World renowned primatologist Jane Goodall has for decades promoted
conservation efforts -- and she’s not done yet, especially as humans
contribute to climate change.
Goodall spoke about her ongoing efforts to protect the planet after a special screening of the National Geographic film “JANE”
last month in New York City. The documentary, based on over 100 hours
of unseen footage that was believed to have been lost, was released in
limited theaters on Friday. The film, directed by Oscar and
Emmy-nominated director Brett Morgen, was put together with 16mm footage
rediscovered in 2014 and shows a young Goodall in Gombe, Tanzania.
David
Greybeard was the first chimp to lose his fear of Jane, eventually
coming to her camp to steal bananas and allowing Jane to touch and groom
him. As the film JANE depicts, Jane and the other Gombe researchers
later discontinued feeding and touching the wild chimps. The feature
documentary JANE will be released in select theaters October 2017. Photo: National Geographic Creative/ Hugo van Lawick
Goodall, 83, warned humans are destroying the planet that all animals
co-exist in. She said the biggest difference between men and chimps is
the “explosive development” of human's intellect, “like sending people
to the moon.”
“Chimps, elephants are way more intelligent than
anyone used to think but it doesn't stand up to the intelligence of
humans, so why is it that this most intellectual creature is destroying
its only home?” said Goodall during a Q&A after the film’s
screening. “It seems to me there is a disconnect between the clever
brain and the human heart, which is love and compassion.”
Goodall
is currently traveling around the world talking about climate change,
conservation, pollution and other damages to the planet, she told
International Business Times after the event.
Goodall stressed the importance of supporting, listening and empowering young people to “roll up their sleeves and take action.”
“They’re my greatest hope for the future,” she told IBT.
The Jane Goodall Institute is working with groups made up of individuals from kindergarten to university levels in 100 countries through its Roots and Shoots project, the primatologist said.
“Every
group has its main message every individual makes a difference every
single day and what choice will you make, what difference will you
make,” Goodall said. “Climate change is still key, human population
growth, poverty and unsustainable lifestyle those are the key issues.”
Chimpanzee
"Flint" peeks into a tent at Jane Goodall. The feature documentary JANE
will be released in select theaters October 2017.Photo: National Geographic Creative / Hugo van Lawick
Jane Goodall As A Young Researcher In Gombe
Goodall,
who had no training or degree, was sent by paleontologist Louis Leakey
to learn about chimpanzees in the 60s. Leakey had been “looking for
someone who had an open mind” and “monumental patience,” Goodall said in
the film, making her the perfect choice.
The documentary shows
Goodall at age 26 starting out her research in 1960. She’s seen
searching, climbing and walking throughout the area to see chimpanzees,
as well as waiting for long times in the heat and rain to catch a
glimpse of them. Her patience garnered the animals’ trust and soon began
to play and feed them, while jotting down her observations of the
little-known mammals for the rest of the world to soon find out. Her
research made headlines, while others tried to discredit her work for
being a young woman in a male-dominated field.
Her mother’s strong
support for Goodall’s love for animals was also visible in the film as
she accompanied the young researcher to Gombe.
“I was very, very
lucky to have a mother who was so supportive,” Goodall told IBT. “Being
supportive is the key thing, whether you’re a chimp or a human mother.”
The
film also shows Goodall’s interactions with Dutch filmmaker Hugo van
Lawick, who was sent by National Geographic to document her work in
1964. The two ended up getting married and had a son, Grub.
Jane
Goodall watches as Hugo van Lawick operates a film camera. The feature
documentary JANE will be released in select theaters October 2017. Photo: Jane Goodall Institute
Jane
Goodall and Hugo van Lawick during their wedding. The feature
documentary JANE will be released in select theaters October 2017. Photo: Jane Goodall Institute
Jane Goodall kisses her son Grub. The feature documentary JANE will be released in select theaters October 2017. Photo: Jane Goodall Institute/Hugo van Lawick
However, the movie also shows some of the more difficult parts of
Goodall’s life, including watching a chimpanzee community plagued by
polio, as well as a subsequent war within the group after the death of
Flo, a female chimpanzee with whom Goodall became close. Goodall’s
divorce with van Lawick and her heart-breaking choice to leave her son
in England for schooling while she studied animals is also documented.
There was a moment of stunned silence at a hastily arranged
teleconference of energy ministers on Tuesday evening, just hours after
the government's long-awaited electricity scheme had been released.
Some
of those present at the meeting – described as "testy" by several
participants – had requested more detail on the plan. All they had
received were two briefing papers – 12 pages in total – and a media release.
PM's policy sell
Amid opposition from State leaders
over the government's new energy policy, Malcolm Turnbull has some work
to do, to get them to agree.
But Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg told the ministers, "You all have everything I have".
"There
was a startling lack of detail and information," Queensland's Labor
Energy Minister Mark Bailey said. "That's a small amount [of detail] for
such an important issue."
"What we were given was not undercooked – it hadn't even seen the
inside of an oven," said a senior energy official who was on the call.
While
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had succeeded in steering his plan
through the Coalition party room, it soon hit the shoals of state and
territory opposition.
The 45-minute meeting of energy ministers had begun in chaotic
fashion with Frydenberg excusing himself briefly for a Parliament
division, and handing over the conference to Kerry Schott, the chair of
the Energy Security Board.
"Kerry Schott said the plan was very conceptual and needed a lot of
work from COAG," said Shane Rattenbury, the energy minister in
ACT's Labor-Greens government.
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull with energy regulators at Tuesday's press conference. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
"Desperate'
Illustration: Matt Golding.
Rattenbury compared the proposal – which requires electricity
retailers to ensure yet-to-be-determined levels of emissions reduction
and reliability – to the eight-month effort behind the Finkel Review,
led by chief scientist Alan Finkel.
Finkel held meetings around
Australia, journeyed to the US and Europe for research, assembled an
expert panel and conducted modelling for a Clean Energy Target, "in a
perfectly plausible and practical way", Rattenbury said.
"Now it's been ditched for something pulled together in two or three
weeks. It shows how weak this proposal is and how desperate [the
Turnbull government] is.
Frydenberg declined to comment on the teleconference, but said the scheme relied on "the best advice from experts".
"We are seeking to implement the [plan] to deliver a more affordable
and reliable energy to Australian households and businesses," he says.
Business backing
The proposal has some support from the business community, keen for the end of partisan "climate wars".
"The more we look at it, the more comfortable we are with it," one executive at a major retailer told Fairfax Media.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a respected consultancy, also found the scheme "innovative and elegant", saying it could steer as much renewable energy into the market by 2030 as the 42 per cent share envisaged by the Finkel Review.
And even federal Labor is indicating it has left the door open to
accepting a plan that the Prime Minister calls "game changing". Even
so, the lack of a regulatory impact statement for so wide-ranging a
policy shift is just one of the concerns within Labor.
'Fundamentally opposed'
But it is up to the states and territories to approve any plan
since COAG consensus is needed for changes of this scope. A quirk in the
way the National Electricity Market was set up means it must also pass
through the South Australian legislature.
South Australia's
Labor Premier Jay Weatherill has been the most outspoken, telling the
media on Thursday, "We're not going to support this because it reduces
incentives and support for renewable energy".
"It cuts our
state-based renewable energy target and it subsidises the coal industry
at the expense of renewable energy," he said. "At a fundamental level,
we're opposed to it."
Lily D'Ambrosio, Victoria's Labor Energy
Minister, was also highly critical. "[Turnbull's] modelling is dodgy and
his claims about reducing power prices [by $100-$115 a year for average
consumers] can't be believed," she said.
Ministers from
Coalition-led NSW and Tasmania were largely silent in the Tuesday call,
several Labor counterparts said. NSW Energy Minister Don Harwin declined
to comment.
"He's not really saying anything, and as the energy
minister from the biggest jurisdiction, that's odd," one of the
officials present on the Tuesday call said. "But it's not like they're
cheering about what the feds are doing."
'Monumental' task
The mood of the states and territories wasn't helped, either,
with Frydenberg giving them just 24 hours to comment on the
modelling the Turnbull government wants Schott and the board to complete
by November 13.
Analyst Dylan McConnell from Melbourne University
said the proposal suggests the Australian Energy Markets
Commission would have to complete a "monumental" amount of work,
effectively redoing the Finkel modelling.
Another likely bone of
contention for the states will be Frydenberg's request to model the
impact of the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme – still little more than an
incomplete feasibility of a scheme that could cost $4 billion – while
all of their various renewable energy targets have been omitted.
"Assuming
Snowy Hydro will be operational in the period is more than optimistic,"
one Labor insider said. "I get [the need to model] a sensitivity, but
in the main policy case, as seems to be implied - [but] that's putting a
lot of faith in a project that hasn't passed any assessment phase."
"The
government is adamant that the NEG is cheaper than an Energy Intensive
Scheme or a Clean Energy Target," he said, referring to two policy
options dismissed by the Turnbull government. "You'd think this is the
opportunity to prove that claim."
'Awkward'
The manner of the Turnbull government's approach to the energy plan
has also raised concerns about the use of public servants. The Energy
Security Board, set up as one of the agreed recommendations of
the Finkel Review – was on its first public outing.
"It's unfair
to compromise these highly regarded public servants to seek a fix to
[Turnbull's] own internal issues," one senior state official said. "This
work is not part of [the board's] terms of reference."
Bailey, Queensland's energy minister, agrees: "The Turnbull government has put the board in an awkward position."
A major new study has underlined the crucial role played by rooftop
solar in moderating energy prices: without it, the study says, the
aggregate cost of electricity would have been several billion dollars
higher over the past year.
The study by Energy Synapse, commissioned by the community lobby
group Solar Citizens, reinforces previous estimates of the broad
benefits of the more than 6GW of rooftop solar installed on more than
1.7 million household and business rooftops.
That capacity is ,often demonised by vested interests as
“free-loading” on the network and other consumers, but the study proves
otherwise.
It notes that in NSW alone the savings from rooftop solar – by
reducing demand at crucial times and challenging the dominance of the
big generators in the wholesale market – were between $2.3 billion and
$3.3 billion in the 12 months to April, 2017.
That’s how much the wholesale price is lowered from what they would
have been if rooftop solar was not present in the market. Even though
rooftop solar only provides 2 per cent of total generation, the study
found it clipped prices by $29-44/MWh – up to 50 per cent higher than
the actual price.
That stands to reason. Major generators have long complained about
how solar is “clipping their margins”, and networks have also
underscored the other major finding of the Energy Synapse study by
pointing out that rooftop solar is narrowing and lowering the periods of
peak demand.
Mark Byrne, from the Total Environment Centre, points that if the
estimates are right, then the benefits to all energy consumers each year
are twice the cost of the up-front support for rooftop solar, in the
form of rebates and the STC market.
“That means all consumers got a return of at least double their
investment in a single year – and the beauty of solar is that it should
keep delivering benefits for an average of 20 years,” Byrne says.
“That’s a massively good investment in constraining wholesale prices
for all consumers, including those without their own PV. And the returns
in respect of merit order impacts will get better as more people put
solar on west facing roofs and install solar batteries.”
It is also important in the context of Australia’s energy debate. The
Coalition government appears poised to release a new policy designed to
inhibit the roll out of at least large scale renewables, despite even
the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission finding that more
competition would likely cut prices.
The ACCC report was a perfectly times riposte to the Coalition and conservative argument that renewables are forcing up prices.
“The consumer watchdog has belled the cat. Power prices are going
through the roof because big companies are gaming the system, not
because of renewable energy targets,” said The Greens energy spokesman
Adam Bandt.
But the ACCC report – commissioned by the Coalition government – is
breathtaking in its cynicism of what can and should be done about it.
Its major findings – that the absurd cost of electricity paid for by
consumers is the result mostly of the “gold plating” of the network,
followed by soaring wholesale prices and retail costs – is not new.
Environmental schemes account for just 7 per cent of the total bills
(see bill above).
ACCC chairman Rod Sims says the high costs – they have risen by 63
per cent more than the cost of inflation over the last decade – is
because customers are effectively getting screwed by the networks and
the generators and retailers.
But then, extraordinarily, he says nothing can be done.
He defends the actions of the big generators as “rational, profit
maximising behaviour” that is “consistent with the National Electricity
Rules (NER)”.
Of the network costs (which account for half household bills and
largely explain the difference between Australia and other countries)
Sims says these are “locked in”, refusing to countenance the argument
that may be the network should take a write-down on the value of what he
admits are their over-inflated asset bases.
In fact, the only measure that ACCC appears to recommend is for the
government NOT to introduce a Clean Energy Target, despite the pleas of
the Finkel Review and everyone apart from people associated with the
Coalition, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Institute of Public
Affairs.
The ACCC report itself recognises that increased competition from
renewables is one of the principal ways to help reduce prices and
challenge the incumbents. But Sims argues against this, saying that the
costs of such initiatives are “smeared” across the consumer base.
This has been the argument of the incumbents for the best part of the
decade, and it is truly shocking and disturbing, but not unexpected,
that Australia’s main pricing regulator should repeat them.
Like so many other regulatory assessments, it ignores the
considerable benefits of renewables, and rooftop solar in particular,
and the fact that these considerable benefits are also “smeared” across
the consumer base.
Energy Synapse’s analysis shows that rooftop solar mitigates prices
because of the “merit order effect” – by creating electricity at zero
marginal cost, it moves the “bidding stack” to the left and lowers
prices.
Anyone doubting the ability of small amounts of demand can influence
prices need only look at the Australian Energy Regulator reports which
highlights how the big generators game the FCAS markets, pushing
“availability” down just one MW below requirements so only high prices
capacity comes into the market.
The most significant impact is felt in summer (see graph above), when
the generators are at their most rampant, pushing up prices in the face
of soaring demand in the summer heat as air-conditioners are switched
on and gas and coal fired capacity is withdrawn or fails due to heat
stress.
But small scale solar is also saving money on most days. This graph below illustrates an average day in NSW.
“It is worth noting that small solar was able to continue to put
significant downward pressure on prices in the late afternoon around
4pm, even though the output of these systems was only at about 40% of
max generation,” the report says.
There is one potential gremlin in the system – around 6pm. The report explains:
“The other interesting point is that our lower estimate for the 6pm
Trading Interval shows an average price reduction of -$12/MWh, meaning
that small solar could have produced a higher price (and hence increased
cost) in this interval.
“This is due to our adjustment of bid stacks at high levels of demand
to account for peaker plants operating for more hours. Despite this one
Trading Interval, the overall effect of small solar PV is to
significantly reduce wholesale pricing.”
Byrne points out that even if the Energy Synapse estimate is out by a
factor of two, it still represents an extraordinarily good return for
the rooftop solar support scheme.
One other graph from the ACCC that is worth noting is the average
spot price on state-based wholesale electricity markets over the past
decade.
As has often been said, but rarely recognised, South Australia’s high
wholesale prices are historical, and pre-date the state’s big push into
renewables. In 2007, the state’s electricity prices were nearly double
that of other states – and that’s before it had any significant wind
power.
That renewable capacity added in subsequent years actually helped
moderate prices, and they have only jumped in the last two years – as in
other states – when the big generators exercised their unfettered
market power.
That renewable capacity actually helped moderate prices, and they have
only jumped in the last two years – as in other states – when the big
generators exercised their unfettered market power, or as Sims prefers
to describe it – acted in an economically “rational” manner. Links
Following the second bout of deadly forest fires this year, seven children are preparing to sue for stronger climate action through the European Court of Human Rights
How did a country that launched one of the world’s first major carbon pricing schemes become a rogue polluter in just five years?
Around three-quarters of Australia's electricity comes from coal power plants such as Bayswater Power Station (Photo: Commons)
Australia prides itself on punching above its
weight on the global stage, but a recent achievement received
less-than-usual attention in the halls of parliament and the
country’s parochial rightwing press.
According to a think-tank analysis, it is the sole wealthy nation where greenhouse gas emissions from energy combustion are at a record high.
Among what are known as Annex 1 countries, only Turkey –
which straddles a grey zone between developed and developing status –
joins Australia in having energy combustion emissions higher in 2017
than at any point since 1990, the baseline year under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The analysis by progressive think-tank the Australia
Institute found the country’s energy emissions kicked up sharply this
southern winter due to increased sales of petroleum products –
particularly diesel, but also petrol.
Energy analyst Hugh Saddler, an honorary associate
professor at the Australian National University, found it pushed the
total above the previous record set in 2009, a recent decline in
emissions from electricity generation notwithstanding.
Saddler told Climate Home it was extraordinary that an industrialised country’s energy emissions continued to climb.
“The rise now is due to increased use of petroleum, but a
distinctive feature about Australia compared with other Annex 1
countries is that it continues to have a heavy reliance on coal,” he
said. “We’re not doing enough quickly enough to reduce that heavy
reliance.”
Saddler’s analysis, published in the thinktank’s quarterly
audit of national energy emissions, found Australia’s energy emissions
in June reached 383.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – a
49.5% increase since 1990.
Enele Sopoaga, prime minister of climate-vulnerable neighbour Tuvalu, told Fairfax Media last week:
“While the rest of the world is moving ahead to renewable energy,
Australia is stuck in the dark ages with its reliance on dirty fossil
fuels. This is bad news for the Pacific”
Despite this, the country is on track to meet its 2020
Kyoto Protocol target – a 5% reduction below 2000 levels. This is
largely due to a reduction in land clearing that had already happened
when the target was announced, and generous carbon accounting rules that let it count carry over credits from beating its lenient target in the protocol’s first period.
Some European countries, including Germany and Britain,
volunteered to cancel their carryover credits so meeting their targets
reflected actual emission cuts. Australia declined.
Transport emissions have received relatively little political attention in Australia. In response to questions from Fairfax Media, the government said it had a ministerial forum on vehicle emissions to consider reforms on fuel efficiency and quality.
(Source: TAI)
Coal, on the other hand, is at the centre of heated
political debate. The Liberal-National coalition government, which has a
centre-right leader in prime minister Malcolm Turnbull but relies on
the support of hardline conservative backbench MPs given voice by former
leader Tony Abbott, is divided over whether it should be subsidising
new coal generation or adopting policies that would support renewable
and low-emissions technology.
Black coal and lignite still provide about three-quarters
of national electricity, but a dozen old and failing coal generators
have closed in the past five years. Amid concerns about potential supply
shortages, business groups have led calls for a long-term national
climate and energy policy to drive investment in new power plants.
Australia’s only existing policy to encourage private
investment is a renewable energy target. Under Abbott in 2014 and 2015,
the government reduced that target and abolished a 2012 carbon price
scheme – described colloquially by opponents as a “carbon tax”, but
actually a national emissions trading scheme that was one of the first
of its kind. As yet, there is nothing to replace the renewable target
when it lapses in 2020.
Earlier this year, a government-commissioned review by the
nation’s chief scientist, Alan Finkel, recommended a new policy – a
clean energy target – that would effectively replace the renewable
target, but broaden it to encourage other low-emissions technologies.
The level of support available would be weighted by emissions intensity,
with clean fuels receiving more.
Months on, it is unclear whether the government will adopt
it. Turnbull and environment and energy minister Josh Frydenberg have
voiced support for Finkel, but face the challenge of crafting a policy
that government MPs will vote for. Those who reject climate science –
including Abbott, a vocal critic of Turnbull since being deposed by his
party two years ago – have vowed to cross the floor to vote against any
policy that subsidises clean energy ahead of coal.
While senior government members say they would welcome
private investment in new coal power, they have softened expectations
they will explicitly support it. In February, treasurer Scott Morrison
brandished a lump of coal in Parliament, saying it had delivered
prosperity for more than a century. By August, he was delivering a
series of speeches warning the era of cheap coal-fired power was coming
to an end. He warned new plants would be expensive and take years to
build.
Instead, the government attempted to pressure energy
company AGL to extend the life of the giant Liddell coal plant –
46-years-old and running below capacity due to operational problems –
beyond its scheduled closure in 2022. The company resisted, instead
promising to come up with a plan in 90 days to replace the 2-gigawatt
capacity using other technologies.
AGL’s position on coal is consistent with the overwhelming
majority of Australia energy companies and financiers. They consider
coal power unbankable and, given Australia’s commitment to the Paris
climate agreement, say the future is cleaner generation.
Australia’s pledge at Paris was a 26-28% emissions
reduction below 2005 levels by 2030. Several analyses have found they
currently have no path to meet the existing goal, let alone the eventual
increased target Turnbull and Frydenberg have acknowledged is implied
under the global deal.
The Australia Institute analysis is not based on official
emissions data, but drawn from monthly government agency statistics for
national petroleum use and electricity and gas consumption in eastern
states. Saddler’s assessment that Australia and Turkey are the only
Annex I countries (those considered industrialised or “economies in
transition” in the 1990s) to have hit a record high for energy emissions
is based on extrapolation from the most recent data submitted to the
UNFCCC in 2015, when those from other countries were either in decline
or well below an earlier peak.
Turkey has seen a dramatic surge in energy combustion
emissions in recent years, easily outstripping other Annex I countries.
Heavy investment in coal power has seen its emissions from the energy
industry rise 260% since 1990, from 38m tonnes in 1990 to 137m tonnes in
2015.
The country pledged at Paris only to reduce emissions 21%
below business as usual by 2030, rather than an outright cut. In July,
president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he would not be ratifying the agreement, citing Donald Trump’s announcement the US would abandon the deal.
Saddler said Turkey’s per capita emissions were less than a quarter of Australia’s, and its GDP per head less.
Beijing: In Australia, politicians continue to debate the existence of climate change. Donald Trump's Environment Protection Agency declared this week that the "war on coal is over".
In China, the outlook could not be more different.
China drives for clean coal China is the world's biggest coal producer and carbon dioxide emitter, but is trying to take the lead in cleaner technology.
The war on coal reached fever pitch here this month. As a
deadline looms to achieve clean air targets by the end of 2017, October
has seen unprecedented measures come into force to curb air pollution
and reduce emissions.
Steel production has been halved in major
steel cities, coal banned in China's coal capital, factories closed down
for failing pollution inspections, and hundreds of officials sacked for
failing to meet environmental targets.
Beijing Oriental Petrochemical Plant is demolished on September 27, 2017, as part of a pollution crackdown.
Photo: Sanghee Liu
The complete shutdowns, or 50 per cent production cuts, will stay in place for an unprecedented five months.
The
winter heating season in China is approaching, when coal use has
traditionally spiked, worsening northern China's notorious air
pollution.
But cities are under pressure to meet important domestic targets for
clean air, set five years ago by the State Council in response to a public outcry over pollution.China can't allow a repeat of last winter, when, after several years
of improvement, air quality suddenly worsened in some cities.
A woman wears a mask as she walks on a street in Beijing. Photo: Bloomberg
For a few days in January 2016, the sky darkened and it looked possible that the "airpocalypse" of 2013 – which first drew global attention to Beijing's severe air pollution – was back. Social media went into overdrive.
The 'airpocalypse' of winter 2013. Smog hangs in the air around buildings in Shenzhen. Photo: Bloomberg
Fighting air pollution is a matter of social stability, Environment Protection Minister Li Ganjie said a fortnight ago.
So now the Chinese government has brought out the "iron fist"
That was the phrase used by the environment protection bureau in
China's most polluted province, Hebei, as 69 government officials were
sacked and 154 handed over to police for investigation last month for
failing to implement pollution control measures.
Meeting emissions targets has become a key performance indicator for local Communist Party bosses and mayors alike.
Local
governments that don't enforce the pollution controls will have
environmental assessments for new property developments suspended by the
Ministry for Environment Protection, effectively blocking deals.
A
battle plan has been drawn up by the ministry to cover 28 northern
cities, including Beijing and Tianjin, where 7000 pollution inspectors
will be deployed to expose violations and look for data fraud.
The
curbs on industry, particularly steel making, are hitting world
resources prices, including Australia's biggest exports, as demand for
iron ore and coal fall.
Nev Power, chief executive of the world's
fourth-largest iron ore producer, Fortescue Metals Group, whose share
price has fallen 18 per cent, describes it as a "seasonal impact".
"We
recognise that considerable efforts have been made by China in recent
years to find the right balance between economic development and
environmental protection," he says.
But Chinese environmental
policy observers have told Fairfax Media the restrictions put in place
this month, which will stay in place for five months and not the usual
few weeks, are unprecedented.
The demolition of Beijing Oriental Petrochemical Plant late last month. Photo: Sanghee Liu
Ma Tianjie, managing editor of the environmental policy website China
Dialogue, says the reason for the tougher approach is the 2017 deadline
for the State Council action plan on air pollution, which is a "crucial
policy document".
Multinationals and Chinese companies have complained the shutdowns and factory closures will hurt business and raise prices.
But,
unlike what happens when polluting industries push back against
government policy in Australia and the US, they have been given short
shrift by China's Ministry for Environment Protection.
The
ministry's director of environmental impact assessment, Cui Shuhong,
held a press conference a fortnight ago to debunk the complaints, saying
polluting companies will be phased out because they "disrupt the market
order".
"Healthy and faster economic growth can happen along with an improved environment," he said.
The
ministry released data it claims shows five polluted cities targeted by
environment inspection teams have already emerged with stronger
economic growth after shutting down steelmaking, removing boilers,
curbing coal use and investing in energy efficient technology.
Yuan
Xu, associate professor with the Chinese University of Hong Kong's
Institute of Environment, Energy and Sustainability, says there has been
a major change in the Chinese government's understanding of the
relationship between economic growth and environmental protection.
"In
the past, the two were taken as tradeoffs ... China has been more and
more benefiting from newly created industries and jobs due to
environmental protection and especially climate mitigation," he says.
Renewable energy has created several million jobs and multiple world-leading industries.
Clean
Air Asia, a non-profit organisation set up with funding from the World
Bank and Asian Development Bank, has been tracking the progress of 338
Chinese cities in meeting the five-year pollution targets.
Clean
Air Asia's China director, Dr Fu Lu, says its latest report shows 84
cities attained national air quality standards in 2016. Clean Air
believes 74 key cities can achieve the targets in 2017, although this
will be hard for Beijing.
"The bad news is some cities failed to
attain the targets they set for themselves, or even worse, their
emissions rose," Fu says.
The detailed and stringent measures
imposed this month are a response to the public outcry in January as
severe air pollution returned to Beijing, she says: "There was heated
debate on the internet. It affects public health."
Zero tolerance
on smaller companies caught polluting, who will be forced out of
business, shows the government's "political will" on the issue, Fu adds.
"They
will cut their electricity, stop the water supply and they will
disappear from the market. They won't be allowed to move elsewhere."
Four cities, including Beijing and Tianjin, will introduce "coal-free zones".
Polluting
trucks will be targeted, with the major port of Tianjin banning trucks
from entering to transport goods on heavy pollution days, she says. Only
trucks that meet emission standards will be allowed to enter on other
days.
The fight against air pollution is driving the Chinese
government's emergence as a world leader on climate change, and prompted
the dramatic shift in China's position in 2012 to accept binding
targets, says Ma.
"Without domestic pressure from the urban middle
class to tackle air pollution we wouldn't see the action on the global
stage from China," he says.
Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, China said it will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60-65 per cent by 2030.
China's
special representative on climate change, Xie Zhenhua, has said: "The
cause of air pollution and climate change is the same - the burning of
fossil fuels. Many of the policies and measures to solve the two issues
are the same."
The first scientific study to show a link between
global climate change and northern China's severe winter air pollution
was published in March.
The Georgia Institute of Technology's
research suggests Arctic sea ice loss and increased Eurasian snowfall
have changed China's winter monsoon, reducing winds and trapping
pollution over northern Chinese cities.
The 2013 "airpocalypse", and last winter, saw the same unusual weather conditions, with no ventilation and severe haze.
This
finding emphasises the importance of cutting greenhouse gases to
alleviate winter pollution, said the study's author, Yuhang Wang,
professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Tech.
But
it also suggests the success of China's big campaign to fight air
pollution this winter will depend on weather conditions, he told Fairfax
Media.
"There have been many extreme weather events around the
world this year, such as the heatwave in early summer in China, the
large number of category 4 hurricanes hitting the US, or the ongoing
California fires.
"It is definitely the winter to watch from both emission and climate perspectives."
How China is "waging tough war against air pollution" and tackling climate change: Coal
A coal-fired power plant spews emissions in Taiyuan, China. Photo: Bloomberg
When Treasurer Scott Morrison visited Beijing last month, he was told
China was shutting coal mines because they "aren't consistent with the
government's environmental objectives".
China's biggest coal hub,
Taiyuan in Shanxi province, banned the sale, transport and use of coal
on October 1. The city produces a quarter of China's coal output, but
the ban will stay in place over winter to reduce coal use by 2 million
tonnes.
Across northern cities, 44,000 small coal-fired furnaces
will be shut by the end of October, and 72 coal-fired generators will
close.
China has stopped construction on 150 gigawatts of planned new coal-fired power generation capacity until 2020.
Another 100 gigawatts will be "upgraded" to reduce emissions.
Steel
Workers take a break while sitting on a pile of steel wires at a stockyard run by the Shanghai Yirong Trading Co. Photo: Qilai Shen
Half of China's iron and steel production occurs in the 28 cities in the action plan.
Tianjin,
along with the cities of Tangshan, Handan, Shijiazhuang and Anyang will
cut steel mill production by 50 per cent from October.
Western analysts estimate 6 per cent of China's annual crude steel output will be lost.
Emission standards for iron and steel have also been lowered.
Household heating
Three million households using coal for heating will be provided with electricity or natural gas heating.
Factory closures
176,000 companies who failed to meet emission targets were to be closed by October 1.
Accountability
Party chiefs will be accountable if a district fails to meet air
pollution goals, and will be summoned to Beijing. If major media report
more than five times that a province has failed to implement pollution
controls, the party chief will be charged with dereliction of duty and
punished.
Companies will be shamed in the media, and a WeChat tipline set up for the public to report polluters.
ETS
A national emissions trading scheme is expected to begin by the end
of 2017, starting with power generators, after seven pilots in major
cities.
Renewable energy
China's National Energy Administration plans to spend $US360 billion
($486 billion) by 2020 on renewable energy including solar and wind, to
account for half of new generated capacity, and create 13 million jobs.
China is already the world's largest renewable energy employer, with 3.5
million people working in the sector. It added 21 gigawatts of solar
capacity in the past six months.
Vehicles
China says it will set a timetable to phase out fossil fuel cars. A
10 per cent minimum sales target for electric cars will be imposed on
large car manufacturers from 2019. A car maker producing 1 million cars
annually will have to produce and sell 25,000 electric vehicles.
Of a total 205 million registered cars, 1 million are "new energy" vehicles.
Beijing
Beijing closed its last major coal-fired power plant in March, and
will replace coal heating in factories and households by the end of the
year. Coal consumption fell to 9.5 million tonnes last year, down from
30 million in 2005.
Beijing said it would "rectify" 5500
"scattered, chaotic and polluting" companies by October. The Beijing
Oriental Petrochemical Plant was demolished on September 27 and will
become a park.
Every major nation can benefit from a swift switch to electric vehicles, but Australia's very existence may rely on it.
If that sounds dramatic, consider the facts.
Australia is now heading towards 100 per cent import dependency on fuel, primarily from the Middle East and through Asia.
As
an Iranian refugee, I know something about being imported to Australia
from the Middle East and I can tell you: it's not smooth sailing.
We're now dependent on this route, traversed by foreign-owned vessels, primarily via the South China Sea.
Two weeks of fuel reserve
Last year, the former Deputy Chief of the RAAF, Air Vice Marshall John Blackburn, was commissioned by the NRMA to provide strategic advice on Australia's fuel security.
He
found Australia's food, water, and medicine distribution was reliant on
imported transport fuel and our supply operated on a "just in time"
approach for logistical efficiency.
Long story short: at any given time, Australia has no more than two weeks' worth of imported fuel in the country.
After that, everything grinds to a complete and catastrophic halt.
Today,
instability around North Korea and territorial conflicts in the South
China Sea make the shipping routes more insecure than ever.
If any real conflict breaks out in the area, what priority would fuel imports to Australia take?
Would foreign-owned ships risk travelling through a conflict zone to satisfy contractual arrangements with Australian entities?
Would foreign suppliers even be willing to continue exporting?
The
NRMA has estimated even a 20 to 40 per cent cut in Australia's fuel
supply, "would quickly lead to a situation whereby the country would
start running out of food and medicines, while the economy would start
to shut down".
The world's great electric vehicle laggard
There's
obviously plenty to be worried about with this scenario. Yet we should
also be angry. Because the simple fact is there is no reason for our
fuel security situation to be this precarious.
Australia could easily produce enough electricity to power millions
of vehicles, providing greater demand for investment in renewable
energy.
Yet somehow Australia, despite having the most to gain, is the world's great electric vehicle laggard.
A paltry 0.1 per cent of new vehicle sales in Australia last year were recorded as electric.
In
other comparable nations, electric vehicles have become the norm: 29
per cent of new vehicles sold in Norway are now electric. Major vehicle
markets such as China, France, and Britain
have announced they will ban the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles.
Countries and companies around the world have made clear the future of
the market is electric.
Benefits besides fuel security
Even
if you are somehow completely sanguine about the situation in the South
China Sea, Australia's slowness to move is costing us on myriad other
levels.
Electric vehicles are, for example, an efficient way for Australia to reduce carbon emissions.
An
electric vehicle charged from the existing power grid already produces
fewer emissions than the average petrol engine vehicle. This advantage
will increase rapidly as the electricity sector moves toward renewables.
Electric
vehicles would also clear air and noise pollution in our major cities.
Major points of community anger, like smoke stacks in residential areas,
could vanish.
Electric vehicles would also free Australian
households from the tyranny of the bowser. With solar panels on your
roof, most nights you could plug your car at home and fill up free.
Music to the ears of those in our outer suburbs and regions, especially.
Send consumers a message
Here's the kicker: moving Australia towards electric vehicles would not require a massive commitment from government.
The benefits are so clear, we just have to dislodge the boulder from the top of the mountain.
The
latest research shows most Australians would consider buying an
electric vehicle, but are put off by the idea it is niche and
unsupported by national infrastructure.
So, all that's needed is a clear, unambiguous message to consumers and industry that the government supports electric.
A step to build momentum
One easy, revenue-neutral step would be to provide a short-term exemption for electric vehicles from fringe benefits tax.
Half a million fleet vehicles are bought by the government and companies in Australia every year.
If we can help encourage a decent proportion of these sales to be electric it would kick start the transition.
The foregone revenue could easily be made up by only slightly increasing the impost on conventional vehicles.
In
addition, governments might provide short-term exemptions to costs like
stamp duty, registration and other taxes levied on the car market.
Incentives could be provided for the mass installation of charging
infrastructure.
The point is that once the momentum towards electric vehicles starts, it will be unstoppable.
A few small but important steps is all Australia needs to be a cleaner, healthier and more secure nation.
*Behyad Jafari is chief executive of the Electric Vehicle Council. Links
