Why The Climate Change Policy Is Stuck In A Revolving Door

New Daily - Rob Burgess

Round we go again with yet more discussion papers on climate policy. Photo: AAP

The government’s climate change policy review, announced on Monday, will give anyone interested in the issue a powerful sense of déjà vu.
The review will look at whether Australia’s carbon emission targets are being met, and whether the “lowest cost of abatement” is being achieved.
Significantly, the government is ruling out both a return to a nationwide carbon pricing scheme, and any increase on the current 2020 renewable energy target, which it cut last June from 41,000 GWh to 33,000 GWh.
Beyond that, the review’s terms of reference look better suited to 2007 – the year John Howard asked the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Peter Shergold, to draw up plans for an emissions trading scheme.
It’s as if the Gillard government’s emissions trading scheme, erroneously dubbed a ‘carbon tax’, had never been designed, legislated, operated and then repealed.

Point of difference

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg wants “to hear from experts”.

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg is trying to differentiate his Direct Action suite of policies as a “sector-by-sector” approach, stressing he will pay particular attention to the “impact of policies on jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households and regional Australia”.
But hang on, that’s exactly what the Gillard government’s ‘Clean Energy Futures’ package did too.
It has specific carve-outs and compensation packages for sectors such as steel, aluminium and food processing, and left petrol off the list of carbon sources altogether.
Mr Frydenberg told the ABC he would engage in “close engagement with business and the community, beginning with consultation on a discussion paper”.
Again, it’s like being back in 2007, when the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia – perhaps the nation’s least partisan think tank – hosted an international debate between US economists Dr Robert Mendelsohn and Dr Robert Shapiro and Australians Professor Warwick McKibbin and Brian Fisher.
Back then, the main difference in opinion was over whether a carbon tax, an emissions trading system, or a hybrid of the two would be the cheapest way to change the nation’s power consumption habits.
And none of those economists would have called for a ‘standing Green Army’ to plant trees and fix other environmental programs – an Abbott government policy that looks set to be torn up at the next budget, to the chagrin of Mr Abbott himself.

Polluted politics
In the aftermath of Tony Abbott’s devastating campaign against the ‘carbon tax’ between 2011 and 2013, the cheapest way to cut emissions has become a political impossibility.
That said, one form of emissions trading ­– in which the price of permits to pollute are set by an auction process – is back on the table.

The carbon tax was a hot topic for Australia. Photo: Getty

It will reportedly be considered only for big electricity generators – which sounds uncannily like the plan Labor took to this year’s federal election.
Overall, the politics of carbon reduction has become a farce, with Mr Frydenberg telling the ABC on Monday: “We want to hear from the experts, as to the lowest cost of abatement.”
But experts thrashed out those arguments a decade ago! They published pivotal reports such as the Stern Review in the UK, or the Garnaut Review in Australia.
Economist Ross Garnaut tackled what he called the “diabolical” policy problem, by creating Labor’s carbon price-setting mechanism, which included some of the carve-outs listed above.
Moreover, 80 per cent of the revenue raised by that policy was returned as tax cuts and pension/benefit increases – resulting, as noted last week, in a per capita impost on Australians of around $34 per year.

Abbottalypse now
Now, following the Abbott government’s repeal of that package, we have Direct Action – a package centred on the Emissions Reduction Fund, in which the government pays companies, via the cheapest tenders, to stop polluting.

An emission trading scheme for large electricity generators is reportedly back on the table.

So far it has boasted of a low cost per tonne for reducing emissions, overlooking the fact that such an ‘auction’ was always going to buy up the lowest-cost forms of abatement first.
By definition, the higher cost abatement plans will have to be purchased down the track – costing taxpayers more, and more and more, as Mr Abbott might have put it.
That’s why economists have stressed that emissions trading, or even a real carbon tax, is superior. The price doesn’t just keep going up.
But instead of trusting to either of those two approaches, we’ve ended up with a government that wants to “hear from experts” (again) to created a sector-by-sector plan (again), weigh up the impact on “jobs, investment, trade and households” (again) and consult with business and communities (again).
Déjà vu doesn’t begin to describe the revolving door this policy area has now been caught in for a decade.

Links

• Carbon price for power generators back on the table
• Here’s the reason why South Australia lost all of its power
• Tony Abbott slams Malcolm Turnbull over Green Army axing
• Garnaut Climate Change Review

'One Of The Dumbest Things I've Ever Heard': Coalition Conservatives Furious Over Climate Review

Fairfax -James Massola | Adam Morton

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces a fresh outbreak of party disunity over climate policy, with backbench MPs questioning the government's timing, scope and tactics after a formal review of the Direct Action plan was finally announced.
Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg on Monday launched the long-awaited review - which controversially promises to look at whether to introduce an emissions intensity scheme for electricity generators, which is a type of carbon price - though he emphasised a focus on household electricity prices and energy security.

Carbon review divides government
Cory Bernardi gives voice to government divisions over a proposed carbon intensity trading scheme in the electricity sector. Courtesy ABC News 24

Energy and business leaders immediately issued a plea to the Coalition and Labor: end a decade of destructive politics and come up with a shared national plan to cut emissions over coming decades, including some sort of carbon price.
Most were open to that being an emissions intensity scheme, which would set a baseline for how much carbon dioxide a power station could emit for every unit of power generated, penalising those that breached their limit and rewarding cleaner models that emitted less.
And as debate about the climate review began, it emerged Tony Abbott's signature "green army" policy, which used young unemployed people on landcare projects, is to be axed, prompting a furious rebuke from the former prime minister.
Fairfax Media spoke to 10 Coalition MPs on Monday about the prospect of an emissions intensity scheme for the electricity sector and all of them were scathing at the prospect of what is, in effect, a carbon price being re-introduced in Australia, regardless of the relative cost.
An emissions intensity scheme puts a hard limit on how much a plant can emit for every unit of electricity it generates. Initially, there could be no cost to generators that stayed within their limit, but those that emitted more than allowed would need to buy carbon permits - representing emissions cuts elsewhere - to offset the breach.
Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi, freshly returned from three months at the United Nations in New York, said transitioning to an emissions intensity scheme was "one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It is not in the Australian national interest for the government to chase policies that ingratiate it with the Greens.

Questioned the advantage of a carbon trading scheme: Liberal MP Craig Kelly. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

"To get back on the right economic track, we need the cheapest electricity in the world."
West Australian MP Andrew Hastie said his overriding concern was the cost of living for families and asked: "Why would we unilaterally, economically disarm [by adopting a price on carbon]?"

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg.  Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

South Australian MP Tony Pasin said that given the current economic climate, "the government should be doing all it can to put downward  pressure on the cost of electricity generation to reduce the power bills of hard-working Australians".
NSW MP Craig Kelly said it was fair enough for Mr Frydenberg to leave "everything on the table" as the review was undertaken but then added: "I do not see how any form of carbon trading scheme would put us at a national competitive advantage".

"It is not in the Australian national interest": Senator Cory Bernardi. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Another MP, who asked not be named, said he was "scratching his head" why the government had released the review - and opened up a new political fight - just three days after securing year-ending wins in Parliament.
"There is very real concern among colleagues that this goes down a track we were promised we would not go down."
As conservative MPs marked a line in the sand over carbon trading and Labor and the Greens criticised the government's review, Australian Energy Council chief Matthew Warren, representing the bulk of generators, said the most important thing for the industry was a policy that would withstand changes in government.
"We'd go for almost anything that has a substantial chance of succeeding and garners bipartisan support, because we can build on it," he said.
Mr Warren said a decade of uncertainty on climate and energy policy had driven away investment, leaving a system "now materially degrading before our eyes".
He said the energy industry wanted some form of carbon price linked to a clear emissions target that extended beyond 2030 - something the review will consider - to trigger investments in new power stations that would last decades.
Australian Industry Group chief Innes Willox said the country could only play its part in tackling climate change at lowest cost if investors believed policies would survive.
"Bipartisanship on climate and energy is the only way forward. The alternative is costly failure," he said.
The Climate Institute said the country had a clear choice: between a review that set Australia on a pathway to zero emissions, or continued the policy chaos of the past 10 years.
Deputy chief executive Erwin Jackson said the goal must be a policy framework that was capable of decarbonising the electricity system well before 2050. It must include some form of carbon price, but that alone would not be enough as experience had taught that any scheme would be a political compromise.
The Climate Institute supports a phased retirement of Australia's remaining 24 coal plants to set a clear timeframe of when new plants would be needed. Mr Jackson said it would reduce the need to subsidise renewable energy and help ensure energy security.
Frank Jotzo, from the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy, said an emissions intensity scheme would be a second-best option after an economy-wide carbon price, but support for it in public debate reflected that Australia was "cobbling things together" after year of political disagreement.
He cautioned that allowing the use of international carbon credits to help meet Australia's climate targets would not be enough to drive the change needed in the power sector, given the credit price was often low, and did not reflect other steps being taken in Europe and China to cut emissions.
He noted the terms of reference did not include a re-examination of the 2030 emissions target, of a 26-to-28 per cent cut below 2005 levels, but said there would be a global stocktake under the Paris deal under which Australia would be expected to strengthen its goal.
"That would indicate that will be considered later," he said.

Links

• Turnbull says he's never supported a carbon tax 
• Power prices, energy security, emissions cuts - and carbon pricing - on the table in climate review
• What the climate policy review means
• 'Dismayed' Tony Abbott slams Turnbull government for axing Green Army
• Coalition conservatives furious over climate review

Google's Satellite Timelapses Show The Inconvenient Truth About Our Planet

The Guardian - Jonathan Jones

Google's new Timelapse project allows you to see how anywhere in the world has changed in the last 32 years; from evaporating lakes to exploding cities, it's a document of recklessness

Lake Poopó, Bolivia … composite of images taken from Google's timelapse tool. Composite: Google

The image of the Earth from space is so seared into human consciousness that it is hard to conceive what it was like to live without the picture of our planet as a blue sphere that we all now carry in our minds.
The first photographs of the Earth's surface seen from 100 miles were taken in 1947. By 1968, the famous Earthrise image photographed by the crew of Apollo 8 framed our planet as a beautiful oasis in black space. Today, stunning and intensely informative pictures of the Earth's surface are being taken from space constantly: so comprehensively, for so long, that Google has now created timelapses that show three decades of change.
It induces anxiety to watch, in just a few seconds, a desert in Saudi Arabia turn into a vast agribusiness complex, a lake in Bolivia vanish or cities grow spectacularly in China.

Google timelapse of Chongqing, China.

History has become a car crash in speeded-up motion. We can see, in these timelapse satellite videos, how the Earth is being torn apart by human acts. We can also see, in timelapse videos of Arctic ice, great glaciers melt before our eyes. Yet, are human beings capable of assimilating such global perspectives or is our consciousness tragically limited to a pre-space age, even pre-Copernican mentality? Are people only capable of acting on immediate, personal and local concerns, even though images from space can show us the bigger picture?
This is one of the real problems of our time. The new vistas on Earth opened up by Apollo 8 in 1968 may seem to have sunk into the very fabric of human consciousness, but it also seems that we can watch any number of videos of expanding cities and vanishing ice without becoming globally conscious.

Google timelapse of Lago Poopó, Bolivia.

Extreme scepticism about climate change has proved a vote winner for Donald Trump. Specifically, Barack Obama's environmental policies have been accused of creating a "war on coal". Pennsylvania miners were not happy to accept that their traditional jobs were doomed for the greater good. All the images of climate change, the timelapse videos of a crumbling Earth, the crash of glaciers, don't apparently mean anything compared with the direct experiences people have in their own neighbourhoods. If a truth is inconvenient, ignore it.
If you want to experience, directly, the gap between imagination and reality, science and common sense, that threatens our ability to act rationally to save the planet, just consider your smartphone. Walking down the street, I can see myself move on the screen of my phone, in a real-time, real-life link between myself and a network of satellites. Yet do we go around pondering this magic? No, and perhaps it even seems naive to do so. We just use the app to check how far we are from the meeting or pub we're trying to get to.

Google timelapse of north-east Greenland.

We are now a species in space, our lives as well as the health of our planet scanned by satellites. Globalisation is not abstract but a scientific reality that is made visible in these timelapse images of our changing world. Yet that knowledge somehow does not get into the depths of our psyches. The GPS in our smartphones and cars is an unfortunate metaphor for a crushing failure of human imagination. We literally refuse to engage with the dazzling global and extra-global nature of modern life. It's all too complex, apparently.We are mentally imprisoned, unable to soar in our minds to see the Earth as a satellite can see it. And it's killing us.

Links

• First Pictures of Earth From 100 Miles in Space, 1947
• Earthrise
• Google Earth Engine
• Extreme Ice Survey

Adani Coal Mine Project: Queensland Government Approves Rail Line, Camp

ABC News

The $22 billion Carmichael coal and rail project has secured approval for a permanent rail line and a temporary construction camp.

Queensland's coordinator-general has given "the latest, and final, secondary approval" for about 31.5 kilometres of permanent track, as well as the 300-bed camp.
The rail section approved will form part of the 389 kilometre heavy haul railway line from the mine in the Galilee Basin to the Abbot Point port.

The coordinator-general has given "the latest, and final" approval for Adani's Carmichael mine. (Supplied: adanimining.com)

The Carmichael mine, which will be Australia's largest coal mine, still needs a water licence approved and hopes to secure a Federal Government loan.
State Development Minister Dr Anthony Lynham said the approval was another milestone for the project.

"Adani has confirmed it will start construction next year," Dr Lynham said.

"North Queensland is about to see a new horizon, because these big projects will be a huge economic stimulus for the north."
Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani and Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk will on Tuesday visit Townsville, about two hours from the Abbot Point port.
A headquarters for Adani's operations is yet to be announced.
The mine will consist of six open-cut pits and up to five underground mines, and will supply Indian power plants with enough coal to generate electricity for up to 100 million people.
The controversial project involves dredging 1.1 million cubic metres of spoil near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which will then be disposed of on land.

Links

• Adani's new Carmichael coal mine in Galilee Basin 'not economically viable'
• Mining leases approved for $21b Carmichael coal mine
• Underground water management laws branded both 'too weak' and 'too tough'
• Indigenous people plan further legal action against Carmichael coal mineMatt Canavan says 'positive news' is set to be announced on Adani mega mine
• Turnbull government eyes $1 billion Adani loan backed by new infrastructure fund
• Adani Galilee Basin project gets final OK

Australia Is Blowing Its Carbon Budget, Projections Reveal

The Guardian - Michael Slezak | Nick Evershed

Exclusive: In less than four years the country has ‘spent’ almost 20% of its greenhouse gas allowance to 2050, analysis shows

Australia has emitted about twice what is allowed by the Climate Change Authority’s carbon budget since 2013. Photograph: G Mutlu/Getty Images

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are rising despite global reduction efforts, according to detailed projections made by the consultants NDEVR Environmental.
Australia’s emissions jumped by 2.56m tonnes in the three months to September, putting them 1.55m tonnes off-track compared with commitments made in Paris, and 4.06m tonnes over levels demanded by scientifically based targets set by the government’s Climate Change Authority. Emissions for the year to September are above those for the year to September 2015.

The results mean Australia has emitted about twice what is allowed by the CCA’s carbon budget since 2013. In the three years and nine months to September 2016, the country emitted 19.8% of its share of what the world can emit between 2013 and 2050 if it intends to maintain a good chance of keeping warming to below 2C.
If Australia continues to emit carbon pollution at the average rate of the past year, it will spend its entire carbon budget by 2031. Projected to the current second, the graphic shows how much of the carbon budget has been spent.

The government has failed to report its emissions since the quarter ending December 2015. Last year it released data on Christmas Eve, when it reported a jump in emissions.
The analysis was produced by NDEVR Environmental, which analysed data for all of Australia’s major emissions sources and compared the results with the government’s commitments made in Paris and the cuts recommended by the CCA.
“The national greenhouse gas inventory, it’s six to nine months behind, it doesn’t compare against any targets, and it doesn’t mean a whole lot to a lot of people,” said Matt Drum, director of NDEVR Environmental.
“So we put our backs into it and replicated their report, updating it to the latest quarter. It was no mean feat. We wanted to show how Australia is tracking, not in real time, but as close as we can get.”
The jump in the latest quarter was not unexpected, since it represents increased use of power during winter months, according to Drum. But the analysis suggests Australia’s emissions have not fallen over the longer term either, with emissions over the year to September rising by 1.3m tonnes compared with the previous year.
“Since the carbon pricing mechanism was repealed, slowly but surely carbon emissions have been increasing both in intensity and in volume, so it’s no surprise that overall emissions have started creeping up as well,” Drum said.
The government has not committed to any interim targets before 2030 but the analysis shows that Australia is not cutting its emissions at all – and certainly not at a steady rate that would meet its 2030 targets.
The carbon budget recommended by the CCA, which it described as “equitable and feasible”, was never agreed to by the government, but represents the authority’s view of Australia’s fair share if global warming is to be kept under 2C.
Australia’s emissions did drop steadily from 2005, almost entirely owing to changes in land-clearing laws in Queensland and NSW. Those changes have now been reversed in Queensland and New South Wales has also just made the clearing of land easier. This is expected to cause an increase in emissions which may not yet be reflected in the projections.

The federal government’s primary carbon reduction tool is Direct Action, under which it pays polluters to pollute less through a reverse auction – the emissions reduction fund.
There is no evidence the emissions bought through that fund reduce overall emissions, and many of the emissions the government pays to avoid are unlikely to have occurred anyway.
About 83% of the emissions reduction fund has been spent, with the latest auction attracting relatively little interest from polluting industries, resulting in fewer reductions being offered and a higher price being demanded.
The government has committed to reviewing its climate change policies in 2017 but there have been doubts about how rigorous that review will be since the minister for energy and the environment, Josh Frydenberg, described it as merely a “sit rep” – a situation report.

Links

• Climate countdown: is Australia on track to avoid catastrophe?
• Direct Action review: Coalition leaves carbon trading option open 
• Australia dubbed 'fossil of the day' after lobbying for coal mine at climate talks
• Australia being 'left behind' by global momentum on climate change
• Climate change: Australia falling behind rest of world on emissions cuts, says report
• Humans create carbon emissions which spawn Australia's extreme weather – report
• Officials admit no modelling shows how Australia will meet Paris climate pledge
• Australia needs two emissions trading schemes, Climate Change Authority says
• Climate authority split is no surprise – Australia has fought the same battle for 10 years 

Time For Some Transparency On The Carbon Emissions Front From Malcolm Turnbull

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The Turnbull government's seriousness about tackling climate change shouldn't be assessed on the well-coordinated dump of details about its planned policy review in 2017 but rather attempts to bury or distort any inconvenient news.
The government has outlined the general terms of the long-flagged review. It's expected to generate a discussion paper in the first half of next year and prompt any changes to its current suite by year's end.

Some big decisions loom for Australia's climate policies in 2017. Photo: Paul Harris

Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has understandably gone on the front foot in announcing the review. The government's existing policies are working, he asserts, and says his government "is committed to adopting a non-ideological approach to emissions reduction to ensure we secure the lowest cost of abatement".
Of course, a "non-ideological approach" would necessarily consider a carbon price, letting the market decide which technology wins at "the lowest cost".
Does anyone believe, though, that the Coalition will drop its opposition to anything that vaguely echoes a "carbon tax"? Even now, conservative backbenchers are mustering for a fight.
Fossil fuels, such as coal, do have a cost to society – which the US government puts at $US11-$US105 per tonne – by worsening global warming, and any fair dinkum review in Australia would look to test that range here.
Agencies that the government might have gone to for an independent assessment of options include the Climate Change Authority set up by the Gillard government.
That agency is still earmarked for abolition by the government, and with its outspoken former chairman, Bernie Fraser, forced out in September 2015, it is expected to play little if any role in the coming review.
How much the review looks at Australia's support for the monster Galilee coal province, and the prospect of many billions of tonnes of new emissions, will be interesting to watch.
New approvals announced on Monday, and the prospect of the government tipping in $1 billion to subsidise its development, suggest that it hopes people will accept that train has left the station.

On course?
The government, meanwhile, will continue to repeat that Australia is on course to beat the nation's 2020 target of cutting 2000-level greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent.
Omitted from the conversation will be the fact actual emissions are – by its own estimates – likely to be about 6 per cent higher, and only drop below the goal thanks to credits built up during the middle years. (See chart below.)

And that's even before the much-maligned Emissions Reduction Fund, including its reliance on native vegetation, gets a look in.
The government, meanwhile, has drawn out the release of the country's current greenhouse gas emissions data. A month ago, the Environment Department said the March quarter numbers were due out "shortly".
Presumably they will show more of the same – an unhelpful rise of emissions as coal burning in the electricity sector continues to rise after the carbon price was scrapped in mid-2014.
An "up arrow" in emissions means further goals, such as the 2030 target of cutting 2005 levels by 26-28 per cent, will be harder to achieve by whatever policies are prompted by the 2017 review.
Just how much harder, the government could be telling us now.
As reported by Fairfax Media, the government has been under pressure to release its longer-term emissions projections, including how much on course we are to hit those 2030 targets .
These are due out by the end of the year. Just how close to the Christmas news dead zone will be watched closely.

Links

• Power prices, energy security, emissions cuts - and carbon pricing - on the table in climate review
• No new funding or climate commitments in Great Barrier Reef update
• The Social Cost of Carbon
• Adani Carmichael coal mine rail line and camp approved
• Threat to NASA climate role a 'disaster' for global warming action
• $200m tipped into landfill firms by government's Direct Action dubbed a 'waste' 

Power Prices, Energy Security, Emissions Cuts - And Carbon Pricing - On The Table In Climate Review

Fairfax - James Massola | Adam Morton

The government will review climate policies next year. Photo: Leigh Henningham

The Coalition will consider a form of carbon pricing for power companies as part of a long-awaited review of Australia's climate policies, Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has confirmed.
The review of the Coalition's direct action policy will focus on electricity price rises, energy security and cutting greenhouse gas emissions but will also look at whether to introduce an emissions intensity scheme for electricity generators – a type of carbon price different to the abolished scheme brought in by the Gillard Labor government.

Greenhouse gases: not just a bunch of hot air
From tracing the exact source of CO2 in our atmosphere to measuring the earth's "carbon budget," the scientists studying climate change know a lot more about the greenhouse effect than you might think.

The possible resurrection of carbon pricing is likely to trigger intense internal debate within the Coalition once the review gets under way next year, while environment groups and the federal opposition are likely to claim the terms of reference for the departmental review lack ambition, given the threat posed by climate change to the planet.
Those terms of reference, released by Mr Frydenberg on Monday, also include consideration of a long-term emissions reduction target for beyond 2030 and the use of international carbon permits created through emissions cuts overseas.
They confirm the existing renewable energy target of about 23.5 per cent by 2020, but do not canvass extending the target into the future.
State-based renewable energy targets - such as those in Victoria (40 per cent by 2025), Queensland (50 per cent by 2030) and South Australia (50 per cent by 2025) will also come under scrutiny.
Mr Frydenberg has regularly criticised the higher targets set by state Labor governments as "unrealistic".
The review comes in the wake of several analyses finding the Coalition's direct action policy - built around an emissions reduction fund that uses taxpayer funds to pay for cuts, mostly through tree-planting and better landfill management - is highly unlikely to be enough to meet Australia's current target of a 26 to 28 per cent emissions cut by 2030 compared with 2005 levels.
Direct action does not penalise polluters, and a study found many of the projects that won funding would have gone ahead without taxpayer backing. A "safeguard mechanism", promised to prevent companies from increasing emissions, has been criticised for being full of loopholes.
The review shapes as the sternest test yet for Mr Frydenberg, who will have to balance Coalition tensions between those National and Liberal MPs who question the science of global warming with those who want to see more ambitious targets.

Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg. Photo: Andrew Meares

The debate will come amid a likely dramatic shift in climate policy in the US following the election of Donald Trump, who has said he would abandon the Paris climate deal and has surrounded himself with climate sceptics.
More than 100 countries have ratified the Paris agreement. They include Australia, which confirmed ratification on the day after Mr Trump's election.
In a carefully-calibrated message designed to reassure those Coalition MPs concerned the Turnbull government could take on a green tinge, Mr Frydenberg said the review would balance a "trilemma" of concerns - "energy security, energy affordability and the transition to a lower emissions future".
"We must never forget that there are thousands of Australian families who struggle to meet power bills, and many blue collar workers who feel their jobs in energy intensive industries are now under threat," he said.
"We owe it to them to find the lowest cost way to meet our emissions reduction targets while at the same time ensuring the lights always stay on."
" Our policies to date are working. It is hoped this review will ensure that we remain on track for 2030."
Mr Frydenberg confirmed an  emissions intensity scheme, which has been recommended by the Climate Change Authority, would be looked at on a sector-by-sector basis as part of the review.
Some experts have suggested the safeguard mechanism could be adapted into an emissions intensity scheme, which could put a hard limit on how much a plan can emit for every unit of electricity it generates.
Depending on the design, there would be no cost to generators that stayed within the limit, but those that emitted more than allowed would need to buy carbon permits - representing emissions cuts elsewhere - to offset the breach. Those that emitted less would receive permits that they could sell.
The limit would be reduced incrementally over time to make dirtier plants less commercial and encourage investment in cleaner power stations.
Labor indicated before the election it would support this sort of scheme. Experts believe it would be more likely to keep a lid on inevitable price rises than the defunct carbon price.
Several energy and business groups have called for the introduction of a bipartisan national scheme to allow industry to plan investment in the new generators Australia will need.
A discussion paper will be released in February and and the review will be completed next year.

Links

• Coal station closures inevitable, start planning: Labor and Greens
• Hazelwood is only the beginning of the end for coal power 
• Behind the 'fourth way' in cutting carbon emissions
• Turnbull government eyes $1 billion Adani loan backed by new infrastructure fund