry weather to plant corn," a woman named Kalpana adds.
"And then it was dry in April and May when planted corn needed water. It's never been this way. The corn is small. We should be harvesting it now and getting ready to plant rice, but everything is running behind. The whole cycle of life is changing."
She looks up at the cloudless sky, which should be dark and full of life-giving rain at the beginning of the monsoon season. She knows that the rhythm of subsistence farming that has evolved over the centuries is not some arbitrary human choice, but is dependent upon reasonably predictable natural cycles.
Her observations about climate change are not made causally. They are the result of traditional knowledge of a topic that has always been a matter of survival.
Farmer after farmer tells the same story: it rains when it's supposed to be dry, and it's dry when it's supposed to rain; rotating crops of corn, millet, rice and vegetables requires weather predictability which is no more; mountain streams that make agriculture possible on the steep slopes and which provide drinking water are drying up; days are warmer, making mosquitoes flourish and goats and cattle sick.

Climate change: A catastrophic reality
In this village with no electricity, where the basic fuel is wood, and there are no vehicles aside from a couple of tractors and four-wheel drives to ferry people and supplies up and down the landslide-prone road, residents know they contribute nothing to the factors creating climate change and, yet, are on the receiving end of its consequences.
According to the World Bank, Nepal's entire CO2 output in 2013 was only 0.2 of a metric tonne. Before 1995, it was less than 0.1 of a metric tonne per year. Despite Trump's claim that the United States is the world's leader in environmental policy, the World Bank says that in 2013 the US contributed 16.4 metric tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere.
According to Statista, a website that compiles statistics on a variety of topics, in 2016 the US produced 15.99 percent of global CO2 emissions, second only to China.
The Berkeley Energy and Resource Collaborative in 2014 concluded that the US had contributed more than 20 percent of all global warming since pre-industrial times.
The subsistence farmers of Nepal, like billions of vulnerable people across the globe, are the victims of the excesses of a bloated global economy that fattens the few at the expense of the many. For these people, climate change is not some abstract, debatable idea that a country like the US can wish out of existence. For them, it is a catastrophic reality.

Floods in the US, floods in South Asia
The August 2017 floods in Nepal, India and Bangladesh are a case in point. While the US - and much of the global - news media focused on the floods in Houston, Texas, the human cost of the flooding in South Asia was largely overlooked.
Although the calculation of the damage is still mounting, at least 200 people died as a result of the floods in Nepal, and 1.7 million have been severely affected, as 65,000 homes were damaged or destroyed.
As many as 40 million people have been directly impacted across Nepal, India and Bangladesh. While monsoon rains are part of the normal climatic cycle in the region, there is little doubt that the ferocity of the rain increased dramatically as a result of climate change.
The farmers of Saipu do what they can. They protect their forests with the razor-thin hope that this might mitigate the fury of climate change. They conserve as much water as possible hoping that the rain will fall normally once again. They plant seeds hoping that, against all the odds, the crops will produce enough to sustain them. But they know that it is the decisions made in distant places that truly determine their fate.
Shiva finally exhibits the satirical humour for which Nepali farmers are famous. "Now that the US has decided not to cooperate in stopping climate change," he smiles, alluding to Trump's announcement, "they have only two choices: reverse the decision and stop putting pollution into the sky, or move everything and everybody from Nepal to the US."
Everyone around him laughs. For a moment, the anger and frustration they feel disappear. But then the laughter fades, and a momentary quiet takes over.
We recall the statement US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt made at the Paris Accord withdrawal ceremony: "We owe no apologies to other nations for our environmental stewardship."
We wonder whether Pruitt could bring himself to tell these Nepali farmers that.
Then an elderly man named Devi, who has so far remained silent, speaks softly. "I used to think the USA was smart, but now I know that they are just selfish and irresponsible," he says.
Everyone nods in agreement.

*Gregory Reck is a professor in the Department of Anthropology at Appalachian State University in the US.
*Dinesh Paudel is an assistant professor in the Department of Sustainable Development at Appalachian State University.

Links

• European heatwave deaths could skyrocket - climate study
• Sudanese scientist battles climate change in Africa
• Argentina's flooding crisis affects ranching community
• World reacts to Trump's Paris climate accord withdrawal
• Pope Francis slams 'stupid' climate change deniers

Murdoch-Owned Media’s Radical Climate Denial In The Face Of Disaster

Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting - Adam Johnson*

Wall Street Journal's glib snark over Harvey completes its Fox News-ification

Rupert Murdoch-owned news outlets including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal included climate change denial in its coverage of hurricanes Irma and Harvey—even mocking the view pushed by climate scientists that climate change has added to the severity of storms. (Photo: FAIR.org/screen capture)

A recent survey by progressive watchdog Public Citizen  (9/12/17) on the media’s coverage of hurricanes Harvey and Irma confirms what’s long been known: Corporate media are indifferent to the causal relationship between climate change and extreme weather, and by far the worst offenders are the Rupert Murdoch–owned Fox News, Wall Street Journal and New York Post.
The survey covered 18 outlets hurricane coverage for the week of August 25–September 1: ten major newspapers, three weekly news magazines, and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News. Out of 2,000 media items, there were only 136 mentions of climate change, many denialist in content.

Fox‘s Tucker Carlson (8/31/17) to The Hill‘s Joe Concha: “Science is complicated. You know what’s not complicated? Moral preening.”

Outlets owned by Murdoch’s umbrella corporations, News Corp and 21st Century Fox, clearly led the denialist camp. These firms constitute the core propaganda machine of the right in the English-speaking world, with the highest-rated cable news network (Fox News) and the first and sixth biggest-circulation newspapers (Wall Street Journal, New York Post) in the United States. As Public Citizen’s media survey reveals, they go beyond indifference to advocate outright denialism.
The  Journal had three op-eds and Fox News had two segments that denied—and laughingly mocked—any connection between hurricane intensity and climate change, the survey found:

• Holman W. Jenkins, Jr: “First Houston’s Resilience, Then Washington’s Boondoggle” (Wall Street Journal, 8/29/31)
• Roger Pielke Jr: “The Hurricane Lull Couldn’t Last” (Wall Street Journal, 8/31/17)
• Editorial Board: “Texas, Thou Hast Sinned” (Wall Street Journal, 8/31/17)
• Tucker Carlson Tonight (Fox News, 8/31/17)
• The Five (Fox News, 8/25/17)

Other media did better, but some not much more so. ABC News and NBC News didn’t mention climate change at all in the context of Hurricane Harvey or Irma. Other outlets, such as USA Today (8/30/17, 8/30/17), used a “both sides” framing to provide a platform for denialists, but the paper’s editorial ultimately concluded climate change “juiced Hurricane Harvey.”

Public Citizen’s report (9/8/17)

Public Citizen’s survey found that climate coverage in the context of Harvey and Irma was concentrated in four outlets—the Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, New York Times and CNN, which together produced 72 percent of the pieces that mentioned climate change. CNN led the way with 30 mentions of climate change, only two of which were denialist in nature: interviews with Rep. Pete Olson (R.–Texas) and Bill Read, the former director of the National Hurricane Center. The Post had 23, the Chronicle had 22 and the Times had 18. The remaining 28 percent were peppered across 10 sources.
The survey highlighted what it considered the “seven aspects” of climate change coverage:

• Clearly connected climate change to Hurricane Harvey (or to events like it)
• Framed questions regarding the role of climate change as whether it contributes to or intensifies the damage from events like Harvey rather than whether it “causes” them
• Discussed relevant clearly connected climate change to Hurricane Harvey (or to events like it);
• Noted ways to adapt to climate change (for example with better disaster preparedness or zoning or building policies)
• Noted ways to mitigate climate change (for example by reducing greenhouse gas pollution and switching to renewable sources of energy)
• Noted specific relevant policies or actions that have been or could be taken at the local or state level; and
• Noted specific relevant policies or actions that have been or could be taken at the federal level.

Only five outlets hit all aspects. Murdoch brands New York Post and Wall Street Journal went 0 for 7 and 1 for 7, respectively, and Fox News went 4 for 7—mentioning these aspects, but doing so in a derisive or dismissive manner.

In reality, the problem is not Texas but Texaco.

As consensus emerges not just around the science of climate change, but also its amplifying effects on extreme weather events, Murdoch’s media empire—and the Republican Party that its talking points inform—will remain the last holdout. Even the nominally respectable Wall Street Journal, bought by Murdoch ten years ago, publishes snarky and glib editorials on the topic (8/31/17):

Who says progressives don’t believe in religion? They may not believe in Jehovah or Jesus, but they certainly believe in Old Testament-style wrath against sinners. Real Noah and the Ark stuff. Witness the emerging theme on the media left that Texas, and especially Houston, are at fault for the devastation of Hurricane Harvey.

LOL funny stuff, right? A city underwater and extreme weather amplified by catastrophic climate change is all one big joke. A recent Guardian (9/10/17) report documented how corrupting Murdoch’s hand has been with the establishment paper, with dozens of writers quitting after being pressured to “normalize” Trump. Nevertheless, the Journal continues to ignore basic science to remain lockstep with their party and president, becoming more tabloid in tone and more craven in purpose.

*Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org.

Links

• Public Citizen, Storm of Silence Harvey Climate Coverage
• Corporate Media Called Out for Whiffing on 'Most Important Story in the World'
• British Press Watchdog Says Climate Change Article Was Faulty
• Texas, Thou Hast Sinned
• Naomi Klein and the Quest for Environmental Justice
• The Climate Catastrophe We’re All Ignoring
• The Aftermath of Hurricane Donald
• Demanding Climate Justice in the Wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma 
• 90 Companies Helped Cause the Climate Crisis—They Should Pay For It 
• Warning Letter to Harvey and Irma Survivors from Katrina Survivor
• On The Road To Extinction, Maybe It's Not All About Us 
• Naomi Klein and the Quest for Environmental Justice
• Show Up, Stand Up and Step Up: Bold Action in the Wake of Storms
• Irma Won’t “Wake Up” Climate Change-Denying Republicans. Their Whole Ideology Is on the Line.

British Press Watchdog Says Climate Change Article Was Faulty

New York Times - Henry Fountain

A self-policing group within the British news industry has forced the tabloid The Mail on Sunday to acknowledge that an article it published asserting that climate researchers in the United States had manipulated data was inaccurate and misleading.
A statement saying the news organization “failed to take care over the accuracy of the article” was posted on The Mail on Sunday’s website early Sunday and was to appear in the print edition as well.
Publication of the statement was required after the self-regulating group, the Independent Press Standards Organization, ruled in favor of a complaint that the article, which was published on Feb. 5, had misrepresented the comments of a former scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about a 2015 climate change paper by a leading NOAA climate researcher, Thomas R. Karl, and others.

John J. Bates, a retired government scientist, at his home in Arden, N.C. His criticism of a former boss resulted in a furor among climate change deniers. Credit Chris Bott 

The Mail on Sunday, the statement said, also failed to correct “significantly misleading statements” in the article, which was written by David Rose and based on the claims of the former NOAA scientist, John J. Bates. The press standards group, known as IPSO, was expected to publish the full text of its ruling on its website.
The man who brought the complaint against The Mail on Sunday, Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said that he had immediate concerns about the article when he read it.
“It was fairly obvious right from the start it was bound to be suspicious because David Rose has a long history of promoting climate change denial,” Mr. Ward said.
“It was grossly overblown,” Mr. Ward added, “and that was clearly what he was trying to do.”
Efforts to reach Mr. Rose were not successful. John Wellington, managing editor of The Mail on Sunday, confirmed in an email that the news organization was going to post what he referred to as an adjudication.
Mr. Rose’s article was published with the print headline, “EXPOSED: How world leaders were duped over global warming,” and a similar headline online. It detailed assertions by Dr. Bates about temperature data that had been used in the 2015 paper, which provided evidence against the idea that global warming had slowed in the first decade of this century.
In The Mail on Sunday’s article, Mr. Rose described Dr. Bates as a “high-level whistle-blower” and said Dr. Bates had told him that NOAA had “breached its own rules on scientific integrity” by using what was described as “unverified” data for the study. The article also asserted that the study was rushed into print in June 2015 to have “maximum possible impact on world leaders” at the Paris climate talks later that year.
Most of the article’s assertions were rejected by scientists in the days after it was published. Former colleagues of Dr. Bates, who at one time was in charge of archiving data at the National Centers for Environmental Information, where Mr. Karl served as director, ascribed Dr. Bates’s assertions to lingering resentment over a demotion.
Dr. Bates himself, in an interview after the Mail article was published, said he had not intended to accuse Mr. Karl of manipulating data.
But the article made Dr. Bates into something of a hero in the community of climate change denialists and others who claim that some climate scientists are politicizing the subject.
Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, a Republican who heads the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, tweeted at the time that “NOAA sr officials played fast & loose w/data in order 2 meet politically predetermined conclusion on climate change.”
Mr. Smith, who previously had accused the Obama administration of having a “suspect climate agenda,” also wrote to NOAA seeking more information on Mr. Karl’s study, which he said raised questions “as to whether the science at NOAA is objective and free from political interference.”
An email request for comment from a spokeswoman for Mr. Smith’s committee was not returned.
Mr. Ward of the Grantham Institute also filed a complaint about an opinion piece in The Times of London on Dr. Bates’s claims. That complaint was dismissed by IPSO in July.
Mr. Ward said he thought his complaint against The Mail was upheld because it was not about whether Dr. Bates’s claims were true, but about whether the article had accurately reflected his views.
“In this case the newspaper article was considered to have gone well beyond those views,” Mr. Ward said.
IPSO was established in 2014 after a phone-hacking scandal rocked the British news industry and revealed deficiencies in the previous system for self-policing. The Mail on Sunday and other news organizations are part of the effort, but some news organizations, including The Guardian and the Financial Times, are not involved.
Mr. Ward said The Mail on Sunday had a long history of publishing articles that were inaccurate and misleading about climate change.
“We’re hopeful that following this the editor will be somewhat more skeptical about stories that Mr. Rose brings to them,” he said.

Links

• Public Citizen, Storm of Silence Harvey Climate Coverage
• Corporate Media Called Out for Whiffing on 'Most Important Story in the World'
• Texas, Thou Hast Sinned
• Naomi Klein and the Quest for Environmental Justice
• The Climate Catastrophe We’re All Ignoring
• The Aftermath of Hurricane Donald
• Demanding Climate Justice in the Wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma 
• 90 Companies Helped Cause the Climate Crisis—They Should Pay For It 
• Warning Letter to Harvey and Irma Survivors from Katrina Survivor
• On The Road To Extinction, Maybe It's Not All About Us 
• Naomi Klein and the Quest for Environmental Justice
• Show Up, Stand Up and Step Up: Bold Action in the Wake of Storms
• Irma Won’t “Wake Up” Climate Change-Denying Republicans. Their Whole Ideology Is on the Line
• How an Interoffice Spat Erupted Into a Climate-Change Furor
• No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say
• How Hurricane Harvey Became So Destructive
• When Will Electric Cars Go Mainstream? It May Be Sooner Than You Think

Turnbull Government Is Working On A Major Redesign Of The Clean Energy Target

Fairfax - James Massola

The Turnbull government is working on a major redesign of the clean energy target that will likely fall short of the plan for almost half of Australia's electricity to be generated by renewables by 2030.
Internal discussions have commenced about a revised target that would set a higher emissions baseline than the 0.6 tonnes of carbon per megawatt hour suggested by the Finkel review. The revised scheme would allow high-efficency, low-emission coal-fired power plants that emit about 0.7 tonnes of carbon to receive partial certificates, or credits.

Is the government conceding to the Nats?
The Turnbull government is working on redesigning the clean energy target with the Nationals preference to keep coal power plants operating.

Political hard-heads in the Coalition believe that if the government were to adopt the 42 per cent target proposed by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, which is not far short of Labor's 50 per cent target, the government will not be able to win a fight that frames the opposition as the party of higher power prices at the next election.
As one MP put it, "if we were going to do Finkel's CET, it would be done already".
More broadly, a shift is now underway on energy policy within the government to fight Labor on the need for affordable, reliable base load power – a theme the prime minister regularly returns to – and appeal directly to households struggling with higher energy prices.
There are hopes the revised energy plan will be agreed to by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, Australian Energy Market Commission chairman John Pierce said the lack of a credible, long-term mechanism to achieve Australia's emissions reduction commitments has created uncertainty and deterred investment in the sector.
Labor attacked the government over power price rises under the Coalition's watch on Tuesday, while Opposition Leader Bill Shorten asked Mr Turnbull in Parliament on Tuesday "whatever happened to the clean energy target?"

Josh Frydenberg and Malcolm Turnbull in Parliament on Tuesday. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

In comments that were widely noted by Coalition MPs, the Prime Minister said Dr Finkel's recommendation for a clean energy target was "under consideration" but that "we need to make sure that we get the energy market right this time".
"We need to ensure that the energy market design provides a suitable framework for investment that doesn't simply get new generation, but gets generation of the right kind," he said.

Clean energy target: Chief Scientist Alan Finkel. Photo: Daniel Munoz

This comment was interpreted as a sign that opposition to Dr Finkel's target from National Party and the conservative wing of the Liberal Party, which has hardened in recent weeks, will be heeded by Mr Turnbull and Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg.
Earlier on Tuesday during a meeting of the Coalition party room, former prime minister Tony Abbott congratulated Mr Turnbull and deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop for their focus on cheaper power prices.

Andy Vesey from AGL in Canberra on Monday. Photo: Andrew Meares

But he added a rider backed by other Coalition MPs that "if we graft a clean energy target on top of the Renewable Energy Target, that will be a difficult position to sustain".
As a second MP put it, "Malcolm is saying he is only interested in outcomes. It's not that we won't have a CET, it's just secondary to having affordable, reliable power".
Mr Frydenberg has argued an Australian Energy Market Operator report released last week – which warned of a major shortfall in base load power triggered by the scheduled Liddell power plant closure in 2022 – has "reset the debate".
Following that report, the government ramped up pressure on AGL chief executive Andy Vesey to keep Liddell open beyond 2022, or sell it to a competitor – proposals Mr Vesey agreed on Monday to take to his board, along with a replacement renewables plan, in 90 days.
Mr Turnbull kept up the pressure on AGL, arguing the "most obvious" solution was to prolong the life of Liddell.
Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, meanwhile, taunted the company to sell the Liddell plant – "if it's such a bad asset" – to one of its competitors during an interview on Sky News.
Mr Joyce said estimates of $500 million to $1 billion to keep Liddell going beyond 2022 were "in a good range" and added he knew of two parties who wanted to buy it, though he would not say who. Delta Electricity has already indicated a willingness to kick the tyres on the plant, which is Australia's oldest coal-fired plant.

Links

• Energy policy uncertainty blamed for price rises, investment delays
• The government has this MP right where it wants him in the coal debate
• 'Time is running out': Ex-UN climate chief has some advice for Turnbull
• AGL blinks over Liddell, handing Turnbull a win on energy policy
• Wetlands discovery opens new doors for Australian climate research
• Nothing to see here, say climate deniers

Revealing The Dark Side Of Liddell, From Power Failures To Distorted Debate

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

When AGL gives journalists a tour of its ailing Liddell power station next week, they can expect the reverse of your typical corporate junket.
Rather than showcasing the engineering marvels of the Hunter Valley coal-fired plant, the energy giant will likely highlight why the station is among the most unreliable generators in the country.

AGL Energy's Liddell power plant, with Lake Liddell in the foreground, and Bayswater power plant behind. Photo: Simone De Peak

That's despite AGL planning to spend another $160 million to keep the 46-year-old plant running until its planned closure in 2022.
It has already outlayed $120 million since buying it and its neighbour Bayswater power plant from the NSW government in 2014.
Each of Liddell's four units has been downgraded by almost one-fifth from their original 500-megawatt capacity.
Two of them were unhelpfully offline with equipment failures during this February's record-breaking heatwave that pushed NSW to the brink of blackouts.
Tuesday's visitors may get to see the tricky welding jobs needed to repair the hundreds of kilometres of boiler pipes, or to inspect one of the transmission units that has blown up. Or see a demonstration of "creep time" measurements that show the many valves or pumps edging ever closer to costly replacement.
Would that a few members of the federal Coalition demanding AGL extend the plant's life out to 2027 – led by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull or his deputy Barnaby Joyce – tag along on a tour that could include a peek at Lake Liddell.

Back to the future: AGL's pilot solar thermal plant on the Liddell site with the power station in the background.. Photo: Supplied

The lake, which substitutes for cooling towers that are absent at the power station, is now off limits to the public after the discovery of a brain-eating amoeba, naegleria fowleri, thought to be nurtured by artificially warmed waters.
What's transpired in the past week is what one senior energy industry executive describes as "mind numbing": government attempts to bully an ASX-listed company into selling an asset it bought from the state just three years ago if it would not commit to running it for another 10 years.

'Playing by the rules'
On Monday, as AGL chief Andy Vesey prepared to explain why it made no sense to keep the plant going, the Turnbull government announced it had sicked the Australian Energy Regulator on to AGL and other big NSW power firms to "make sure electricity generators are playing by the rules".
Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg later defended the move, saying the request was "an extension of the work already under way" as part of AER's review of the National Electricity Market (NEM) following the abrupt closure of Victoria's Hazelwood power station in March.
But the AER itself later confirmed to Fairfax Media the request arrived on Friday – after Vesey was summoned.
The Berejiklian government, which should have the most interest in any rorting of NSW consumers, is understood not to have been consulted about the sudden AER interest in NSW generators.
"This was not our idea," one staffer said. "It was a shot across the bows [of AGL]."
Vesey's encounters with politicians haven't gone well of late. In March, a media event in Adelaide descended into farce when South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill gatecrashed to confront Frydenberg over the Coalition's incessant attacks on his state's energy policies.
And it was at a Turnbull-ordered summit in Canberra last month that Vesey said Liddell might be sold to "a responsible owner", even the government.
Vesey would come to rue those words when a month later Turnbull flung himself into the fray, personally calling the chief and micro-managing the push to keep Liddell going.

Huge extension, rehab costs
Monday's gathering was described by one of those present as two meetings over 90 minutes: each side making their case and ignoring the other's in turn.
Despite initial government spin, AGL stood its ground, committing to deliver a plan within 90 days on how it would make up a market shortfall "once the Liddell coal-fired power station retires in 2022".
It is understood that AGL estimates the cost of keeping Liddell going for another five years at as much as half a billion dollars – money that could be better spent elsewhere. Rehabilitation costs for the site are roughly another $450 million.
AGL has said it wants to create a so-called synthetic baseload plant on the site combining gas and renewables. It already operates a pilot concentrated solar power plant there.
The energy executive noted the period is less than the government has had to consider Alan Finkel's review of energy security.
The independent study by Australia's Chief Scientist laid out 50 recommendations, 49 of which were readily endorsed by Turnbull. These included a demand operators give at least three years' notice before closing a plant; AGL gave seven.
While criticised for its low emissions target for the electricity sector, the report released in June at least offered the possibility of a so-called Clean Energy Target – the 50th recommendation– that might close the bipartisan gap on climate and energy policy.
Three months on, though, there are increasing signs the government will baulk at a target high enough to align energy policy with Australia's Paris climate commitments to cut 2005-level emissions 26-28 per cent by 2030.

'Prophetic'
Dr Finkel is understood to be growing more and more exasperated by the direction of debate.
Business groups, too, know that, without a policy that can withstand the election cycles, investors are going to hold off on the long-term investments needed to provide the more reliable, cheaper and cleaner energy Australia needs.
Joyce fuelled those concerns this week by declaring on ABC's 7.30 on Wednesday, that subsequent reports by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) had superseded Finkel.
"Without trying to be too prophetic, I was quoting John Maynard Keynes this morning who said, 'When I get new information I change my mind, what do you do?'" Joyce said, adding that AEMO had warned "we're going to be, you know 1000 megawatts short" this summer.
Turnbull chimed in during question time, too, saying that AEMO's reports "shocked many people".
Well, perhaps, those who wanted to be shocked.
One report was AEMO's latest "statement of opportunities", which as usual identified potential shortfalls that it hopes will jolt extra supply. There was also a special report on risks from the exit of Australia's ageing thermal power plants.
The latter was seized on by those mistaking "dispatchable" to always mean "fossil-fuelled baseload power".
Dylan McConnell, an energy researcher at Melbourne University, notes how fast-response batteries are far more instantly dispatchable than a coal-fired power plant.
The unplanned loss of a large unit at, for instance, Liddell during a late summer heatwave in February 2016, can also suddenly strip out a huge slab of supply - more abruptly than a drop in wind for a windfarm or a cloud passing over a solar farm. (See chart of Liddell's power supply on February 29, 2016.)

Conservative
AEMO's energy statement, meanwhile, raised the issue of the risk of Victoria and South Australia having outages this summer.
Its conservative estimates, though, exclude many of the measures already being undertaken by both states, agencies such as ARENA's trial paying consumers to power off during peak times, and most of the extra renewable energy coming on stream during the second half of the year.
Solar panels are going up at the rate of about 100MW a month, and will probably set an annual record of about 1300MW including plants this year, said Ric Brazzale from Green Energy Markets.
Notably, the prediction that NSW might suffer shortages in 2024-25 was used by many to call for Liddell's extension. But that AEMO alert was based on the "loss of an additional major power plant in NSW after Liddell withdraws" – not just Liddell itself.
And how big a risk of outages? A 29-46 per cent risk that "could last for two to six hours, depending on demand and supply conditions".
"It's so far out and so small," McConnell said, adding: "AEMO was not telling you anything you didn't know."

Climate factor
Just as lost in the squabble was AEMO's clarion call in the very first paragraph of its report: "The overall responsiveness and resilience of the system is at risk from increased vulnerability to climate events, such as extended periods of high temperatures, and the risk of loss of, or reduction in output of, major generation units."
That's worth keeping in mind when one considers how the owners of Delta Electricity - the only company to make even a vague offer of interest in taking over Liddell - fared during this year's February heat wave.
As AEMO noted in its incident report, Vales Point units came "within one degree of reaching their absolute outlet temperature limit".
Two gas-fired plants in NSW failed that hot February afternoon too. Keep that in mind when politicians necessarily equate fossil-fuel plants - particularly if nearing the end of their design life - to baseload reliability.

Links

• Trust neither the generators nor the Prime Minister
• AGL has become Australia's most monstered company
• Energy policy uncertainty blamed for price rises, investment delays
• The government has this MP right where it wants him in the coal debate
• 'Time is running out': Ex-UN climate chief has some advice for Turnbull
• AGL blinks over Liddell, handing Turnbull a win on energy policy
• Wetlands discovery opens new doors for Australian climate research
• Nothing to see here, say climate deniers

Environmentalists Get Win In US Coal-Climate Change Lawsuit

ABC News America - Mead Gruver (Associated Press)

The Associated Press

Handing a major victory to environmentalists, a court cast doubt Friday on a longstanding U.S. government argument that blocking federal coal leasing won't affect climate change because the coal could simply be mined elsewhere.
Environmentalists have been trying for years to block federal coal leases on climate-change grounds with limited success.
The ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will require the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to provide more data to support its argument that coal makes no net contribution to climate change after it's burned in power plants.
The BLM oversees leasing of vast Western tracts that supply much of the nation's coal.
"This is big. And we're certainly going to be wielding this and using it to confront other mining approvals both in the Powder River Basin and beyond," said Jeremy Nichols with WildEarth Guardians.
The Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians sued to block four leases that would allow mining to continue at the Black Thunder and North Antelope Rochelle mine, the two biggest in the U.S. by production.
Both are in the Powder River Basin, where vast, open-pit mines supply around 40 percent of the nation's coal.
In analyzing the leases, the BLM found that burning the coal deposits would result in 382 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, or about 6 percent of the U.S. total in 2008.
But the BLM argued that because utilities could simply get their coal from mines that don't lease federal deposits, blocking the leases would have no net effect on climate change.
The appeals court wasn't persuaded, ruling that the BLM didn't provide sufficient data to back up that argument. It told a lower court to seek more analysis from the agency.
In the meantime, mining will continue at three of the contested leases the BLM sold to Peabody Energy and Arch Coal, the St. Louis-based companies that own the two mines. A fourth contested lease near Black Thunder hasn't sold yet.
BLM officials didn't immediately return a message seeking comment. Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead, a staunch supporter of the coal industry, said he was disappointed in the ruling but pleased that mining could continue.
Wyoming Mining Association Director Travis Deti also called the ruling disappointing.
Wyoming's coal industry has rebounded somewhat since competition from cheaper natural gas made 2016 its worst year in decades.
Around 500 miners were laid off in the state's coal patch, and the state continues to face an inability to build new schools, which are funded by coal leasing.
"Wyoming can continue to cling to the past or get out ahead of these changes by producing the clean power that consumers are demanding," said Sierra Club Wyoming Director Connie Wilbert in a release.
The various times President Trump has touted 'clean coal'

Links

• Trump's first 100 days of environmental policy
• White House declines to say if climate change may have been a factor in recent hurricanes
• Government report contradicts Trump on climate change
• Tillerson Calls Climate Change a 'Risk,' Breaks With Trump on Paris Agreement
• Trump Says Climate Change a 'Hoax' but Acknowledges Threat to Golf Course
• Pope blasts climate change doubters: cites moral duty to act