Penny Wong speech at Climate Adaptation Futures Conference

While many may say the Labor Government hasn't acted strongly enough on climate change with strong criticism and calls for abandonment of the CPRS, I think it is important we hear directly from Penny Wong. Have Criticisms? Add them as comments. Follow the Climate Adaption conference on twitter from user nccarf or #iadapt.

Keynote address transcript (provided by Minister Penny Wong's office) - 2010 Climate Adaptation Futures Conference By Senator the Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water delivered at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre, 29 June 2010

INTRODUCTION

It is a pleasure to be here at the opening of this Climate Change Adaptation Futures Conference. A conference that comes at a challenging point in the debate on climate change.

It is timely for us to remind ourselves why we all started talking about climate change and why we called for action. The reason was the science.

For too long, those who deny climate change is real have muddied the debate. For too long, they have hijacked this issue to pursue their own agenda. Today, I want to play my part in setting the record straight on the science.

But first, I want to recognise you and the scientists across the world who are continuing their research on climate change. It is because of you that we understand climate change is real. It is because of you that we understand that climate change is happening now. It is because of you that we understand that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.

Nevertheless, there are some academics and commentators who undermine the science. They differ from those who question, or are unsure, or even those who are simply doubtful of the science. They are not swayed by evidence. Instead they start from a position of opposition.

Those that deny the reality of climate change - let's call them the climate change opposition - cannot agree on an alternative theory. And they are even less likely to concede that they might be wrong. Some say the earth is not warming. Some say it has stopped warming. Others say the earth is warming - but because of natural variability.

When it comes down to it, the climate change opposition have not put forward one alternative, coherent explanation as to how the climate is changing and why it is changing. And when weighing their theories it is reasonable to ask about the relevance of their qualifications and the extent of their willingness to be peer reviewed.

Publicity does not equate to scientific weight.

CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

On the other hand, those putting forward the evidence of human-induced climate change are affiliated with some of the most credible research organisations in the world. In Australia, there's the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. In the US, there is the US National Academy of Sciences. In the UK there's the Hadley Centre. And finally, there's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Apart from this, we must acknowledge that the climate change consensus is underpinned by the peer review process. It is important that the public understands how this system works.

Peer review is the process of allowing science to be reviewed before it is accepted for publication by peers in a field who judge the competence, significance and originality of the research. These scientists then challenge or support these results with peer-reviewed articles of their own and over time a consensus builds around the observations that explain the science most successfully. It is robust. It is trustworthy.

I note there have been some issues raised recently about the IPCC. The most important of the three volumes of the IPCC for policy is the Working Group 1 report, which is the foundation for climate change science. The authors of that report were very careful to use only peer-reviewed literature and to consider it all carefully.

Furthermore, a recent study in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reported that about 98 per cent of the most active publishing climate researchers agree that human activity is warming the planet.

For us, these processes, the evidence and the consensus reaffirms the existence of climate change. It also reaffirms the case for action. It is clear to you and I why we can trust the science, but it may be less clear to the people who don't follow this closely.

Many people do not have the time to read the thousands of pages that has been written about climate science. Generally, the information they receive about climate change is from politicians, the media and other sources. They are told by people like you and me that climate change is real and is from the decades of industrial pollution and the greenhouse gases that continue to be pumped into the atmosphere. But then some public figures say this is not true.

Unfortunately, not everyone is aware that there is a difference when it comes to the credibility of these contributions. The climate change opposition pick and choose statistics that seem to back up their claims and present information in an irresponsible way.

Let me give you a recent example.

Newspapers in the UK and Australia published articles criticising the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. The articles criticised the IPCC report for stating that:

"up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall".

The newspapers said it was an ``unsubstantiated claim'' and the headlines included:

"More flaws emerge in climate alarms'' and the ``UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim".

These reports were simply untrue. They were published nevertheless. Last week the newspapers issued a correction and I acknowledge them for doing the right thing. However there are many who have not. Just because something is published does not make it right.

It brings me to my next point. In this day and age we are bombarded with arguments and counter-arguments. We have all been taught that there are two sides to every story. The difference is that climate change is not a story. Climate change is fact. And it is irresponsible to try to tell people that climate change does not pose a risk.

For example, we should remind ourselves that:

• 2009 was the second hottest year in Australia and ended our hottest decade.
• Each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the past.
• Globally, 2009 was ranked the fifth warmest year on record and capped off the hottest decade in recorded history.
• Sea levels are rising.
• Scientists have found that it is at least 90 per cent likely that the observed global warming has been caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.

If we do not take action on climate change, the impact on the Murray Darling Basin will be catastrophic. If emissions continue to grow unabated, irrigated agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin is projected to decline by 90 per cent this century.

To put a local perspective on it, if emissions grow unabated, the CSIRO projects the number of days more than 40C in Queensland will increase rapidly. For example, within the next six decades - which for some Australians will be in our children's lifetime - the number of hot days over 40C in Longreach will increase from 21 to 59.

And then there are our natural icons such as the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the Daintree. Scientists are already warning us that the Great Barrier Reef is being affected by climate change. If these icons are irreparably damaged, they will no longer be seen through the eyes of the next generation as they were by the last.

Ross Garnaut, the economist who was tasked to do the Government's climate change review, was right when he described climate change as a "diabolical policy problem". We are asking this generation to make significant changes, so the next generation can enjoy the same quality of life that we have enjoyed.

It means you, me and this Government will always have a duty to responsibly explain the facts of climate change. This is a challenge because it is hard to reduce complex scientific research into one-line statements. But we knew this would not be easy.

And it was made harder in the past 12 months because the national Parliament was not up to the job. The senior federal politicians who believe climate change is "absolute crap" stood in the way of action.

It is important we remember what happened last year because some senior federal politicians are trying to re-write history. Since coming to Government, we put forward a green paper, a white paper and released the Garnaut Review into climate change.

We put forward our mechanism, the CPRS, and after intense negotiations, the Government struck a deal with the Coalition. But at one fell swoop, Tony Abbott torpedoed the deal we had with the Opposition. He put his political interests first and the interests of the nation last.

Nevertheless, we re-introduced the Bill into the Senate and two Liberals crossed the floor to vote with us for a price on carbon. If the Australian Greens had not teamed up with the Coalition to sink the legislation, we would be moving towards a price on carbon.

It may be history, as they say, but that does not mean we should give up. We have to look forward. At her first press conference as Labor leader last week, Julia Gillard said:

"It is as disappointing to me as it is to millions of Australians that we do not have a price on carbon. And in the future we will need one. But first we will need to establish a community consensus for action."

The Prime Minister has made clear her commitment to building a lasting and deep community consensus on this issue. We will build this consensus, despite vocal opponents who will say anything they can to undermine the science. We ask that you give us your help and expertise.

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING

One of the first steps this Government has taken is to bolster renewable energy and adaptation measures throughout the country. We must invest in adaptation, which will become much more expensive in the future if we do not put a price on carbon.

But I just want to go back a step.

Our environment has been heavily affected by the years of pollution from heavy industry. But we should not blame previous generations for the position we are in now. This great country, and many others across the world, were developed off the back of cheap and reliable energy.

However, generations ago, the science did not unequivocally warn of the dangers of rising CO2 emissions. But now it does. We know this now, and as a result we know we have tough choices to make. This Government is beginning the transition.

Our Renewable Energy Target passed both Houses of Parliament last week.
It mandates that the equivalent of at least 20 per cent of Australia's electricity supply comes from renewable sources such as wind and solar. This will help drive nearly $19 billion of investment in clean, renewable energy.

SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLIES

In the water portfolio, we have helped fund key infrastructure for local councils to prepare for climate change. We allocated $200m under our Strengthening Basin Communities program to help local communities across the Murray-Darling Basin invest in new water-saving initiatives. We have announced more than $86 million in funding for 13 stormwater, harvesting and reuse projects under our National Urban Water and Desalination Plan.

This is all part of our $1 billion commitment to helping secure water supplies for the current and future needs of our towns and cities - investments that are all about preparing us for climate change.

In Australia we have a history of water scarcity and we know water has been in even more short supply in recent years. We are investing a great deal in securing water supplies in urban and rural areas. But an important part of the equation is the relationship between population growth and water scarcity.

Understanding the capacity of our water supplies, and our ability to use water more efficiently, is an important component of sustainable population planning.

ADAPTATION

In February this year I released the Government's position paper on adaptation. The Commonwealth is developing a national adaptation response agenda in partnership with states and territories for COAG consideration later this year.

It is work that has to be done, especially in light of the Climate Change Risks to Australia's Coasts Report released last year. This report stated that between 157,000 and 247,000 existing residential buildings would be at risk from sea inundation of 1.1m by the end of the century.

In the face of research such as this - we cannot ignore the need to adapt to the climate change we cannot avoid.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge the work of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, the CSIRO Adaptation Flagship and many of you for the progress you have made so far, and your commitment to what will need to be done in the future. You have remained focused on your work in the face of vocal opponents.

Your research continues to make a valuable contribution to our understanding of climate change, and what it means for this nation.

At this time, we should remember again that this debate and the call for action began with the science. And the science can get it back on track again. Because no fair-minded person could be presented with the weight and extent of the science and not conclude that we have to act.

The science is at the heart of building the consensus.

Thank you.




Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.

The Rudd retreat on climate policy: scientists and conservationists react

Conservationists and scientists have reacted angrily to the breathtaking act by the Rudd Government in taking the emissions trading scheme - the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - of the legliative agenda for two to three years, delaying central action on climate change - the setting of a carbon price.

The Getup organisation have launched a public No confidence vote saying that Kevin Rudd has lost the courage of his convictions. He needs to hear loud and clear that he just lost our confidence as a result.


Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, warned that urgent action is needed today not tomorrow. "Over 95% of the world's most credible scientists are telling us that we are fast approaching the point in which Australia's future, and that of the rest of the world, will be in extreme jeopardy. It is a shame that the government has failed to move forward and has had to back down on this issue due to the antics of the opposition. It seems that the latter would rather play politics than secure a future for our nation and its children."

He also drew attention to the fact that Australia supplies the world with 30% of its demand for coal, and posed the question of what firm action is the government going to take to deal with carbon emissions which are continuing to grow?

Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) executive director Don Henry said "To put comprehensive climate action in the too-hard basket until 2013 would be bad for the environment, de-stabilising for business and totally unacceptable to the millions of Australians who want government leadership on climate change. We need leadership from Government and Opposition on an issue Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has described as the great moral and economic challenge of our time."

Professor Andrew Blakers, Director of the Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems and of the ARC Centre for Solar Energy Systems at the Australian National University, Canberra, called for greater action by the Government in other climate change mitigation areas, particularly tightening of minimum energy performance standards for all products and buildings and increased funding of research and development of low-carbon technology, in particular solar, geothermal and wind.

The Climate Institute called the delay "economically reckless and environmentally reprehensible."

Professor Ian Lowe warned that Australia needs to reduce carbon emissions by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 "The science tells us that global emissions must start trending down within a decade to have an acceptable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change...If we don't start until 2013 and allow further growth in the intervening period, the rate of change looks alarming.

Professor Lowe proposed that the Government could introduce a carbon tax as an interim measure. "If there is not to be an ETS, there have to be other measures, like a serious target for renewable electricity. While the government can't get an ETS through the Senate, it could introduce a carbon tax in the Budget with an undertaking to increase it each year until an ETS is legislated. That would give business some confidence to invest as well as providing a price signal to drive change."

"The truth is that every year of delay means the actions finally taken will either be a little more painful, or a little less effective. It is a similar situation to what is faced by someone with diabetes, high blood pressure or some other problem who is resisting making the lifestyle changes urged by his doctor. The patient may be lucky and not experience anything too bad even if he does relatively little, but his chances of serious problems and/or expensive/nasty treatments grow the longer he waits. This will still be true for climate, if in 2030, we are still sitting around wondering whether to listen to the scientists or just continue hoping for the best." said Professor Steven Sherwood from the Physical Meteorology and Atmospheric Climate Dynamics at the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is on the record saying that climate change was the great moral challenge facing society and that "To delay any longer would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and environment." Late last year in response to the Opposition request to delay the legislation until after Copenhagen he said "What absolute political cowardice! What absolute failure of leadership! What absolute failure of logic!"

The decision to delay an emissions trading scheme was blamed on the lack of progess on an international level and the Coalition's blocking of the bill in the Senate, but the reality is the Government did not want to negotiate their deeply flawed scheme with the Greens who have proposed a two year Interim Carbon Tax as a compromise to break Senate Deadlock.

The release of the Grattan Institute report on April 22 - Restructuring the Australian Economy to Emit Less Carbon - was the final nail in the coffin of the CPRS. "The assistance package under the Government's proposed carbon trading legislation for emissions intensive industries is a $20 billion waste of taxpayers' money", said the CEO of Grattan Institute Professor John Daley on the release of the report. He concluded that, "Concerns that a carbon price will devastate industry and households are misplaced and exaggerated. They are no basis for delaying adapting the Australian economy to its carbon constrained future."

So we are left with a Government lacking in leadership, still sucking up to the coal industry and other industrial carbon polluters, unwilling to take the hard decisions on climate, and still reeling from a home insulation program that was run primarily as a job creation program without adequate oversight and risk management of industrial safety in insulation installation.

The opposition parties provide no alternative as their Climate Policy is just "tinkering at the edges" say academics and scientists.

New polling at the end of March commissioned by The Climate Institute, GetUp and other partners shows more than two thirds (68%) of Australians are concerned about climate change, but neither the Liberal or Labor party are showing the necessary leadership on the issue to boost their voter support.

Trust in Kevin Rudd to manage climate change has slid from 46% in February 2009 to 36%. "The Prime Minister has paid the price of community disappointment and frustration on stalled progress, but this poll shows there is more to be gained by all political parties with returned attention to action," said Simon Sheikh, National Director of GetUp.

In the poll most Australians, 55%, see little difference between the major parties in managing climate change. 27% rate Labor as the better party to manage climate change - the same as one year ago. The Coalition has gained 4% from a year ago to 18% on the same measure. 35% of voters would be more likely to vote for the Rudd Government if they were to take stronger action on climate change; only 16% would be less likely.

"Climate change remains a potent force rewarding stronger action," said John Connor, CEO The Climate Institute, "Clearly the great majority of people don't support a head-in-sand approach to climate change and even some of those genuinely sceptical or confused by the issue realise the importance of prudent risk management," said Mr Connor.


Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.

Brian Walters on Emission permit property rights and the CPRS

The carbon emission targets and the compromises to the fossil fuel industry have been well criticised in the Rudd Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. But what hasn't been made clear is that the emissions permits granted under the scheme become effective property rights that will make it much more difficult for future Governments to ratchett up the targets or change the scheme when more effective action is required. Brian Walters, a prominent senior legal counsel in Melbourne and past President of Liberty Victoria, outlines the problems in the CPRS, particularly on emission permits as property rights.

Brian is standing as a candidate for the Greens for the seat of Melbourne in the upcoming 2010 state election.

I videoed his speech at a picket of Peter Batchelor, Victorian Minister for Energy and Resources, who was about to attend a $3000 a head Victorian Coal Industry conference. I took the time to transcribe the speech, so you can Read or watch:

Brian Walters on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS)

It's great to have you all here, and I say all because it is great to have our numbers augmented with the Victoria police who brought along the equine support - thanks for coming - it's great to have you here and no doubt supporting our cause.

The CPRS. Some people say that the Greens are hypocritical for not supporting the CPRS. They say, "well look, this scheme is a step in the right direction, it's better than nothing! We ought to at least support that!"

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, or the Continued Polluting Regardless Scheme, is worse than nothing at all and it will not be supported by the Greens at any time. Not in this form.

First thing we have to say about the scheme is, and we all know, the targets. They are scandalous! And that is because they have been set by polluters, not by scientists. We are going to pay out as Jesmine said about $24billion at least to big carbon as part of this scheme. $24billion. That means its the first source of revenue in history in Australia which will run at a loss.

And what are we getting from all this money we are paying out to big carbon? Well, according to Treasury modelling, nothing! There won't be any reducton in carbon pollution in Australia. What we will get will be brought in and imported from overseas, and that won't be much anyway.

We are giving major concessions to coal. For the first five years they will be given concessions of course which will give them a windfall in profits and encourages the use of coal. The energy intensive trade exposed industries will get far more: they get 25% free permits - this is industries like aluminium smelting - 25% free permits going up to 45% in 2020. In other words, we are actually encouraging the expansion of major carbon pollution by this scheme.

[Crowd interjection: Corporate Welfare!]

The exact opposite of what we want to achieve.

One of the things about this scheme which I'm not sure has had much coverage, but in my view is the worst part of the scheme, is that it makes it impossible for future Governments to ratchett up the targets. That's because under a section of the legislation the carbon pollution permits, won't just be permits, they will be property rights.

You've all seen 'The Castle' and you know the Government of Australia under the constitution can't acquire property except on just terms. So you give this property right to carbon polluters - it's a social evil - give them the right to do this evil thing and make it a property right and it means that future governments down the track can't acquire those property rights or diminish those property rights except on just terms.

Now that is scandalous. And it is not what was proposed by Garnault or by anybody. We are left with a scheme that will make things worse, and it will not be supported by the Greens.

They are digging a hole, they are digging it deeper, they won't stop digging, and they can't get out of it.

They want to take us down into the graveyard caused by their coal mines, and they are happy about that so long as they can clutch onto their riches on the way down.

The climate crisis is the great moral challenge of our age Kevin Rudd, just up the road today. It is. And we need some leadership to confront it. And leadership is not doing no more and no less than other countries are doing, and in fact we are doing less. The solutions are available and they are inspiring. We owe it to our children and to the planet to adopt those solutions.

Thankyou



Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004. I am not a member of the Greens or any political party.

Two year Interim Carbon Tax as a compromise to break Senate Deadlock?

Two weeks ago the Greens took up one of Professor Ross Garnaut's suggestions of an interim carbon tax until the nation finalises its carbon emissions reduction strategy. Given the current political deadlock in the Senate, the proposal has received the support of Garnault saying it is "'another politically practical way forward".

The proposal is for an interim two year carbon tax of $23 per tonne carbon tax, and $5 billion for households assistance to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The scheme could begin as soon as July 2010 and would apply only to the 1000 worst polluters in Australia.

"The Greens stand ready, willing and able to work with Mr Rudd and Minister Wong to make the emissions trading scheme workable, but we cannot and will not support a scheme which, as it stands, is nothing more than multi-billion dollar smoke and mirrors." said Greens Climate Change Spokesperson Senator Christine Milne.

The Government's legislation is due to be reintroduced for a third time this month and faces defeat from the Coalition benches for going "too far", and from the Greens for being "too compromised" by too many concessions and free permits to the polluters.

Negotiations between Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and the Greens are continuing. To achieve passage of legislation through the Senate the Government requires another 7 votes: the Greens have 5, then there is Independent Senator Xenophon (who may be sympathetic), and Family First Senator Steve Fielding (strongly tending towards climate change skeptism), or Senators from the Coalition to cross the floor.

"Our interim proposal is designed to be strengthened as time passes, while the CPRS is impossible to strengthen without tens of billions more dollars flowing to polluters."

"The CPRS will not and must not pass in its current form, but this interim proposal has a real chance. Let's seize it and get Australia moving towards the zero carbon future." concluded Christine Milne.

The Australian Conservation Foundation also welcomed the proposal. "Climate change needs big, innovative solutions rather than a piecemeal approach. The bottom line for climate policy is the ability to achieve deep cuts in emissions, and an effective carbon price passes that test." said Tony Mohr, ACF Climate Change Program Manager.

"Businesses want a green light to invest in clean technology, and Australians want a green light on emissions cuts. Both need a price on greenhouse pollution." Mr Mohr said.

Sources:

• Australian Conservation Foundation Media Release - Jan 22, 2010 - Greens proposal for price on pollution welcomed


• Greens Media Release, Jan 22, 2010 - Future tax system must deliver safe climate


• Greens Media Release, Jan 25, 2010 - Greens welcome Garnaut backing

Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.

Greenwash: Investors push Governments for Cap and Trade Action

Australian, European and U.S. investor groups representing $13 trillion in assets said in a statement issued at a meeting at the UN in New York on Thursday "we cannot wait for a global treaty," They called on the U.S. Congress and other global decision-makers "to take rapid action" on carbon emission limits, energy efficiency, renewable energy, financing mechanisms and other policies that will accelerate clean energy investment and job creation.

Why the strong push from the Investment sector for Government Climate Action? It could be just altruism. But, as always the devil is in the detail. In this case, the push is for carbon trading - Emissions Trading Schemes like Kevin Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), often referred to as Cap and Trade.

I can understand that these people want the Government to set the rules for climate action and reducing carbon use - this gives the market predictability and stability for basing investment decisions on. But these same people have a vested interest in another financial market - the carbon market. It's another way for them to make money. All well and good, except if it fails, so does the prospects for avoiding dangerous climate change.



The meeting was the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, a meeting of 450 global investors at the United Nations that included UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, United States Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, billionaire investor George Soros, and former Vice President Al Gore.

Australia was represented at the meeting by the Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) which represents investors of over $500bn across all sectors of the Australian economy, including many retail and industry superannuation funds.

The meeting called for a legally-binding climate agreement this year with comprehensive long-term measures for mitigation, forest protection, adaptation, finance, and technology transfer, including a global emission reduction target of 50-85% by 2050, consistent with estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"Investors are poised and ready to scale up investments in building the low carbon economy, but without policies that create a stable investment environment our hands are tied," said Anne Stausboll, chief executive officer of the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), one of larghe largest public pension funds in the USA with more than $205 billion in assets. "U.S. leadership is critical in this regard, including U.S. Senate action to limit and put a price on carbon emissions."

"What investors need most from national and state legislatures are transparency, longevity and certainty," said Kevin Parker, global head of Deutsche Asset Management and member of Deutsche Bank's Group Executive Committee. "Until the U.S. Congress passes climate regulation, America will be at a competitive disadvantage in the development of renewable energy and other climate change industries."

Al Gore, in his speech, drew upon a report that Investment Managers Still Lagging in Response to Climate Change Risks and Opportunities, pointed out that the vast majority of the world's largest investment managers are not factoring climate-related trends into their short- and long-term investment decision-making,

On emission reductions, the statement said "We call on developed countries to establish emission reduction targets of 80-95% by 2050, with interim targets of 25-40% by 2020. Developing countries should have clear action plans that deliver measurable and verifiable emission reductions compared to projected levels."

The statement called for "national regulators worldwide, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, to require companies to disclose to their investors material climate-related risks and the programs in place to manage those risks."

Excellent stuff! But keep in mind most of the people at this summit are part of the financial and investment establishment. They have a vested interest in market based policies to establish a carbon price - in the Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Systems in place in Europe and proposed for the USA and Australia.

Their statement calls for "governments to put in place market-based policies to establish a carbon price that will signal that investments in carbon-intensive projects may yield lower returns, that new and established zero- or low-carbon technologies can be deployed profitably, and that investment in clean energy infrastructure will yield sound returns."

They "call on governments to support robust, transparent, well-governed markets that include mechanisms for directing private financial flows to low-carbon development in developed and developing countries."

Yet an emissions trading system has great dangers of rorting and not sufficiently encouraging investment to low carbon or carbon neutral projects. Stopping government fossil fuel subsidies should be a major priority, and placing a tax on carbon where it is produced, with subsidies to low carbon alternatives and dividends to the population should be considered.



Friends of the Earth UK prepared a report on carbon trading in November 2009 - 'A Dangerous Obsession (PDF)' - in which they outline that carbon trading could be the next 'sub-prime' crisis.

'A Dangerous Obsession' focuses on the buying and selling of a new artificial commodity - the right to emit carbon dioxide - which the UK and other developed country governments want to see expanded into a massive worldwide market.

According to FoE UK the trade in carbon permits and credits, mainly based in Europe, was worth $126 billion in 2008 and is predicted to balloon to $3.1 trillion by 2020 if a global carbon market takes off.

Releasing the report in November Friends of the Earth's international climate campaigner and author of the report Sarah Jayne-Clifton said: "Pushing a world carbon market as part of a global agreement to tackle climate change risks a double whammy of financial and environmental disaster.

"Carbon trading is failing dismally at reducing emissions, yet allows speculators to grow rich from the climate crisis and hands politicians and industry a get-out clause for polluting business as usual.

"Science tells us rich countries must act first and fast to cut their emissions at home if we are to avert climate catastrophe - and support poorer countries with adequate public money to grow cleanly and adapt to the effects of climate change which they are already feeling.

"The credit crunch has taught us that Governments, not markets are best placed to safeguard our future - at this critical point in the fight against climate change Ministers must step in and lead the way with a new, direct approach to tackling carbon emissions to create a safe and green future for us all."

So what will Australia's CPRS do? Emissions won't begin to fall until 2033, according to Treasury modelling. And the reason they will fall then is the 'predicted' introduction of 'clean coal' technology and import carbon permits from developing countries. Sounds pretty shonky to me. Climate greenwash!

Background

• Investor Network on Climate Risk, Jan 14, 2009 - Investors Representing $13 Trillion Call on U.S. and Other Countries to Move Quickly to Adopt Strong Climate Change Policies


• The Investor Statement on Catalyzing Investment in a Low-Carbon Economy (PDF). The Investor Statement was endorsed by four groups representing more than 190 investors. The groups are the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI).


• Investor Network on Climate Risk, Jan 6, 2009 - New Report: Investment Managers Still Lagging in Response to Climate Change Risks and Opportunities


• Friends of the Earth Australia Media Release, Nov 5, 2009 - carbon trading 'the next Sub Prime' - new report

Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.

Union calls for 40% emissions reduction target and abandonment of CPRS

The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) which covers many of the researchers and academics who work in science, economic modelling and related fields, has called upon the Federal Labor Government and opposition parties to abandon the proposed Emissions Trading System, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) legislation and instead develop a national pollution reduction strategy that does not primarily rely on market mechanisms.

The opposition parties rejected the Government's CPRS legislation in the Senate, however Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has said the legislation will be resubmitted in February 2010 for re-consideration. The new leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, has publicly opposed this legislation "a giant new tax on everything" and has said his party would deliver similar emission reductions of between 5 and 25 per cent by 2020 based on 2000 levels, but without explaining how.

The NTEU has called for ambitious emission reduction targets of a minimum 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on 1990 levels by 2020 as a step towards net zero greenhouse gas emissions. These targets are more in tune with what scientists are calling for to avoid climate tipping points and dangerous climate change.

The NTEU climate change policy puts the union at odds with the Rudd Labor Government, Liberal Opposition and the ACTU. The ACTU has been fully supporting the Federal Labor Government Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation.

"The settlement between the Rudd Government and the opposition has sadly been driven by business self-interest in many areas, however the basic architecture to drive carbon abatement remains intact," said ACTU President Sharan Burrow in a media release on 25 November.

Along with proposals for a planned transition from coal-fired generators to renewable energy sources, the union proposes re-skilling and alternative employment for affected workers, as well as an urgent public investment program in public transport, renewable energy and the sustainable retrofitting of the nation's housing stock.

The union's NSW secretary, Genevieve Kelly, told the Australian newspaper "Rather than get bogged down with a costly emissions trading scheme that rewards big polluters and will have a limited impact on emissions, the Rudd government needs to immediately invest in renewable energy, public transport and a transition from coal-fired power generation," Ms Kelly said.

The Rudd Government currently promises cuts of 5 to 25% on 2000 levels. At the best a 25% cut only equates to a 10.8% cut on 1990 levels. But they fudge these figures further by including land use and forestry targets and financing the reduction in deforestation in third world countries to offset emissions. This will allow Australia's emissions to actually increase until 2030.

"This policy may place the NTEU at odds with the Rudd government and some elements of the union movement; however, we have an obligation to respond to the deeply held concerns of our members who overwhelmingly want action on this issue," Ms Kelly was reported as saying.

The union is also attempting to include environmental claims in workplace agreements. The union is a member of Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability Association, and is negotiating with universities and TAFE institutes to reducing emissions as part of workplace agreements.

NTEU climate change policy

as published in Advocate, Vol 16 No 3, November 2009

=========================================

The 2009 NTEU National Council adopted a policy on climate change that calls on the Labor Government and opposition parties to support:

1. Abandonment of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) legislation and development of a national pollution reduction strategy that does not primarily rely on market mechanisms.
2. A target of a minimum 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on 1990 levels by 2020 as a step towards net zero greenhouse gas emissions.
3. A planned transition from coal-fired generators to renewable energy sources, including re-skilling and good quality alternative employment for affected workers.
4. An urgent public investment program in public transport, renewable energy and the sustainable retrofitting of the nation's housing stock.
5. Legislation that gives effect to the Just Transition recommendations endorsed by the ACTU and the United Nations Environment Program and ensures the social costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation are not borne disproportionately by households.
6. Development of a national green employment strategy that meets international best practice standards on decent work and measurably reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
7. Development of a national strategy that identifies unsustainable industry and consumer demand levels, and addresses their employment implications.
8. Amendment of the Fair Work Act in line with ALP 2007 policy to facilitate bargaining on environmental claims by industrial parties.

National Council also agreed that NTEU should hold a conference on climate change in 2010, focusing on the climate change policy agenda post-Copenhagen and its relevance for NTEU members and the union movement in general.

=========================================

Sources:

* NTEU - Advocate, Vol 16 No 3, November 2009, pp27 (PDF)
* The Australian, Dec 7, 2009, Union revolts over ETS
* ACTU media release, Nov 25, 2009 - CPRS must now be passed to create jobs and a stronger economy


Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.

Polluters subsidised under emissions trading with households footing the bill

An Emergency Climate rally in Melbourne attacked the Federal Labor Government on its CPRS negotiations saying it had made too many concessions to coal and the power industry.

The Kevin Rudd Labor Government announced the negotiations with Ian McFarlane of the Liberal Party - a much watered down Emissons Trading Scheme - the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Additional compensation to industry of $7.01 billion, including handouts to Coal Industry doubling to $1.5 billion, and $4 billion more in free permits to coal fired power station owners, and $1.1 billion to mining and manufacturing sector for increased energy prices while compensation to households was reduced by $5.67 billion.

Climate civil disobedience action in Canberra for 40% carbon reduction target

Two hundred people blockaded Parliament House in Canberra today calling on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to secure a strong, legally binding treaty at the upcoming international climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Police arrested 130 people, although it is believed none were charged.

Related: Scientists: Climate Treaty more urgent with Global carbon emissions still increasing | Rising Tide Media Release | Coal protesters appealing damages order over Brisbane Climate Direct Action | 21 world leaders, including president Obama, have said they don't expect Copenhagen to produce a binding treaty

Australia: Climate Civil Disobedience on the rise

Two hundred people blockaded the entrance to the Australian Parliament today calling on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to secure a strong, legally binding treaty at the upcoming international climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Police arrested 130 people, although it is believed none were charged.

Climate Civil Disobedience action in Canberra | Coal Protestors in court over Brisbane Climate Direct Action | Switch off Hazelwood | Video : Damien Lawson on Civil Disobedience

Action on climate change demanded by thousands on Melbourne's St Kilda Beach

Thousands of Melbourne people rocked up to St Kilda Beach to be part of a Climate Change Human Sign near the St Kilda Sea Baths. The event was organised by Locals into Victoria's Environment and promoted by the Climate Emergency Network and is a call for politicians at all levels of Government to make the hard decisions by legislating to drastically reduce carbon emissions and negotiate meaningful international carbon reduction targets at the Copenhagen Conference of Parties in December 2009.

The Federal Government has been much criticised for its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in that too many free permits were handed out to business and targets were set far too low. In the budget handed down by the Rudd Labor Government the environment and climate change funding was relegated to second fiddle to economic recovery.

In Victoria the Brumby Labor Government is proceeding with a Desalination plant for Melbourne which will boost carbon emissions. Alternative water sources that are less costly and more environmentally friendly, such as stormwater harvesting, rainwater tanks and tertiary treatment and purification water recycling have been passed over in favour of a high tech, high cost and polluting solution.

Photo by Aerofoto

Climate protest highlights environment funding in the Australian Budget

Eight people were arrested in a dramatic climate protest at Canberra during the 2009 Government budget session over the Government's inadequate response to climate change. So, how did the Environment fare in the budget?

"This is a historic level of Commonwealth investment in solar energy and public transport and we warmly welcome it. The money for solar gives a good kick start to this crucial industry of the future. In contrast, the $2 billion of new funds over nine years for carbon capture and storage research is public money not well spent. The companies that make huge profits from mining and burning coal should fund the research into technologies that may – or may not – help reduce Australia’s carbon emissions in ten, fifteen or twenty years." summed up Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) executive director Don Henry.

While the Australian coal industry continues to be annually subsidised to the tune of $7 billion, for the first time a significant amount of money - $1.5 billion - has been allocated to the development of solar power projects, which is a significant breakthrough in funding renewable energy.

Renewable Energy Projects

Wasim Saman, Professor of sustainable energy engineering and Director of the Sustainable Energy Centre at the University of South Australia was enthused by the "exciting initiatives to help the mainstreaming of solar energy use and other sustainable energy measures."

"The biggest item is the support being provided for building solar thermal and photovoltaic generation capacity equivalent to that of a conventional power station. This can build on a current solar thermal demonstration project being constructed in Whyalla. The establishment of 'Renewables Australia' to support research in renewable energy technology is also welcome as it may accelerate the development of new technologies for utilising wave/tidal, geothermal and other renewable resources." said Saman.

Energy efficiency has also received a boost. About $160 million has been allocated for programs to reduce energy demand, such as smart grids and energy efficient appliances. According to Saman "the funding announced for trialling smart metering and energy networks and for tightening minimum energy performance standards of both buildings and appliances and for establishing a mandatory disclosure program of energy use in housing and commercial buildings will support more efficient energy use in our homes and other buildings."

"The additional funding of over $1 billion for four demonstration solar power stations is of course welcome. So is the expansion of the nascent Solar Institute into Renewables Australia." said Dr Mark Diesendorf, Deputy Director of the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales.

However, Diesendorf is critical that there is no provision in the budget for essential infrastructure for renewable energy, such as new and strengthened transmission links. "If the federal government upgraded the transmission lines linking South Australia to NSW and Victoria, Australia’s wind power capacity could be greatly augmented. Commitment to a new high-capacity transmission line linking the geothermal region in north-east S.A. to the main grid would also be valuable." he said.

Greenpeace welcomed the allocation of $1.5 billion to build four solar power stations up to a total of 1000 megawatts (equates to renewable energy to power 400,000 homes).

"The multi-billion dollar Clean Energy Initiative, with existing funds and commitments, adds up to a smart cost and risk effective investment strategy in solar, wind, geothermal and potentially significantly reducing pollution from coal," said John Connor, CEO of the Climate Institute. "It’s vital we aim to hit 2020 with a mix of industrial scale clean energy options so we know which technology works best, or at all, as we shift to near zero emission, and better, supplies of energy."

Carbon Capture and Storage

Carbon capture and storage (CCS - so called Clean Coal) has been allocated $2.4 billion under the Green Energy Initiative, and it will still be at the pilot stage of development. Professor Jerry Vanclay is Professor of Sustainable Forestry and Head of the School of Environmental Science and Management at Southern Cross University said that the "technology is yet to be proven at an operational scale. Technically it is possible, but it is not clear if CO2 can be separated from flue gasses in an economic way. Suitable sites for underground storage are limited, and may not occur in proximity to coal-fired power stations. Finally, a relatively short distance from the CCS trial in Victoria is a enterprise pumping CO2 gas up from underground for industrial use, further illustrating that we cannot economically capture CO2.

Vanclay was disappointed that less than half of the Green Energy Initiative is devoted to Solar energy, and only a tiny fraction for Renewables Australia.

Caring for our Country and Water for the Future

Two previously anounced important programs were unchanged - ‘Caring for our Country’ ($2 billion over 5 years; includes LandCare and Reef Rescue) was announced last year, and remains unaltered – and ‘Water for the Future’ ($13 billion over 10 years).

Green Car Fund

The Green car Innovation fund was allocated $1.3 billion over ten years and was previously announced. Vanclay said that this money "misses the target – most of our car needs can be satisfied with imported vehicles, and our special needs relate to our large distances without services – likely to be better served by fuel-efficient turbo-diesel cars rather than hybrid cars – especially if they are fuelled with biodiesel manufactured from biomass residues – and that’s not what the fund is aimed at."

Public Transport

On the positive side, 55 per cent of the money from the "Nation Building Infrastructure" funds for transport was allocated to public transport projects - $4.6 billion is for metropolitan rail projects, while $3.4 billion goes to roads and $389 million to ports.

"The first time that a federal government has made such a significant investment in urban public transport, tipping the investment balance away from roads for the first time. Like renewables, public transport is jobs rich and low carbon compared with the alternatives, so this investment is warmly welcomed." said Cam Walker from Friends of the Earth.

Land and Water Australia Centre axed

The Land and Water Australia Centre, a vital resource for drought and other climate-related information, has been axed for a saving of just $16 million. Professor Snow Barlow, Associate Dean (Strategic Relations) Melbourne School of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne said "While the closure of Land and Water Australia is regrettable the increased expenditure in climate and marine sciences to match initiatives in climate change adaptation last year is necessary and very welcome."

According to the Australian Conservation Foundtion research funding has also been cut for the Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation ( – 12 million) and the Commonwealth Environmental Research Facilities Program ( – $10 million).

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

The Governments Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme has been heavily criticied. Professor Vanclay said "Many environmentalists would have welcomed a greater commitment to greenhouse mitigation in the budget. The Government is committed to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), which is fraught with several difficulties and limitations (as well as very modest targets), and which is yet to be passed by the Senate. I’d welcome a carbon tax, either in place of, or in conjunction with the CPRS. A carbon tax could help add certainty for industry, funds for the government, and a sure carbon signal for all consumers to help reduce emissions. But predictably, there is no carbon tax in the budget."

"The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is unlikely to help renewable energy for the first decade of its existence, if it ever gets through parliament. Its design and tiny target will see to that. What we really need is implementation of the long-awaited Expanded Renewable Energy Target (promised in 2007), to assist wind power and bioelectricity, and a national feed-in tariff to drive the roll-out large solar power stations on a commercial basis. These policies will cost the government nothing, since they will be paid for by a slight increase in the price of electricity." said Diesndorf.

Nuclear Power and waste

According to the Australian Conservation Foundation money continues to pour into the problem area of nuclear power, nuclear waste and cleaning up old uranium mines:

• Nuclear waste dump: $4.4 million to continue with the previous government's plans to site a radioactive waste dump somewhere in remote Australia. This money should be used to fund an independent public inquiry to work out what is the best way to deal with Australia’s nuclear waste problem.
  
• Nuclear research: the Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation, operator of the under-performing Opal reactor in Sydney, will receive $68.4 million over four years for additional facilities and management of existing facilities.
  
• Rum Jungle: $8.3 million over four years to clean up the site of an old uranium mine in the Northern Territory, which operated from 1954 to 1971.
  

Foreign Aid and Climate Adaption

This is a real increase of 5.6% in the Foreign Aid (ODA) budget. The total Aid Budget for 2009/10 is around $3.8 billion, up from $3.7 billion last year. While Friends of the Earth welcomed this increase, they were critical of the amount set aside for climate adaption.

"We are very disappointed to see that expenditure on environment and climate change programs in 2009/10 is estimated to be $170 million, which is only 5% of total Australian ODA. Estimates of a 'fair share' of adaptation costs to help the developing world cope with climate change impacts is between $1.5 and 1.75 billion a year for Australia. Clearly we have a very long way to go in terms of meeting our obligations as such a large per capita greenhouse gas emitter." said FOE national liason officer Cam Walker.

"We also need to consider the implications of climate change displacement – just today climate scientists warned that up to 100 million people may be displaced in our region by climate change. This reality needs to be acknowledged in future funding priorities and legislation to begin to support and resettle at least some of these people". said Cam Walker

Other Items

• Green skills development: $26.9 million over four years as part of the ‘Skills for the Carbon Challenge’ program.
  
• Indigenous rangers: $69 million over five years for 210 new environmental jobs for Indigenous rangers.
  
• National parks: $33 million of new funding, including more funds for Kakadu.
  
• Nuclear disarmament commission: $9.2 million over two years to advance nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts internationally.
  

Conclusion

While there are glimmers of environmental hope in the budget, Professor Vanclay summed up the feeling "I think that most environmentalists will be quite disappointed by tonight’s budget, and can justifiably feel that the environment (including climate change) has been overlooked in the drama of the recession."

Sources:

• Australian Conservation Foundation, May 12, 2009 - Federal Budget 2009: green stimulus welcome
  
• Australian Conservation Foundation, May 12, 2009 - Good news and bad news in the Federal Budget
  
• Greenpeace Australia, May 12, 2009 - Budget Aftermath: Part 1, or “Hope!”
  
• Greenpeace Australia, May 13, 2009 - Budget Aftermath: Part 2, “A Turning Tide”
  
• Friends of the Earth Australia, May 13, 2009 - Federal budget 2009: good on solar, transport, foreign aid.
  
• Climate Institute, May 12, 2009 - Vital and smart investment in Australian clean energy solutions
  
• Australian Science Media Centre, May 12-13, 2009 - Budget 2009/10 – scientists react