Opinion Poll: Support for 45 per cent climate targets and emissions trading

Polling done by Essential vision shows that most people approve the higher climate targets and the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme in Labor's climate plan. The polling was published on May 3 and supports previous polling in March that a majority of Australians want greater action on climate change.

The survey found that 57 per cent of voting age people approved of the Labor Party’s higher climate targets that more closely match the science and carbon emissions policy. Just 21 per cent disapproved of these targets and implementation of an ETS.

Can Labor wedge the Coalition on #climatechange in #ausvotes2016?

Original article published at nofibs.com.au

Action on climate change is a live issue at the 2016 election, but it is still divisive. The Australian Labor Party unveiled it's climate action plan to take to the Federal Election, likely to be on July 2. A lot of deliberative thought and nuanced politics have gone into this plan with targeted changes in different sectors.

Environment and community groups, along with the Business Council of Australia, broadly said the plan was positive, although there were criticisms raised about the need for climate policy to become bipartisan to ensure stability in the economic transitions needed. Environment groups stressed that it was a useful starting point and much better than the Coalition government targets and policy, but didn't go nearly far enough to meet the obligations now enshrined in the Paris Agreement of limiting warming to well below 2 degrees and aspire to 1.5 degrees limit on warming.

Labor's 50 percent renewables policy a bare minimum for staying under 2 degrees climate target

The Original of this article was published at nofibs.com.au

Labor Opposition leader Bill Shorten's advocacy of a 50 per cent renewables target at Labor's National conference in Melbourne has effectively made action on climate change a policy point of difference from the Abbott government for the next election. But the target has been assessed as the bare minimum renewables target for staying on a decarbonisation path of limiting global warming to 2 degrees as agreed by the United Nations.

On thursday Bill Shorten visited the University of New South Wales inspecting the world class solar research facilities, where several significant breakthroughs in solar technology have been made, including the first photovoltaic system to achieve over 20 per cent efficiency in 1989, and the most recent achievement of a 40 per cent solar cell efficiency for converting sunlight to electricity.

Shorten reiterated that Australia could easily reach the 50 per cent renewables target based on local innovation and research.

"We have the best solar researchers in the world ... We have so much sunlight, so much wind power in this country, we would be literally crazy not to pursue more ambitious goals for renewable energy. The rest of the world is not waiting … the rest of the world is already setting [those] ambitious goals," he said according to a University media release.

Malcolm Turnbull squashes #climate action for #libspill chance as Prime Minister

Malcolm Turnbull was on the unofficial campaign trail on the Central Coast of NSW for the upcoming Liberal Party spill of positions being forecast to take place next Tuesday (10 February). It comes after a confrontation in a 'secret' meeting between Turnbull and Abbott in the Prime Minister's offices on Wednesday 4 February.

Turnbull used a Politics in the Pub event at Wyong with Member for Dobell Karen McNamara, along with some strategic tweets in his travels, to show his leadership colours to his fellow MPs. But one media pack question after the event stood out and made clear Turnbull is willing to trade any credibility and integrity on climate action for a chance at the top job. A repost of my original article for Nofibs.

How to achieve Zero Carbon Emissions by 2020

The public launch of the Beyond Zero Emissions report - Zero Carbon Australia 2020 - was delivered to an overflowing audience at Melbourne University last night. The report is one possible blueprint for acting on the challenge of climate change by converting the existing coal and gas fired carbon pollution dependent electricity generation to 100% renewables using only current commercial technologies in ten years.
Beyond Zero Emissions has utilised pro-bono research by academic specialists in solar technology, mechanical and electrical engineering and economics, over the last two years to produce this report. It shows how Australia could move from being one of the highest carbon emitters per capita to one of the lowest.

Why is this necessary?

Scientists have been saying Australia needs to reduce carbon emissions by 40 per cent by 2020: "the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (2007) recommended that developed countries should reduce emissions by 25-40% on 1990 levels by 2020. Yet more recent evidence shows that only reductions at the top end of this range will be sufficient to avoid the worst impacts of climate change." said forty of the world's leading climate scientists in a statement initiated by WWF and released prior to the Copenhagen Climate summit in December 2009.

"The premise of a 10 year transition is based on 'The Budget Approach' from the German Advisory Council on Global Change. In order to have a 67% chance of keeping global warming below 2oC above pre-industrial temperatures, on a basis of equal allocation of emissions on a per-capita basis, it would be necessary for the USA to reduce emissions to zero in 10 years. Australia has the same per-capita emissions as the USA, and would need to pursue the same goal," the plan says.

Both the Labor and Opposition parties are aiming at only a 5 per cent emissions reduction by 2020. This falls far short than what the scientists say is required.

Without any action to set a carbon price electricity prices are set to surge due to the business uncertainty around setting a price for carbon. The audience was told that with business as usual it is estimated $100 billion will be invested in electricity sector in Australia over the next decade. New coal fired power plants may find problems being financed due to the uncertainty. Energy producers are more likely to add gas turbine peaking plants which are cheap to build but expensive to run.

A Climate Institute report produced by researchers and business partners recently estimated that uncertainty around whether government will place a price tag on pollution that will cost the economy and consumers $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices. (ABC interview with John Connor from Climate Institute: No ETS means higher electricity prices: study)

Transitioning to Renewable Energy is realistic and achievable at moderate cost

By comparison, economic modelling shows the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 could be implemented for a total cost of about $370 billion, or $37 billion per year - about 3 per cent of GDP per year for 10 years. Included in this cost is a major extension and upgrade to the electricity transmission grid to make it more efficient. Upgrading the existing transmission infrastructure may also help avoid future bush fires caused by poor maintenaince reminiscent of the Black Saturday bushfire in Victoria.

With the exception of the Bass strait link there was been little work upgrading the electricity transmission grid since the 1970s. The cost of building the transmission grid is estimated at 25 per cent of the total project costs.

It could become a 21st century equivalent of the Snowy Mountains Scheme creating up to 80,000 jobs from installation of renewable energy generation at the peak of construction, and over 45,000 jobs in operations and maintenance that will continue for the life of the plant. Such a scheme would also generate up to 30,000 jobs in manufacturing wind turbines and heliostats.

Many of these jobs could be created close to existing coal fired power stations to provide an opportunity to transition the existing workforce. Such a project would also provide Australia with a manufacturing capacity to export renewable technologies to the region and the world.


The Zero Carbon Australia 2020 report shows us one possible mix of current commercial technologies to realise the goal of zero carbon emissions by 2020. Other plans may choose a different mix using slightly different technology. Emerging renewable technologies such as wave, tidal and geothermal have been explicitly excluded from this plan but may well play an active role as these technologies are developed and commercialised.

The plan calls for 40% renewable energy from wind generation, 60% from large scale concentrating solar thermal power with molten salt storage for 24/7 baseload operation, and backup from Hydro-electric and biomass power generation. The plan specifies sites around Australia that are selected for their wind availability, solar incidence, economy of scale, transmission costs, technical efficency, and geographical diversity: 23 sites for wind, and 12 sites for Concentrating Solar Thermal (CST). The plan is based only on existing commercial technology.

Transferring from coal fired electricity generation will require large public and private investments. To assist this a carbon price needs to be set. An emissions trading scheme - Cap and Trade - is open to volatility which produces market uncertainty for business investment decisions as shown by the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

In a question from the floor about setting a carbon price, one of the speakers said what was needed was a combined system where a carbon tax sets a floor price for carbon pollution, with an emissions trading scheme setting a cap on pollution and issuing permits which can be bought and sold. This would provide a stable floor price to base long term business decisions on, while also setting an upper level on total carbon pollution allowed and letting the market determine the price for pollution permits.

So Australia transitioning to an electricity sector based on renewables with zero carbon emissions by 2020 is possible and achievable for a realistic cost.

Impediments to implementing such a nation building scheme includes the lack of political leadership and will from both sides of politics. Our politicians are also being influenced by lobbyists from the very powerful existing coal and electricity industries. These companies have enormous clout and influence on both State and Federal politicians. The relatively small solar and enewable sector just cannot match the funding and power of the fossil fuel industries. To a question from the floor about how we can bring about this change, one of the speakers said we need people power - the electorate needs to tell our politicians in an unambiguous way of its support for action on climate change and transitioning to renewable energy such as this plan.

There was question from the floor about the funding of Carbon capture and storage (CCS). The speaker from the Melbourne Energy Institute said that the research and development of CCS was also required for countries that will continue to rely on coal fired power generation, and as a process to eventually reduce carbon in the atmosphere by sequestration.

I came away from this launch heartened. Thirty five years ago I helped set up a demonstration solar hot water system on the lawns of parliament house in Canberra. Alternative and renewable technology was dismissed as the margin, especially by politicians then. Will our political leaders listen now? I hope so, especially if you support Beyond Zero Emissions ongoing work and tell your Federal and State politicians that we need to transition to a zero carbon pollution economy and society.

You can download the full report as a PDF (8.5MB) or download or purchase a glossy printed copy from The Melbourne Energy Institute, Melbourne University for $30

See also Indymedia story, 28 June 2010: Renewable energy target: 20 by 2020 or zero emissions by 2020?


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.

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