Why Australia Is Heading For Epic Failure On Carbon Emissions

New Daily - James Fernyhough

Under current policies Australia will miss its Paris commitments by 21 percentage points. Photo: Getty

Since replacing Malcolm Turnbull a month ago, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has seemingly taken climate change mitigation off the policy table altogether.
His new energy minister, Angus Taylor, says carbon emissions don’t matter because we’re already on track to meet our Paris Agreement targets “without interventions” – a claim that The New Daily debunked here.
Given the Morrison government’s dropping of any pretence of a climate policy, The New Daily thought it worth taking a thorough look at exactly how Australia is doing on the greenhouse gas emissions front.
We asked three simple questions: What are Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions? Who or what is responsible for them? And how are we planning to reduce them?
The answers were surprisingly easy to find. They were all contained in this 40-page document from Mr Taylor’s own department, the Department of Environment and Energy. It made for grim reading.
In summary: Australia released 554 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases last year, and that’s set to go up, not down, by 2030; the single biggest contributor to this is coal-fired electricity generation, with car exhaust fumes and cow belches not far behind; and as things stand we are doing very little at a national level to deal with this dire problem.

The four main culprits
The government highlights eight main sources of greenhouse gas emission, all listed in the chart below. For simplicity’s sake we’ll concentrate on the four biggest ones: electricity generation, direct combustion, transport and agriculture.

Electricity generation
Electricity generation is by far the biggest contributor to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, and as the graphic below shows, coal is by far the biggest resource used to generate electricity.
In 2017 electricity generation accounted for 190 Mt CO2-e. That’s 34 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions.
(Side note: Mt CO2-e means million tonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent measure of greenhouse gases. Other greenhouse gases include methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
Given solar, wind and hydro are emissions free, the vast bulk of that 190 million tonnes comes from gas, liquid fuel and, above all, coal.

The Rudd-Gillard Labor government introduced two key policies that significantly reduced emissions from the electricity sector: the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and the carbon tax.
The closure of the Hazelwood coal-fired power station and the planned closure of the Liddell coal-fired power station in 2022 will also push emissions down.
However, the Coalition scrapped the carbon tax, and will not renew the RET when it expires in 2020. So after Liddell closes, there are no policies or events that will further reduce emissions in the sector.
Malcolm Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee would have forced electricity generators to reduce their emissions, but Mr Morrison has already dropped that policy.
As a result, the COAG Energy Council predicts the sector is now on track to miss its 2030 target of a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels.

A strange aspect of all this …
This brings up an important point. Under the Paris Agreement, the Coalition government agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 – across the entire economy.
The electricity sector is by far the biggest emitter in the economy, and one in which emissions can be quite easily reduced. However, the government has only ever aimed to reduce emissions in this sector by that same figure, 26 to 28 per cent.
Given the success of previous measures, a more aggressive renewables policy, for example, combined with a NEG-style policy or even an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax, could theoretically push emissions down by much more than the 26 to 28 per cent target.
The electricity sector, in other words, could quite easily do more of the heavy lifting on emissions reduction for the entire economy, if the government decided to make that a priority.

The other three
It would make sense to do this, because as things stand reducing emissions in the transport and agriculture sectors is going to be extremely difficult.
Emissions from both sectors, in fact, are on track to rise significantly. Transport in particular: thanks to the rapidly increasing population, emissions are expected to go from 96 million tonnes of carbon in 2017 to 112 million in 2030.
The federal government formed the ‘Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions’ in 2015, but as yet little solid policy has emerged from it.
Emissions from agriculture come primarily from the methane produced during cows’ and sheep’ digestion processes (we’re talking burps, not farts). Reducing emissions would mean reducing the number of livestock, which would likely be seen as an outright assault on the beef, lamb and dairy industries – not a fight many politicians will want to start.
Emissions from direct combustion – that is, the burning of fossil fuels to heat homes and power industry – is set to decline by 2 per cent between now and 2030. However there does not appear to be any clear national policy to reduce it by any more than this – though there is a lot states can do and are doing in this area.
All of which leaves us where exactly? If we’re to meet even the most modest emissions reduction target of 26 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, our greenhouse gas emissions should be no more than 437 Mt CO2-e. On current trends they will be 570 Mt CO2-e – just 5 per cent below 2005 levels.
Which means we’re on track to miss our 2030 Paris Agreement targets by a massive 21 percentage points.

Links

• Claim we’re on track to meet emissions targets is false
• Cut the energy virtue signalling and start serving customers
• Australia’s emissions projections 2017 (pdf)
• Morrison Now Officially Worse Than Abbott On Climate Change
• Energy Minister's Electorate Backs Higher Emissions Reduction Target, Poll Shows
• Angus Taylor Confirms Government 'Won't Be Replacing' Renewable Energy Target
• Australia On Track To Miss Paris Climate Targets As Emissions Hit Record Highs
• Australia is not on track to reach 2030 Paris target (but the potential is there)
• Scott Morrison Says National Energy Guarantee 'Is Dead'
• Climate Change Policy Toppled Australia’s Leader. Here’s What It Means For Others.
• Australia Is Devastated By Drought, Yet It Won't Budge On Climate Change
• Australia Struggles With A Devastating Drought While The Government Ignores Climate Change
• Turnbull Just Showed What Happens When 'Ideology And Idiocy Take Charge Of Energy Policy'

Australian Businesses Must Do More To Disclose Climate Change Risks To Investors, ASIC Says

The Guardian - Lisa Cox

Financial analysts say regulator’s report makes it clear ‘many Australian companies are not meeting their legal requirements’

A vehicle passes through a flooded street. An Asic review found few listed companies outside of the ASX 200 were disclosing climate change risks to their investors. Photograph: STR/AAP 

Australian companies should be doing more to disclose risks to their business from climate change, according to a report by the corporate regulator Asic.
The review, published on Thursday, examined climate risk disclosures by 60 companies in the ASX 300, in 25 recent initial public offering (IPO) prospectuses, and across 15,000 annual reports.
Of the 60 companies, Asic found 17% identified climate change as a material risk to their business.
The regulator said that while most ASX 100 companies had considered the potential risks posed to them by climate change at least to some extent, the practice of disclosing these risks to investors was “considerably fragmented, with information provided to the market in differing forms across a wide range of means of disclosure”.
“In some cases, the review found climate risk disclosures to be far too general, and of limited use to investors,” Asic said in a statement.
The review found few listed companies outside of the ASX 200 were disclosing climate risks to their investors.
Discussion of climate change in annual reports had also gone backwards, particularly for companies outside the ASX 100.
It found the percentage of annual reports of all listed companies that contained climate change-related content had fallen from 22% in 2011 to 14% in 2017.
“Climate change is a foreseeable risk facing many listed companies in the Australian market in a range of different industries,” the Asic commissioner John Price said.
“Directors and officers of listed companies need to understand and continually reassess existing and emerging risks (including climate risk) that may affect the company’s business – for better or for worse.”
He said climate change disclosure practices were still evolving and Asic would “monitor market practice as it continues to evolve and develop in this area”.
But financial analysts said the report highlights problems with Australia’s generic risk disclosure laws for companies and the understanding of how they apply to climate change.
“It shows there’s a difference between what Asic says the laws say and what companies are doing,” said Will van de Pol, a campaigner at Market Forces.
“It’s clear from this report and our financial research that many Australian companies are not meeting their legal requirements.
“It means that investors are being left in the dark about the risk to the companies that they own from climate change.”
He said it was up to investors to demand detailed risk disclosure from companies and for the regulator to take action against companies that failed to meet disclosure requirements.
Dan Gocher, director of climate and environment at the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, said the results in the review suggested mandatory reporting of climate risks might need to be considered.
“In the absence of that, this is the result,” he said. “It points to a systemic issue. Without mandatory reporting from Asic it will require a cultural change.”
He said investors should be taking action against companies that weren’t making progress.
“We’re suggesting they used the tools that they’ve got and the only ones are voting against directors and voting against remuneration,” he said.

Links

• If business leaders want to regain our trust, they must act on climate risk
• If you’re talking about drought but not climate change, you’re not doing your job, PM
• Australian firms told to catch up on climate change risk checks
• Banks warned of 'regulatory action' as climate change bites global economy
• Australian shareholders should be told of climate risk to profits, says thinktank
• Most global investors recognise financial risk of climate change, report finds
• Climate change: three of Australia’s big four banks reviewing exposure to fossil fuels
• Finance sector could face climate-risk testing, says Australian watchdog
• Big Australian banks invest $7bn more in fossil fuels than renewables, says report
• Apra says companies must factor climate risks into business outlook

Planet At Risk Of Heading Towards “Hothouse Earth” State

Stockholm Resilience Centre

Keeping global warming to within 1.5-2°C may be more difficult than previously assessed

A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that there is a risk of Earth entering “Hothouse Earth” conditions where the climate in the long term will stabilize at a global average of 4-5°C higher than pre-industrial temperatures and sea level 10-60 m higher than today. Photo: rudy_ath/Wikimedia Commons

Story highlights Even if the carbon emission reductions called for in the Paris Agreement are met, there is a risk of Earth entering what the scientists call “Hothouse Earth” conditions A “Hothouse Earth” climate will in the long term stabilize at a global average of 4-5°C higher than pre-industrial temperatures with sea level 10-60 m higher than today Maximizing the chances of avoiding a “Hothouse Earth” requires not only reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions but also enhancement and/or creation of new biological carbon stores

An international team of scientists has published a study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) showing that even if the carbon emission reductions called for in the Paris Agreement are met, there is a risk of Earth entering what the scientists call “Hothouse Earth” conditions.
A “Hothouse Earth” climate will in the long term stabilize at a global average of 4-5°C higher than pre-industrial temperatures with sea level 10-60 m higher than today, the paper says.
The authors conclude it is now urgent to greatly accelerate the transition towards an emission-free world economy.
"Human emissions of greenhouse gas are not the sole determinant of temperature on Earth. Our study suggests that human-induced global warming of 2°C may trigger other Earth system processes, often called “feedbacks”, that can drive further warming - even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases," says lead author Will Steffen from the Australian National University and Stockholm Resilience Centre.
"Avoiding this scenario requires a redirection of human actions from exploitation to stewardship of the Earth system.”
Currently, global average temperatures are just over 1°C above pre-industrial and rising at 0.17°C per decade.

Places on Earth will become uninhabitable if “Hothouse Earth” becomes the reality
Johan Rockström, co-author

Places on Earth will become uninhabitable
The authors of the study consider ten natural feedback processes, some of which are “tipping elements” that lead to abrupt change if a critical threshold is crossed. These feedbacks could turn from being a “friend” that stores carbon to a “foe” that emits it uncontrollably in a warmer world.
These feedbacks are: permafrost thaw, loss of methane hydrates from the ocean floor, weakening land and ocean carbon sinks, increasing bacterial respiration in the oceans, Amazon rainforest dieback, boreal forest dieback, reduction of northern hemisphere snow cover, loss of Arctic summer sea ice, and reduction of Antarctic sea ice and polar ice sheets.
"These tipping elements can potentially act like a row of dominoes. Once one is pushed over, it pushes Earth towards another. It may be very difficult or impossible to stop the whole row of dominoes from tumbling over. Places on Earth will become uninhabitable if “Hothouse Earth” becomes the reality," warns co-author Johan Rockström, former executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and incoming co-director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, says, "We show how industrial-age greenhouse gas emissions force our climate, and ultimately the Earth system, out of balance. In particular, we address tipping elements in the planetary machinery that might, once a certain stress level has been passed, one by one change fundamentally, rapidly, and perhaps irreversibly. This cascade of events may tip the entire Earth system into a new mode of operation.”
“What we do not know yet is whether the climate system can be safely 'parked' near 2°C above preindustrial levels, as the Paris Agreement envisages. Or if it will, once pushed so far, slip down the slope towards a hothouse planet. Research must assess this risk as soon as possible."

Global map of potential tipping cascades. The individual tipping elements are color-coded according to estimated thresholds in global average surface temperature (tipping points; 18,43). Arrows show the potential interactions among the tipping elements, based on expert elicitation, which could generate cascades. Note that although the risk for tipping (loss of) the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is proposed at >5 degrees Celsius, some marine-based sectors in East Antarctica may be vulnerable at lower temperatures.

Cutting greenhouse gases is not enough
Maximizing the chances of avoiding a “Hothouse Earth” requires not only reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions but also enhancement and/or creation of new biological carbon stores, for example, through improved forest, agricultural and soil management; biodiversity conservation; and technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it underground, the paper says.
Critically, the study emphasizes that these measures must be underpinned by fundamental societal changes that are required to maintain a “Stabilized Earth” where temperatures are ~2°C warmer that the pre-industrial.
"Climate and other global changes show us that we humans are impacting the Earth system at the global level. This means that we as a global community can also manage our relationship with the system to influence future planetary conditions. This study identifies some of the levers that can be used to do so," concludes co-author, Katherine Richardson from Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate at the University of Copenhagen.

Links

• Domino-Effect Of Climate Events Could Push Earth Into A ‘Hothouse’ State
• Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene
• Declines in methane uptake in forest soils
• Sweden's highest point set to lose title as glacier melts
• Last year was warmest ever that didn't feature an El Niño, report finds
• Rising ocean waters from global warming could cost trillions of dollars
• Underwater melting of Antarctic ice far greater than thought, study finds
• Climate change threatens rare British orchid that tricks bees into mating
• Overfishing and climate change push seabirds to extinction
• Global carbon emissions stood still in 2016, offering climate hope
• Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’
• CO2 turned into stone in Iceland in climate change breakthrough
• Climate change: why the Guardian is putting threat to Earth front and centre
• Climate change? Try catastrophic climate breakdown

What Do Gen X And Gen Y Worry About Most? Climate Change

University of Melbourne - Julia Cook | Hernán Cuervo | Jenny Chesters

Climate change is their number one cause for concern and they aren’t impressed by government efforts to tackle environmental challenges

Takver/Flickr

Two generations of Australians believe one of the most important issues facing the country right now is climate change.
The latest Life Patterns report by the University of Melbourne shows that many members of both Gen X and Gen Y see climate change as Australia’s most significant and urgent issue.

For many members of Gen X and Gen Y in Australia, climate change is the most pressing issue facing the country. Picture: Takver/Flickr

While people in Gen X are worried specifically about what climate change will mean for their own children, those in Gen Y are generally more concerned about the impact of climate change on future generations.
Generally, when many of us think about the issues that concern us we commonly focus on things that impact upon our day-to-day lives. But, when we asked Australians from the two generations to nominate the three most important issues facing the nation, many set aside individual concerns, turning instead to a collective, global issue.
The Life Patterns study is a two-decade project following two groups of Australians since they left school – one now aged 44-45 that left school in 1991 (our ‘Gen X’ cohort) and another now aged 29-30 that left school in 2006 (our ‘Gen Y’ cohort).
It aims to provide a holistic understanding of the ways in which young (and not-so-young) Australians are responding to our rapidly changing world.

Climate change and the future
Many of the older participants say their concerns for the environment are linked directly to their worries over the future their children could face.
One mother from rural Victoria states: The uncertain climate-change reality is an enormous concern for me regarding my children’s future.
Members of the younger group have similar concerns. One female participant working in administration and management in Melbourne says: [We need to] make sure as a generation we minimise our environmental footprint and contribute to leaving this planet in way that supports future generations.

For Gen X in particular, their concerns about the environment relate to how their children will fare in a climate change future. Picture: Getty Images

This subtle difference is grounded in specifically who they are concerned about.
The older group is generally more worried about the impact of environmental issues on their own children, while the younger cohort worry about the impact on future generations more generally.

Putting climate change on the agenda
However, while specific views of what actually needs to be done varies, participants from both groups consistently expressed grave concerns about the general lack of action towards climate change mitigation from the current government.
A man in the Gen X group who is married with one child and living in Melbourne writes: Government inaction on climate change in this country is a crying shame. Look at what they are doing in terms of addressing climate change in California, in Germany, in Scandinavia, even in China. But here, it’s all too hard apparently.
Similarly, a woman in the Gen Y group living with her partner in regional NSW says: I’m concerned about the environment and the lack of action by government to fix problems.

On a more personal note…
Job security, drug abuse and housing affordability came in as issues number two, three and four for the younger cohort.
In contrast, the older cohort ranked these issues far below cost of living, which came in at number two, followed closely by security/terrorism, politics/government, the economy and education.

The environment was the most important issue for both the Gen X and the Gen Y cohorts in the latest Life Patterns report. Picture: Supplied

These differences can be explained in large part by differing life stages.
At the age of 28 or 29, many younger participants who are looking to settle down and start a family are confronted with increasingly difficult property and job markets. But, at the age of 43 or 44, the older participants who have already started a family are dealing with the everyday expenses associated with education and childcare.
So, Gen Y participants are concerned primarily with issues around their ability to access the resources they feel they need for a worthwhile life, while Gen X participants are more concerned about issues directly relating to social stability.
A member of the younger group living in Sydney says: I have a Master’s degree and my wife is well paid, we are not in a position to buy a home near Sydney in the next five to eight years. No matter how hard we try and save, the goalposts keep shifting and so too the dream of raising a family in a home of our own.
In contrast, a member of the older group living in Canberra with his wife and two children says: Economic policies in Australia are failing to support local productivity and creating uncertainty and instability.
For the most part, as much as these perspectives provide a snapshot of contemporary Australia, they also reflect two generations’ different life stages.
But in a world where we usually only hear about the generational divide – climate change and its future impact for the environment is a pressing concern shared by young and not-so-young Australians.

The Life Patterns study has been supported by a number of grants from the Australian Research Council.

Links

• Mental health in a changing climate
• A healthy planet means healthy people
• Extreme weather: Why the impact will be felt more widely
• The sleepy lizard awakens new tools for climate change
• Climate Change III: Responding to Change
• Introduction to Climate Change
• Urban Sustainability and Climate Change
• Climate change hits poorest hardest, new research shows
• Climate change likely to turn up heat on koalas
• Adapting to Climate Change

Morrison Now Officially Worse Than Abbott On Climate Change

Crikey - Bernard Keane

The Morrison government now officially has no climate policy, which makes it even worse than the Abbott government in a crucial policy area.

Image credit: Mick Tsikas/AAP

With the next COAG meeting in October cancelled because the government is too divided and confused to work out its policy positions, and no position in crucial areas like energy and the economy, it’s clear that the Morrison government is big on mateship, a fair go and other ockerisms, but bereft of policy.
There’s one key area, however, where the lack of policy isn’t the result of confusion, incompetence, division or needing a new treasurer or minister to get up to speed, but quite deliberate. The Morrison government will literally have no climate policy.
“The renewable energy target is going to wind down from 2020, it reaches its peak in 2020, and we won’t be replacing that with anything,” climate denialist Energy Minister Angus Taylor proudly said yesterday.
Since 2009, the Coalition has serially dumped (after initially supporting) a carbon price, then rejected a clean energy target, ruled out (after briefly ruling in) an emission intensity scheme, approved Josh Frydenberg’s National Energy Guarantee (NEG) overwhelmingly in the joint party room, then dramatically overhauled it, then dumped it altogether in the space of a few days. It also declared war on renewables under Tony Abbott, declared its love for big renewables projects like Snowy Hydro 2.0 under Turnbull, and is now praising “fair dinkum” — i.e. fossil fuel — power under the coal-toting Morrison.
Along the way, it used its “soil magic” business handout program, the Emission Reduction Fund, as a fig leaf for its lack of climate policy, but dramatically scaled that back from its original form in opposition, cut it further in government, and finally stopped funding it altogether in recent budgets.
That means that the Morrison government is more climate denialist than Tony Abbott: it doesn’t even have the fig leaf ERF, which continues to dribble out funding to business and farmer mendicants but which will soon expire. The Coalition has actually gone backwards from the heady days when Abbott declared climate science was “crap”, and no longer even bothers to pay lip service to the idea of addressing climate change.
There is talk that the ERF will be revived with an infusion of funds. But that doesn’t count as a credible policy: the cost of using the ERF to meet Australia’s Paris emissions reduction targets will be between $100 billion and $250 billion, according to the government’s friends at the Australian Industry Group. Short of discovering a quarter-trillion dollars down the back of the couch, Australia will become one of the few developed countries in the world that simply refuses to address its carbon emissions.

Links

• Climate poll at odds with policy
• What will it take for genuine change in climate policy?
• After five years without climate policy, time for the states to step up
• Does Treasury believe in climate change?
• Scott Morrison Says National Energy Guarantee 'Is Dead'
• Australia ranks in bottom three rich countries for environmental policies
• Paris climate deal doesn't stop us building new coal plants, Canavan says
• Australia’s authority in Pacific 'being eroded by refusal to address climate change'
• Scott Morrison contradicts energy advice, saying Paris targets can be met 'at a canter'
• 'Bad policy': Tony Abbott contradicts PM on national energy guarantee
• What is the national energy guarantee and why is it taking so long?
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee could have 'no meaningful emission reduction'
• Design of national energy guarantee revealed, but key details omitted
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee a step closer after Jay Weatherill's exit
• What is the national energy guarantee and is it really a game changer?
• Scott Morrison says partisan politics has driven up power prices

Energy Minister's Electorate Backs Higher Emissions Reduction Target, Poll Shows

The Guardian - Katharine Murphy

ReachTel poll of Angus Taylor’s voters finds 42.3% want Australia to cut emissions more deeply

Energy minister Angus Taylor says the Coalition has no intention of extending or replacing the renewable energy target in question time on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian 

More voters in the electorate of the new energy minister, Angus Taylor, support an emissions reduction target for electricity and a higher national target than the Paris commitment than oppose those positions.
A ReachTel poll of 690 residents across the federal electorate of Hume, which reaches from Boorowa in the southern tablelands of New South Wales to Camden on Sydney’s southern fringe, was commissioned by the Australia Institute. It found the sample was divided over a range of climate and energy questions, but more people supported stronger action on emissions reduction than opposed it.
Asked whether the government’s Paris target of 26% to 28% should be increased “so Australia reduces emissions faster, decreased so Australia does less, or kept the same” – 42.3% said increased, 29.4% said kept the same, and 22.5% said reduced.
Asked whether the now dumped national energy guarantee should include an emissions reduction target, 47.8% said yes, and 39.3% said no.
There was also local opposition to coal, with 63.7% of the sample either supporting or strongly supporting a moratorium on building new coal mines, while 67.4% supported the Morrison government reviewing the Adani coal mine’s environmental approval.

Ben Oquist, the executive director of the Australia Institute, said the poll results suggested voters in rural electorates, “just like the population overall, are not enamoured with coal and they want more action on climate change, not less”.
Taylor confirmed in question time on Tuesday that the Morrison government would not replace the renewable energy target with an alternative policy after it wound down in 2020.
Taylor confirmed there would be no policy to reduce emissions in the electricity sector during an answer to the Greens MP Adam Bandt in question time on Tuesday.
Bandt asked whether the RET could be extended beyond 2020 given there was currently no policy mechanism to replace it, and the lack of settled policy could threaten investment in low-emissions technology.
The energy minister flatly rejected the idea. “The truth of the matter is the renewable energy target is going to wind down from 2020, it reaches its peak in 2020, and we won’t be replacing that with anything.”
Taylor said there was no need to focus on emissions reduction, because emissions in electricity would fall by 26% “without additional intervention” – a declaration that contradicts advice from the Energy Security Board.
The Coalition’s plan to 2030 was to replace the RET with the national energy guarantee, which imposed an emissions reduction target for electricity.
But Malcolm Turnbull abandoned the Neg as one of his last acts in the prime ministership, and the policy has now been junked officially by the cabinet under Scott Morrison’s leadership.
Bandt later declared the Liberals were “openly boasting that they have no renewable energy policy”. He said the RET needed to be extended beyond 2020 “to avoid a valley of death for renewable energy”.
“Over 2018 and 2019, new renewables are going up in Australia at record rates. This is in large part due to the RET, which even the Energy Security Board and Reserve Bank have said is a big driver of future power bill cuts,” Bandt said.
“But the RET runs out in 2020 and now the minister has confirmed that there’s no renewables policy to take its place. If the RET isn’t extended, there’s a real risk that the next government will not be able to implement a new policy in time to avoid an investment drought.”
Labor also jumped on Taylor’s declaration. The shadow climate change minister, Mark Butler, branded Taylor the minister “for higher power prices and anti-renewables”.

Links

• Angus Taylor Confirms Government 'Won't Be Replacing' Renewable Energy Target
• Coalition won't replace renewables target after it winds down in 2020
• Scott Morrison Says National Energy Guarantee 'Is Dead'
• Australia ranks in bottom three rich countries for environmental policies
• Paris climate deal doesn't stop us building new coal plants, Canavan says
• Australia’s authority in Pacific 'being eroded by refusal to address climate change'
• Scott Morrison contradicts energy advice, saying Paris targets can be met 'at a canter'
• 'Bad policy': Tony Abbott contradicts PM on national energy guarantee
• What is the national energy guarantee and why is it taking so long?
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee could have 'no meaningful emission reduction'
• Design of national energy guarantee revealed, but key details omitted
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee a step closer after Jay Weatherill's exit
• What is the national energy guarantee and is it really a game changer?
• Scott Morrison says partisan politics has driven up power prices

Angus Taylor Confirms Government 'Won't Be Replacing' Renewable Energy Target

Fairfax

Energy Minister Angus Taylor has confirmed the Morrison government will not replace the renewable energy target after it peaks in 2020, officially creating a policy vacuum that opponents say will stifle clean energy investment and lead to higher prices.
In question time on Tuesday, Greens MP Adam Bandt challenged Mr Taylor to extend the target until 2022 to avoid a disastrous plunge in renewables investment when the current target ends.

“The renewable energy target is going to wind down from 2020, it reaches its peak in 2020, and we won't be replacing that with anything,” Mr Taylor said.

Minister for Energy Angus Taylor has told the House of Representatives that the Coalition will wind down their renewable energy target from 2020.

The target involves the creation of tradeable certificates which encourage electricity from renewable sources. It aims for 23.5 per cent of Australia's energy to be sourced from clean sources such as wind and solar by 2020.
As prime minister, Tony Abbott wound back the scheme and as recently as last week reportedly agitated against it at a meeting attended by Mr Taylor.

Mr Taylor, who has campaigned against wind farms, said Australia will reach its target to cut emissions from the electricity sector by 26 per cent “without additional intervention”.

Mr Taylor has previously campaigned against wind farms. Photo: Supplied

He said a 50 per cent renewable energy target in South Australia had led to some of the highest electricity prices in the country.

Labor’s pledge for a 45 per cent emissions reduction across the economy would mean “we will all pay more for our electricity,” he said.

“We are absolutely confident that in the absence of those subsidies, we will get the investment we need in the network,” he said.

Chief Scientist Alan Finkel least year recommended the government adopt a 'clean energy target' to replace the expiring renewables target. The Coalition declined to adopt that recommendation, saying the rapidly falling cost of renewable energy meant subsidies were no longer required.
It instead developed the National Energy Guarantee, which proposed to address the so-called “trilemma” of energy affordability, reliability and emissions.

However Prime Minister Scott Morrison dumped emissions reduction from the government’s energy agenda following his ascension to the top job.

An annual index released on Tuesday put Australia in the bottom three ranking for environmental policy among wealthy nations.
The Center for Global Development's commitment to development index said the environment was “one of Australia’s weaker policy fields ... largely due to its poor performance curbing climate change”.
The government is now wholly focused on making energy supplies more reliable and affordable, including through the implementation of select recommendations from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s report into energy pricing.

Mr Taylor told Parliament the government would “back investment in fair dinkum reliable generation because that's what this country needs”.

It also intends to set a price safety net for all customers and stop “rip-offs from the big energy companies".

“We will drive prices down, that's our policy, those opposite will drive them up,” he said.

Links

• Scott Morrison Says National Energy Guarantee 'Is Dead'
• Australia ranks in bottom three rich countries for environmental policies
• Paris climate deal doesn't stop us building new coal plants, Canavan says
• Australia’s authority in Pacific 'being eroded by refusal to address climate change'
• Scott Morrison contradicts energy advice, saying Paris targets can be met 'at a canter'
• 'Bad policy': Tony Abbott contradicts PM on national energy guarantee
• What is the national energy guarantee and why is it taking so long?
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee could have 'no meaningful emission reduction'
• Design of national energy guarantee revealed, but key details omitted
• Turnbull's national energy guarantee a step closer after Jay Weatherill's exit
• What is the national energy guarantee and is it really a game changer?
• Scott Morrison says partisan politics has driven up power prices