(AU The Conversation) Paying Australia’s Coal-Fired Power Stations To Stay Open Longer Is Bad For Consumers And The Planet

The Conversation - Daniel J Cass | Joel Gilmore | Tim Nelson

Shutterstock

Authors Daniel J Cass is Research Affiliate, Sydney Business School, University of Sydney Joel Gilmore is Associate Professor, Griffith University Tim Nelson is Associate Professor of Economics, Griffith University

Australian governments are busy designing the nation’s transition to a clean energy future.

Unfortunately, in a misguided effort to ensure electricity supplies remain affordable and reliable, governments are considering a move that would effectively pay Australia’s old, polluting coal-fired power stations to stay open longer.

The measure is one of several options proposed by the Energy Security Board (ESB), the chief energy advisor to Australian governments on electricity market reform.

 The board on Friday released a vision to redesign the National Electricity Market as it transitions to clean energy.

The key challenges of the transition are ensuring it is smooth (without blackouts) and affordable, as coal and gas generators close and are replaced by renewable energy.

The redesign has been two years in the making. The ESB has done a very good job of identifying key issues, and most of its recommendations are sound. But its option to change the way electricity generators and retailers strike contracts for electricity, if adopted, would be highly counterproductive – bad both for consumers and for climate action.

One proposed reform to Australia’s electricity market would be bad for consumers and climate action. Shutterstock

The energy market dilemma

The National Electricity Market (NEM) covers every Australian jurisdiction except Western Australia and the Northern Territory. It comprises electricity generators, transmission and distribution networks, electricity retailers, customers and a financial market where electricity is traded.

Electricity generators in the NEM comprise older, polluting technology such as gas- and coal-fired power, and newer, clean forms of generation such as wind and solar. Renewable energy, which makes up about 23% of our electricity mix, is now cheaper than energy from coal and gas.

Wind and solar energy is “variable” – only produced when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Technology such as battery storage is needed to smooth out renewable energy supplies and make it “dispatchable”, meaning it can be delivered on demand.

Some say coal generators, which supply dispatchable electricity, are the best way to ensure reliable and affordable electricity. But Australia’s coal-fired power stations, some of which are more than 40 years old, are becoming more prone to breakdowns – and so less reliable and more expensive – as they age. This has led to some closing suddenly.

Without a clear national approach to emissions targets, there’s a risk these sudden closures will occur again.

Wind and solar energy is variable. Shutterstock

So what’s proposed?

To address reliability concerns, the ESB has proposed an option known as the “physical retailer reliability obligation”.

In a nutshell, the change would require electricity retailers to negotiate contracts for a certain amount of “dispatchable” electricity from specific generators for times of the year when reliability is a concern, such as the peak weeks of summer when lots of people use air conditioning.

Currently, the Australian Energy Market Operator has reserve electricity measures it can deploy when market supply falls short.

But under the new obligation, all retailers would also have to enter contracts for dispatchable supply. This would likely require buying electricity from the coal generators that dominate the market. This provides a revenue source enabling these coal plants to remain open even when cheaper renewable energy makes them unprofitable.

The ESB says without the change, the closure of coal generators will be unpredictable or “disorderly”, creating price shocks and reliability risks.

The ESWB says the recommendation would address concerns over electricity reliability. Shutterstock

A big risk

Even the ESB concedes the recommendation comes with considerable risks. In particular, the board says it may:

• impose increased barriers to retail competition and product innovation
• lead to possible overcompensation of existing coal and gas generators.

In short, the policy could potentially lock in increasingly unreliable, ageing coal assets, stall new investment in new renewable energy storage such as batteries and pumped hydro and increase market concentration.

It could also push up electricity prices. Electricity retailers are likely to pass on the cost of these new electricity contracts to consumers, no matter how much energy that household or business actually used.

The existing market already encourages generators to provide reliable supply – and applies strong penalties if they don’t. And in fact, the NEM experiences reliability issues for an average of just one minute per year. It would appear little could be added to the existing market design to make generators more reliable than they are.

Finally, the market is dominated by three large “gentailers” - AGL, Energy Australia and Origin – which own both generators and the retail companies that sell electricity. The proposed change would disadvantage smaller electricity retailers, which in many cases would be forced to buy electricity from generators owned by their competitors.

Australia’s gentailers are heavily invested in coal power stations. The proposed change would further concentrate their market power while propping up coal.

The proposed change brings a raft of risks to the electricity market. Kelly Barnes/AAP

What governments should do

If coal-fired power stations are protected from competition, it will deter investment in cleaner alternatives. The recommendation, if adopted, would delay decarbonisation and put Australia further at odds with our international peers on climate policy.

The federal and state governments must work together to develop a plan for electricity that facilitates clean energy investment while controlling costs for consumers.

The plan should be coordinated across the states. Without this, we risk creating a sharper shock later, when climate diplomacy requires the planned retirement of coal plants. Other nations have acknowledged the likely demise of coal, and it’s time Australia caught up.

Links

• (AU) Energy Security Board - Options paper April 2021
• (AU SMH) There’s A Key Element Missing From The Debate About Australia’s Journey To Net-Zero Emissions
• Up to 90% of electricity from solar and wind the cheapest option by 2030: CSIRO analysis
• Is this the end of coal?
• Spot the difference: as world leaders rose to the occasion at the Biden climate summit, Morrison faltered
• Explainer: what is the electricity transmission system, and why does it need fixing?
• 'Failure is not an option': after a lost decade on climate action, the 2020s offer one last chance
• Spot the difference: as world leaders rose to the occasion at the Biden climate summit, Morrison faltered

(AU SMH) There’s A Key Element Missing From The Debate About Australia’s Journey To Net-Zero Emissions

Sydney Morning Herald - Lynne Gallagher

Author Lynne Gallagher is the chief executive officer of Energy Consumers Australia.

Were you electrified by the Energy Security Board’s recently released options paper for the future energy system? Did it feel relevant to your family? Critical to the way you think about the future?

Last week’s report made big waves among energy insiders, providing much-needed solutions for the security challenges that have shadowed Australia’s energy transformation since they were revealed by the South Australian blackout of 2016.

And there has been plenty of talk about proposed new revenue streams for carbon-emitting power stations (also available for large renewable generators) that some critics view as a subsidy to prolong their operating lives — extending the time it will take us to reach net zero carbon emissions.

The Kerry Schott-led Energy Security Board’s recent paper probably didn’t fire up consumers. Credit: Louie Douvis

But reading through the plan I was mostly struck by what it doesn’t say. In all this talk of systems and security, regulatory and policy levers, how are everyday Australians supposed to see themselves and their interests reflected?

The idea of net zero is now close to widespread acceptance among policy makers. We call it a target but it isn’t really. It’s a destination.

When you think about it this way, everything shifts. Not an abstract goal or a number to be hit. Not a test of moral purity or political partisanship but a journey to be undertaken by people.

A journey, after all, is as much about the experience of the travellers as the place they are going. In what condition will they arrive? Will the process of getting there be positive or negative? What are the stops and stages along the way? Will they arrive together or will some lag far behind?

---

Power grid warnings spark calls for fresh wave of national reforms

Extreme bushfires and floods have made Australians aware that we face a point of no return with our planet’s warming. It can be tempting, then, to think of climate change mitigation as a zero sum game. 

But for this journey that we’re on together there’s no single correct path or timetable that must be adhered to, without regard for its impact on people.

The pace of change matters. We cannot get to net zero without Australians making myriad changes to the ways they use electricity in their homes and businesses. 

These changes are not costless and nor are the opportunities to contribute to reducing emissions evenly shared across our community. Renters, working families, those living at or below the poverty line and people living in apartments or townhouses all face limits on the choices they can make. They cannot be left behind.

Energy Consumers Australia has done plenty of research, asking everyday Australians what they expect from a future energy system. 

The simple answer? They expect energy to be affordable and abundant, but also clean. They expect “smart” technology will help their homes to be more energy efficient and themselves to be more self-reliant via rooftop solar or home energy storage (whether that is a smart hot water system, a battery or an electric vehicle).

They see themselves as part of a connected energy system, and want opportunities to share with their neighbours and within their local community.

---

Australia emits 1.2 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases. So who must act to cut emissions?

Australians are putting solar on their roof at a rate not witnessed anywhere else in the world. Their preferences and needs are what’s driving change but also what is provoking a response from those who plan and operate the system.

The Energy Security Board has mostly (and successfully) focused on the larger-scale transition out of fossil fuels, as it was asked to do. 

What has been missed is a vision for the future energy experience consumers want, and would contribute positively to shaping if given the opportunity. Instead, we see a focus on curbing or controlling their behaviour, such as “turning off” those who export rooftop solar electricity back into the grid at inconvenient times.

Consumers should not be seen as an externality – a threat or inconvenience to an elegant, efficient system. They are the system. To make good on this idea we need to extend the energy conversation we’ve been having beyond a tight circle of policy experts, engineers and system architects and into the Australian mainstream.

Where is the prime time “war on waste” style program beaming exciting energy possibilities, technologies and social practices into millions of Australian homes? Where is the outreach to get everyday Australians thinking and talking about what is now possible and how our system should accommodate it?

---

Fastest change in the world: coal’s demise sparks call for energy market reforms

Reform should start with a conversation about what’s possible and preferable for Australian households and businesses.

That matters more than the purity of exiting gas early or keeping a bit of it around until our storage capacity matures. It matters more than disputes about how to accelerate or manage the inevitable exit of coal-fired power stations from the grid.

The point of system reform is not to punish emitters for their sins against climate, it’s to provide consumers with a version of the net-zero journey that meets their needs and expectations: energy that is affordable, abundant and clean.

To go fast, go alone, the saying goes. To go far, go together. To get to our destination we need consumers to be part of the process. They need to be listened to, included, learned from and engaged.

If they don’t trust in the system and believe their best interests are at the heart of change then they won’t come along.

There is urgency about the threat of climate change, to be sure, but we have a long way to travel and we need to arrive together.

Links

• (AU The Conversation) Paying Australia’s Coal-Fired Power Stations To Stay Open Longer Is Bad For Consumers And The Planet
• (AU) We Can’t Wait For This Government. Let’s Beat Emissions Together
• (AU) Climate Change Inaction Spurs Berowra Residents To Take Some Action Themselves With Local Ideas
• (AU) We Live In A Time Of Climate Breakdown With No Moral Leadership – But We Can Take Action
• Energy Security Board post 2025 redesign options for the National Electricity Market
• Let’s get something straight – Australia is not on track to meet its Paris climate target
• Climate Action Tracker - Australia
• Climate Council - What does net zero emissions mean?
• Australia is a net zero embarrassment
• Scott Morrison refuses to commit to net zero carbon emissions by 2050
• Australia resists calls for tougher climate targets

(AU Grist) Countries Are Getting Serious About Climate Change. And Then There’s Australia.

Grist - Zoya Teirstein

How Australia fudged the numbers at Biden's climate summit.

Grist / Lisa Maree Williams / Auscape / Universal Images Group via Getty Images

President Joe Biden’s recent climate summit was a challenge to the rest of the world to step up its game. And despite the irony of the U.S. throwing down the gauntlet after four years of hostility to climate action, a few countries rose to the challenge.

Japan, Canada, and Brazil upped their emissions-reduction targets, while the U.K. and the E.U. finalized new targets ahead of the summit. India announced a new investment partnership with the U.S. South Korea pledged to end public financing for overseas coal projects. Even Russian President Vladimir Putin came to the summit with a promise to “significantly reduce” his country’s emissions. 

Is the world finally turning the page on decades of denial and delay? There’s a big difference between saying you’ll make progress and actually putting policies in place that will make it happen. There’s even a difference between saying you’ve already made progress and actually making progress. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Australia. 

At Biden’s Leaders Summit on Climate Change earlier this month, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, a member of Australia’s center-right Liberal Party, touted his nation’s victories. “Australia is on the pathway to net-zero,” he announced. “We are well on the way to meet and beat our Paris commitments.”

 For proof of Australia’s progress, Morrison cited two numbers: His country had reduced emissions 19 percent since 2005 — 36 percent if you discount exports. Australia, he said, is one of the few countries that’s still on track to meet its target under the Paris Agreement, which is to cut overall emissions 26 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030.

On its face, that assertion is true. But Australian climate policy experts say Morrison’s numbers are basically completely made up. 

“It’s deeply deceptive,” Robyn Eckersley, professor in political science at the University of Melbourne and author of multiple books on Australian politics, told Grist, referring to Morrison’s assertion that Australia had cut emissions 36 percent.

That number excludes not just exports themselves, she said, but all emissions associated with producing fossil fuels for export, like the fugitive emissions — leaks and other irregular releases of greenhouse gases — that are produced in the process of digging up coal, extracting gas via fracking, liquifying natural gas, and other fossil fuel development. The countries that import those fossil fuel products aren’t putting the emissions produced by extracting and exporting those products on their climate ledgers.

So who claims them, if not Australia? “We have the economic benefit from these industries,” Frank Jotzo, director of the Center for Climate Economics and Policy at Australian National University, told Grist. “We will have to wear the emissions that happen in the actual production of those fuels.”

Excluding all emissions associated with exports wouldn’t be such a massive oversight if Australia were just dabbling in the fossil fuel business, but it is the biggest exporter in the world for metallurgical coal, the second-biggest exporter of thermal coal, and the third-biggest exporter of fossil fuels overall.

The 19 percent number is misleading, too. Australia’s emissions dropped around 10 percent during the COVID-19 pandemic last year, which is when Morrison elected to assess Australia’s progress on reducing emissions. But those emissions have largely bounced back now. Eckersley called it a “standard case of cherry picking.” 

Jotzo pointed out that Australia is likely to meet its existing Paris target without any new climate policies being passed. Old coal-fired power plants are closing down across Australia and being replaced by wind and solar power because renewable energies are getting more competitive. Cars are getting more efficient as technology advances.

The nation’s six states and two territories have passed their own climate policies aimed at reducing emissions, similar to what some U.S. states did under former President Donald Trump.

All of those things combined will help Australia achieve that 26 percent reduction in emissions by 2030. The emissions reductions that Australia has logged so far, Jotzo said, are almost entirely attributable to land use change. Australia has mostly stopped clearing vast amounts of land for agriculture and industry use, thanks to state-level policies. “If you set that aside, all other emissions combined are about the same now as they were in 2005,” he said.  

Sofia Gonzales-Zuñiga, a climate policy analyst at NewClimate Institute, an organization that tracks the world’s climate progress with a tool called the Climate Action Tracker, says Australia is lagging behind other developed countries. “Japan, the U.S., the E.U., they’re all stepping up their actions, they’ve shown bigger commitments,” she said. “And then you have Australia.”

Countries are supposed to update their targets under the Paris Agreement every five years, but Morrison has not increased Australia’s target under the Paris Agreement since it was set in 2015.

By comparison, Japan, whose goal was previously identical to Australia’s, just upped its target to 46 percent by 2030 compared to 2013 levels. Canada said it would slash emissions between 40 and 45 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030, up from 36 percent. Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro — an ardent opponent of environmental regulations — pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Morrison can’t even commit to that far-off goal. He said Australia will reach net-zero “preferably by 2050.” That leaves a lot of room for interpretation.  

Australia could vastly reduce its emissions with better national policies in place. It has enormous wind and solar development potential. But instead of becoming a clean energy superpower, Australia’s government is doubling down on its immense trove of fossil fuels. “One has to develop a black sense of humor,” Eckersley said. “Otherwise you’d wake up and weep every morning.” 

Morrison’s performance at Biden’s climate summit may have been exceptionally misleading, but he’s not the only world leader blowing hot air. Biden is determined to prove to the world that “the U.S. is back,” but he has no real strategy to slash emissions more than 50 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, as he has promised.

Biden’s only climate plan right now is a $2 trillion infrastructure plan aimed at fixing the nation’s ailing infrastructure and creating a bunch of green jobs. U.S. climate experts say that plan isn’t guaranteed to produce the emissions cuts Biden needs. Eventually, Biden will have to ease up on the carrots — green jobs, funding for clean energy technologies, wind and solar energy credits — and start pulling out the sticks — a federal emissions cap on emissions or a federal emissions trading system. 

In the meantime, though, Biden’s pledges alone could be enough to inspire Australia to up the ante. “What comes out of Washington now is a really big factor in Australia,” Jotzo said. “The U.S. is hands down Australia’s most important international partner.” Before Biden took office, anyone opposed to new climate policy in Australia could defend their position by pointing to the Trump administration’s policies. That’s no longer the case.

Eckersley thinks Australia will keep twiddling its thumbs until the U.S. and other major world powers realize that it’s not responding to peer pressure and start exerting other kinds of leverage. Biden has already floated the idea of a border adjustment tax on imports from countries that aren’t doing enough to curb emissions.

Such a policy would be aimed at leveling the playing field in the international trading system, something global leaders have said is a crucial piece of the climate action puzzle. Europe and the U.K. are considering levying a border adjusted tax on imports, too. “Australia is out on a limb,” Eckersley said. “It’s very cold out there, it’s very lonely. People are going to start getting very tired of Australia.”

Links

• Australia shies from backing net zero by 2050 ahead of Biden climate summit
• Australia is third largest exporter of fossil fuels behind Russia and Saudi Arabia
• If China stops taking Australia's coal, will other countries fill the gap?
• 'Immense' potential of renewable energy could propel Australia to net zero 2050 target
• (AU SMH) Australia Left Behind As Global Climate Action Gathers Pace
• (AU The Conversation) As Morrison Struggles With 2050, Climate Leaders Up The Ante For 2030
• (AU The Conversation) Spot The Difference: As World Leaders Rose To The Occasion At The Biden Climate Summit, Morrison Faltered
• (AU SBS) Net Zero Emissions Won't Be Achieved In 'Cafes And Wine Bars', Scott Morrison Says
• (AU) Yes, Achievements Are Important. So What Has Morrison Achieved On Climate?
• (AU) Wake Up, Mr Morrison: Australia’s Slack Climate Effort Leaves Our Children 10 Times More Work To Do

(The Conversation) The 1.5c Global Warming Limit Is Not Impossible – But Without Political Action It Soon Will Be

The Conversation - Bill Hare | Carl-Friedrich Schleussner | Joeri Rogelj | Piers Forster

Shutterstock

Authors Bill Hare is Director, Climate Analytics, Adjunct Professor, Murdoch University (Perth), Visiting scientist, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Carl-Friedrich Schleussner is Research Group Leader, Humboldt University of Berlin Joeri Rogelj is Director of Research and Lecturer - Grantham Institute Climate Change & the Environment, Imperial College London Piers Forster is Professor of Physical Climate Change; Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds

Limiting global warming to 1.5℃ this century is a central goal of the Paris Agreement. In recent months, climate experts and others, including in Australia, have suggested the target is now impossible.

Whether Earth can stay within 1.5℃ warming involves two distinct questions.

First, is it physically, technically and economically feasible, considering the physics of the Earth system and possible rates of societal change? Science indicates the answer is “yes” – although it will be very difficult and the best opportunities for success lie in the past.

The second question is whether governments will take sufficient action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This answer depends on the ambition of governments, and the effectiveness of campaigning by non-government organisations and others.

So scientifically speaking, humanity can still limit global warming to 1.5°C this century. But political action will determine whether it actually does. Conflating the two questions amounts to misplaced punditry, and is dangerous.

Staying within 1.5℃ is scientifically possible, but requires government ambition. Erik Anderson/AAP

1.5℃ wasn’t plucked from thin air

The Paris Agreement was adopted by 195 countries in 2015. The inclusion of the 1.5℃ warming limit came after a long push by vulnerable, small-island and least developed countries for whom reaching that goal is their best chance for survival. The were backed by other climate-vulnerable nations and a coalition of high-ambition countries.

The 1.5℃ limit wasn’t plucked from thin air – it was informed by the best available science. Between 2013 and 2015, an extensive United Nations review process determined that limiting warming to 2℃ this century cannot avoid dangerous climate change.

Since Paris, the science on 1.5℃ has expanded rapidly. An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 2018 synthesised hundreds of studies and found rapidly escalating risks in global warming between 1.5℃ and 2℃.

The landmark report also changed the climate risk narrative away from a somewhat unimaginable hothouse world in 2100, to a very real threat within most of our lifetimes – one which climate action now could help avoid.

The message was not lost on a world experiencing ever more climate impacts firsthand. It galvanised an unprecedented global youth and activist movement demanding action compatible with the 1.5℃ limit.

The near-term benefits of stringent emissions reduction are becoming ever clearer. It can significantly reduce near-term warming rates and increase the prospects for climate resilient development.

The urgency of climate action is not lost on those who’ve experienced its effects firsthand. Evan Collins/AAP

A matter of probabilities

The IPCC looked extensively at emission reductions required to pursue the 1.5℃ limit. It found getting on a 1.5℃ track is feasible but would require halving global emissions by 2030 compared to 2010 and reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century.

It found no published emission reduction pathways giving the world a likely (more than 66%) chance of limiting peak warming this century to 1.5℃. But it identified a range of pathways with about a one-in-two chance of achieving this, with no or limited overshoot.

Having about a one-in-two chance of limiting warming to 1.5℃ is not ideal. But these pathways typically have a greater than 90% chance of limiting warming to well below 2℃, and so are fully compatible with the overall Paris goal.

Staying under 1.5℃ warming requires political will. Lukas Coch/AAP

Don’t rely on carbon budgets

Carbon budgets show the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted for a given level of global warming. Some point to carbon budgets to argue the 1.5℃ goal is now impossible.

But carbon budget estimates are nuanced, and not a suitable way to conclude a temperature level is no longer possible.

The carbon budget for 1.5℃ depends on several factors, including:

• the likelihood with which warming will be be halted at 1.5℃
• the extent to which non-CO₂ greenhouse emissions such as methane are reduced
• uncertainties in how the climate responds these emissions.

These uncertainties mean strong conclusions cannot be drawn based on single carbon budget estimate. And, at present, carbon budgets and other estimates do not support any argument that limiting warming to 1.5℃ is impossible.

Keeping temperature rises below 1.5℃ cannot be guaranteed, given the history of action to date, but the goal is certainly not impossible. As any doctor embarking on a critical surgery would say about a one-in-two survival chance is certainly no reason not to do their utmost.

Staying below 1.5°C is a difficult, but not impossible, task. Shutterstock

Closer than we’ve ever been

It’s important to remember the special role the 1.5℃ goal plays in how governments respond to climate change. Five years on from Paris, and the gains of including that upper ambition in the agreement are showing.

Some 127 countries aim to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century at the latest – something considered unrealistic just a few years ago. If achieved globally and accompanied by stringent near-term reductions, the actions could be in line with 1.5℃.

If all these countries were to deliver on these targets in line with the best-available science on net zero, we may have a one-in-two chance of limiting warming this century to 2.1℃ (but a meagre one-in-ten that it is kept to 1.5°C). Much more work is needed and more countries need to step up. But for the first time, current ambition brings the 1.5℃ limit within striking distance.

The next ten years are crucial, and the focus now must be on governments’ 2030 targets for emissions reduction. If these are not set close enough to a 1.5℃-compatible emissions pathway, it will be increasingly difficult to reach net-zero by 2050.

The United Kingdom and European Union are getting close to this pathway. The United States’ new climate targets are a major step forward, and China is moving in the right direction. Australia is now under heavy scrutiny as it prepares to update its inadequate 2030 target.

The UN wants a 1.5℃ pathway to be the focus at this year’s COP26 climate summit in Glasgow. The stakes could not be higher.

Links

• ‘Failure is not an option’: after a lost decade on climate action, the 2020s offer one last chance
• The Paris Agreement
  
• Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix
  
• Climate change is a security threat the government keeps ignoring. We’ll show up empty handed to yet another global summit
• Spot the difference: as world leaders rose to the occasion at the Biden climate summit, Morrison faltered
• More reasons for optimism on climate change than we've seen for decades: 2 climate experts explain
• The trucking industry has begun to turn electric — but passenger vehicles will take a little longer
• Inside the world of tiny phytoplankton – microscopic algae that provide most of our oxygen
• Watching a coral reef die as climate change devastates one of the most pristine tropical island areas on Earth
• Risky business: 54% of Australian companies plan to slow ‘green’ initiatives due to COVID

(AU ROAR) Cricket Must Start Preparing For Climate Change

ROAR - joss

Scott Barbour/Getty Images

There are few sports that will be hit harder by climate change than cricket.

Cricket depends on the weather in so many ways.

Even the slightest change in the overhead conditions can have a huge bearing on the outcome of a match, the type and quality of pitches produced are hugely affected by the weather, as are the players and even the very sport itself.

No one likes seeing an exciting match curtailed by rain, but what if games have to be delayed because the heat becomes too much for players to handle?

Cricket is already feeling the effects of rising temperatures.

Many fans will remember when Joe Root had to retire unwell and was hospitalised due to dehydration after just an hour at the crease during stifling 43-degree heat in the 2017-18 Ashes in Australia.

With cricket often being played at the height of summer in some of the world’s hottest countries, it is likely more and more cricketers will succumb to the effects of extreme temperatures as the planet warms up, making the sport a far worse spectacle for fans as players struggle in the scorching sun and a straight-up dangerous experience for those out on the pitch.

Other boards must follow Australia’s lead and introduce extreme heat policies to protect the people most fundamental to cricket – the players.

The widespread impacts of the climate crisis on cricket have become impossible to ignore: matches being delayed due to air pollution in Dehli, a cricket ground submerged due to flooding in Worcester, players being allowed to shower for just two minutes due to droughts in Cape Town and smoke from ravaging bushfires causing games to be abandoned in Australia.

Increased summer rainfall in England will only lead to more and more games being cancelled, with the number of rain-affected matches more than doubling since 2011.

On the other side of the coin, severe rainfall deficits threaten to tear matches away from many of the world’s greatest cricket cities, such as Cape Town, Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur, where past droughts have meant that there is barely enough water for people to live by – let alone water cricket pitches.

In 2016, a court ordered that 13 IPL games had to be moved due to a severe water crisis in Maharashtra, something that is only going to become more common in the future around the world unless cricket boards start to think of solutions.

Even Shane Warne has urged the cricketing world to start taking climate change seriously.

Preparations for the potential devastation climate change could wreak on cricket must start now – because if they don’t, then climate change will have free rein over cricket’s future.

Links

• (AU) Sport Set To Reckon With Impacts Of Climate Change, And Encouraged To Act Now
• (AU) Game, Set, Match: Calling Time On Climate Inaction
• (AU) Power Play: MCG Goes Solar In Climate-Change Fight
• Former Socceroos Captain Wants Australia To Show Climate Leadership As World Cup Host
• Climate Change: Sport Heading For A Fall As Temperatures Rise
• Climate Crisis Threatens Future Of Global Sport, Says Report
• Opinion: The Climate Crisis – Sport Is Both Victim And Sinner
• Climate Change Set To Disrupt Australia's Summer Sports Calendar 

(NY Times) Halting The Vast Release Of Methane Is Critical For Climate, U.N. Says

New York Times - Hiroko Tabuchi

A major United Nations report will declare that slashing emissions of methane, the main component of natural gas, is far more vital than previously thought.

A California oilfield, one of the densest in the United States. Credit...James Smith/Alamy

A landmark United Nations report is expected to declare that reducing emissions of methane, the main component of natural gas, will need to play a far more vital role in warding off the worst effects of climate change.

The global methane assessment, compiled by an international team of scientists, reflects a growing recognition that the world needs to start reining in planet-warming emissions more rapidly, and that abating methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas, will be critical in the short term.

It follows new data that showed that both carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere reached record highs last year, even as the coronavirus pandemic brought much of the global economy to a halt. The report also comes as a growing body of scientific evidence has shown that releases of methane from oil and gas production, one of the biggest sources of methane linked to human activity, may be larger than earlier estimates.

The report, a detailed summary of which was reviewed by The New York Times, singles out the fossil fuel industry as holding the greatest potential to cut its methane emissions at little or no cost. It also says that — unless there is significant deployment of unproven technologies capable of pulling greenhouse gases out of the air — expanding the use of natural gas is incompatible with keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a goal of the international Paris Agreement.

The reason methane would be particularly valuable in the short-term fight against climate change: While methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, it is also relatively short-lived, lasting just a decade or so in the atmosphere before breaking down. That means cutting new methane emissions today, and starting to reduce methane concentrations in the atmosphere, could more quickly help the world meet its midcentury targets for fighting global warming.

By contrast, carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, lasts for hundreds of years in the atmosphere. So while it remains critical to keep reducing carbon emissions, which make up the bulk of our greenhouse gas emissions, it would take until the second half of the century to see the climate effects.

Over all, a concerted effort to reduce methane from the fossil fuel, waste and agricultural sectors could slash methane emissions by as much as 45 percent by 2030, helping to avoid nearly 0.3 degrees Celsius of global warming as early as the 2040s, the report says.

While cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions will remain urgent, “it’s going to be next to impossible to remove enough carbon dioxide to get any real benefits for the climate in the first half of the century,” said Drew Shindell, the study’s lead author and a professor of earth science at Duke University. “But if we can make a big enough cut in methane in the next decade, we’ll see public health benefits within the decade, and climate benefits within two decades,” he said.

The U.N. report, which is expected to be published next month by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and the United Nations Environment Programme, signals a shift in the global discussion of climate change, which has focused on reducing carbon dioxide, the largest long-term driver of climate change.

Most climate policies — including net-zero targets set by nations, states and cities as well as businesses — have tended to focus on longer-term targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. But methane has begun to gain prominence in the global conversation.

At a climate summit in Washington this week, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, on top of pledging to “significantly” reduce the country’s emissions in the next three decades, called for a global reduction of methane. “The fate of our entire planet, the development prospects of each country, the well-being and quality of life of people largely depend on the success of these efforts,” Mr. Putin said.

Separately, the United States Senate is expected to vote next week to reverse President Donald J. Trump’s effort to unravel restrictions on methane emissions that had been put in place during the Obama administration.

“Methane gets less attention than its big bad brother, carbon dioxide, but in truth methane is like carbon dioxide on steroids,” Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, said on Thursday.

If the Senate does vote to reverse the policy, it could become the first official reinstatement of one of the many climate regulations that Mr. Trump weakened during his administration.

For scientists who have long focused on methane, its rising prominence in climate policy is a welcome development.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warm the planet by acting like a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat. Carbon dioxide is the biggest driver of climate change, but methane is more potent in the shorter term, warming the atmosphere more than 80 times as much as the same amount of carbon dioxide does over a 20-year period.

That’s bad news, but it also means that cutting methane emissions may be one of the most effective ways to immediately slow rising global temperatures.

“You have a near immediate slowdown in the rate of warming,” said Ilissa B. Ocko, senior climate scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, whose own recent research found that going all-in on reducing methane emissions from the most polluting industries could slow the rate of global warming by 30 percent. “That’s really powerful.”

And while cutting down on carbon dioxide emissions will require sweeping changes to virtually every corner of the economy — replacing the world’s gasoline cars with electric ones, for example, and shuttering almost all of its coal-fired power plants — shrinking the world’s methane footprint might be an easier lift.

Unlike carbon dioxide or most other air pollution, methane isn’t released by burning fossil fuels, but comes from leaks and other releases from oil and gas infrastructure, among other sources. A growing body of research has shown that these oil and gas emissions are larger than previously thought, and a likely driver of the global increase of methane in the atmosphere.

“This means we need to place even more emphasis on the oil and gas sector,” said Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University. He has argued that past assessments overestimated agricultural sources of methane, like cattle ranching, and underestimated emissions from fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas. “We need independent verification and monitoring of these emissions,” he said.

Fixing those leaks in theory should pay for themselves by saving money, because capturing the gas means companies capture more product. That potential makes plugging leaks from oil and gas infrastructure the most effective and cheapest way to slow emissions, the U.N. report says.

The world’s largest oil and gas companies pledged in 2018 to reduce the proportion of methane released from their operations by one fifth, to less than a quarter of a percentage of the gas they sell, by 2025 — a target the companies said they reached last year — with an ambition of achieving 0.2 percent.

Bjorn Otto Sverdrup, chairman of the executive committee of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, which represents 12 of the world’s biggest oil and gas producers, said the group “shares the determination to reduce methane emissions.”

He added, “We have made progress on the ambitions set only a few years back through new measurement and technologies, and we will continue to update our ambitions as we make progress.”

Minimizing methane from landfills also plays a role, as does lowering methane emissions from livestock. But emissions-reduction technologies are less certain in those fields. Releases from livestock, in particular, are expected to make up a growing share of future methane emissions unless there are technological breakthroughs, or the world’s top meat consumers change their diets.

Over all, more than half of global methane emissions stem from human activities in three sectors: fossil fuels, landfill and other waste, and livestock and other agriculture. Methane also seeps from wetlands and other natural sources.

The U.N. report also underscores how reducing methane emissions may bring significant public health benefits. Methane is an important contributor to the formation of ozone near the earth’s surface. Ozone is known to increase the risk of hospitalizations and early deaths. It also reduces crop yields and forest growth.

Rolling back methane emissions would prevent more than 250,000 premature deaths, and more than 750,000 asthma-related hospital visits, each year from 2030 onward, the report finds. The lower emissions would also prevent more than 70 billion hours of lost labor from extreme heat and more than 25 million tons of crop losses a year.

The flip side is that, with no action, methane emissions may help push the world to the brink of catastrophic climate change. If left unchecked, methane emissions are projected to continue rising through at least 2040, the U.N. report predicts.

“We’re still going wildly in the wrong direction, but we can turn that around very, very quickly,” Dr. Shindell said. “We could all use a climate success story.”

Links

• People of Color Breathe More Hazardous Air. The Sources Are Everywhere.
• ‘Firefighters Out There in the Snow’: Wildfires Rage Early in Parched West
• In Opposing Climate and Diversity Proposals, Buffett Risks Looking Out of Step
• Epicurious Has a Beef With Beef
• The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof
• Carbon Dioxide Levels Are At A 3.6 Million Year High
• NASA Just Released The First Direct Evidence That Humans Are Causing Climate Change
• Land In Russia’s Arctic Blows ‘Like a Bottle Of Champagne’
• The Catastrophic Science Behind The Stunning Photos Of The Arctic Crater
• (AU) Methane Released In Gas Production Means Australia's Emissions May Be 10% Higher Than Reported
• (AU) Gas Is Not Transition Energy We Were Promised, New Research Suggests
• (AU) Chief Scientist Alan Finkel Fires Back On Gas Criticism From Colleagues
• (AU) 4 Reasons Why A Gas-Led Economic Recovery Is A Terrible, Naïve Idea
• (AU) Australia's Chief Scientist Is Wrong On Gas, Say Leading Experts
• (AU) Consumers Push Corporate Agriculture To Move Quickly On Zero Emissions, Leaving National Farmers Federation Target Behind

(AU ABC) Victorian Government Plans To Dramatically Boost The Sale Of Electric Cars By 2030

ABC News - Richard Willingham

Wodonga retiree Rod Clutterbuck wanted to do his bit to save the planet by buying an electric car. (ABC News: Richard Willingham)

Key Points There will be 20,000 subsidies for new electric car purchases under $69,000  New charging stations will be built and the government will expand its fleet of electric vehicles The government has been criticised for inconsistent policies due to also introducing a new electric vehicle road tax

The state government wants half of all new cars sold in Victoria by 2030 to be zero-emission vehicles, and is offering subsidies of up to $3,000 to help kickstart ownership.

The Andrews government will provide 20,000 subsidies of up to $3,000 for new electric vehicle purchases under $69,000, as part of a $100-million plan to encourage electric vehicle use.

The first 4,000 subsidies will be available from Sunday.

"When people get an EV (electric vehicle) they are starting to save significant dollars off their bills," Climate Change Minister Lily D 'Ambrosio told the ABC.

"It's almost up to $1,600 that is saved off fuel and maintenance costs, each and every year, so we want to make it easier for Victorians.''

As part of the package, the state will also spend $19 million on new charging stations and $10 million to expand the government EV fleet by 400 cars over the next two years.

The government will establish an expert advisory panel to advise it on the policies and infrastructure needed to meet the 50 per cent target by 2030.

"This is very, very ambitious but [a plan] we are absolutely committed to achieving,'' Ms D'Ambrosio said.

This is the cheapest all-electric car in the Australian market which costs almost $44,000. (ABC News: Kristian Silva)

There are fewer than 7,000 electric vehicles registered in Victoria and only 20,000 on Australian roads.

 The 2030 target and subsidies are part of the Andrews government's strategy for Victoria to have net zero emissions by 2050, with interim targets for 2025 and 2030 to be announced on Sunday.

Subsidies make EV cars a 'viable alternative'

Last year, the government failed to meet its own deadlines to set the interim emission reduction targets for 2025 and 2030.

Part of the interim targets policy are "sector pledges": policies and payments to help industries — including agriculture and transport — move towards net zero emissions.

The new electric car subsidy is part of the transport sector pledge. Transport is the second-largest emitter behind energy.

The take-up of electric vehicles in Australia has been slow compared to other developed nations, according to the Electric Vehicle Council, which said Australia lacked the type of incentives, including subsidies, available around the world.

The cheapest electric vehicle on the market is still more than $44,000.

In some countries, subsidies of up to $15,000 are available. 

The Weekly electric cars

The council also said Australia was well behind other nations by not having tough fuel efficiency standards for cars.

Wodonga retiree Rod Clutterbuck has been looking to buy an electric vehicle for some time, to do his bit to "save the planet".

He said subsidies would help others view electric vehicles as a viable alternative.

"We've been wondering why we haven't had one [subsidy] in Australia. Now it sounds like we might be on the march to a better system,'' Mr Clutterbuck said.

Victoria slammed for new road tax

The announcement of the Victorian subsidy followed a coalition of car companies and environment groups slamming the Andrews government for having "the worst electric vehicle policy in the world" because of a new road tax on electric vehicles.

The new charge is 2.5 cent/km charge for electric and other zero-emission vehicles, including hydrogen vehicles, and a 2.0 cent/km for plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles.

The state argues the tax is an electric vehicle user's contribution to the road network, which is paid by other motorists through fuel excise.

Ben Warren, national manager of electrification and mobility for Nissan, said the subsidy and 2030 targets were a good "first step" to encouraging people to make the switch to electric vehicles.

The plan will include $19 million to build new charging stations across the state. (ABC: Ben Deacon)

"The challenge with a road user charge is, in isolation, it seems like a penalty to electric vehicle owners and drivers, " Mr Warren said.

"But when you offset that with incentives and different measures it will at least get back to a neutral starting point.'' 

Opposition MP Georgie Crozier accused the government of coming up with incosistent policies on the spot.

"They're taxing you on one hand and providing a rebate on the other," she said.

"It just demonstrates that the government has really misjudged this policy again. It's another demonstration of policy on the run."

Treasurer Tim Pallas has previously said the revenue raised from the new charge would be "more than offset" by measures to encourage electric car use, such as creating new charging stations.

The road users charge was expected to raise about $30 million per year, with $45 million set aside for electric vehicle incentives in the state budget.

Mr Pallas said the subsidy would "encourage more drivers to consider purchasing a zero-emissions vehicle – and ensure Victoria leads the nation in zero-emissions vehicle uptake."

Links

• 'Worst electric vehicle policy in the world': Industry slams Victoria's proposed tax
• Calls for Victorian Government to set interim emissions reduction targets ahead of 2050
• Australians want electric vehicles, but car makers won't ship them here. Here's why
• Australia Lagging Behind On Electric Vehicles And Climate Action
• (AU) 'Do-Nothing Document': Australian Electric Vehicle Strategy Lets Emissions Keep Rising
• (AU) ACT Budget: $300m Climate Change Initiatives Unveiled
• (AU) Australia’s Electricity Market Must Be 100% Renewables By 2035 To Achieve Net Zero By 2050 - Study
• ABC News: Your Questions About Electric Cars Answered, As Federal Election Campaign Ramps Up