tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/climate-change-authority-9057/articlesClimate Change Authority – The Conversation2023-10-10T19:06:17Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2138662023-10-10T19:06:17Z2023-10-10T19:06:17ZWhy Australia urgently needs a climate plan and a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee to implement it<p>Australia has <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/australia-legislates-emissions-reduction-targets">a legislated target</a> to reduce greenhouse emissions, a federal government with commitments <a href="https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/the-82-per-cent-national-renewable-energy-target-where-did-it-come-from-and-how-can-we-get-there/#:%7E:text=A%20national%20renewable%20electricity%20target,Interconnected%20System%2C%20and%20the%20North">to increase the share of renewable electricity</a> and reduce power prices, and a globally important economic opportunity at its feet. </p>
<p>In the second half of the government’s current term, delivery looks hard across the board. All is not lost, but we must transform our economy to a timetable. The unprecedented scale and pace of the economic transformation, and the consequences of failure, demand an unprecedented response. </p>
<p>To get things on track requires the government to develop a plan with the right mix of political commitment, credible policies, coordination with industry, and support from communities. And, critically, the plan must be implemented. Too often targets have been set without being linked to policies to achieve them, or linked so poorly that the extra cost and delay sets back the climate transition.</p>
<p>By the middle of this year, Australia’s emissions were <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/policy-topics/measuring-what-matters/dashboard/emissions-reduction">25% below the 2005 level</a>. But the trend of steady reductions has stalled, and sectors such as <a href="https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021Fact%20sheet%20-%20Transport.pdf">transport</a> and agriculture have moved in the wrong direction. </p>
<p>Such ups and downs will continue in response to external events, as we have seen with COVID, droughts, and war on the other side of the world. Policies must be flexible if they are to remain broadly on course in the face of such events. </p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-973" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/973/534c98def812dd41ac56cc750916e2922539729b/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Trouble in the power department</h2>
<p>The detail matters: national emissions reductions <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-greenhouse-gas-inventory-march-2023.pdf">have slowed</a>, as has <a href="https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/cec-australian-wind-and-solar-investment-slows-in-q2-energy-storage-booms/#:%7E:text=The%20slowdown%20in%20investment%20in,support%20from%20the%20federal%20government.">the growth in renewable generation</a> towards the government’s 2030 target of 82%. </p>
<p>At the same time, the government’s <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/powering-australia">target of lower power bills</a> by 2025 looks out of reach, and electricity reliability is threatened as coal-fired generation closes without adequate replacement.</p>
<p>The production and use of natural gas <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Flame-out-Grattan-report.pdf">contributes around 20%</a> of Australia’s emissions. The use of gas in industry will be covered by the <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/The-Safeguard-Mechanism#:%7E:text=The%20Safeguard%20Mechanism%20has%20been%20in%20place%20since%201%20July,must%20manage%20their%20excess%20emissions.">Safeguard Mechanism</a>, a policy designed by the Coalition and now revised by Labor, to drive down emissions from the country’s 200 biggest emitters. </p>
<p>Emissions from gas-fired power generation will fall with the growth of renewables. But there are no constraints on fossil gas use in other sectors, such as our homes. </p>
<p>Industrial emissions are <a href="https://theconversation.com/nearly-30-of-australias-emissions-come-from-industry-tougher-rules-for-big-polluters-is-a-no-brainer-190264">slowly growing</a>. The huge amount of hype about green hydrogen has so far proven to be little more than that: Australia continues to have lots of potential green hydrogen projects, but <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-leads-world-in-green-hydrogen-hype-and-hope-but-not-in-actual-projects/">virtually none are delivered</a>.</p>
<p>Finally, we remain without <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/fuel-efficiency-standard-cleaner-cheaper-run-cars-australia-consultation-paper-april2023.pdf">constraints on vehicle emissions</a>, and with a large herd of <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/cp/CP22299#:%7E:text=In%20Australia%2C%2071%25%20of%20agricultural,by%20grazing%20sheep%20and%20cattle.">grazing cattle and sheep</a> whose emissions are determined more by the weather than the actions of our best-meaning farmers.</p>
<h2>The risk of swinging from naive to negative</h2>
<p>So, we are in a hard place. Naïve optimism about an easy, cheap transition to net zero is at risk of giving way to brutal negativity that it’s all just too hard. The warnings of early spring fires and floods in Australia and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/17/extreme-temperatures-recorded-across-northern-hemisphere">extreme heat</a> during the most recent northern hemisphere summer will feed this tension.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/too-hard-basket-why-climate-change-is-defeating-our-political-system-214382">Too hard basket: why climate change is defeating our political system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The federal government’s latest <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2023-intergenerational-report">Intergenerational</a> Report provides a deeply disturbing snapshot of the potential economic impacts if we fail to get climate change under control. Yet in a world 3 to 4 degrees hotter than pre-industrial levels, economic impacts could be the least of our worries.</p>
<p>The task is unparalleled outside wartime. Within 30 years we must manage the decline of fossil fuel extractive sectors, transform every aspect of our energy and transport sectors, reindustrialise much of manufacturing, and find solutions to difficult problems in agriculture.</p>
<p>What’s to be done?</p>
<h2>The need for a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee</h2>
<p>We should begin with leadership across the federal government, coordinated with the states and territories. The best structure might be a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee with two clear objectives – to develop and begin implementing a national net zero transformation plan by the end of 2024. </p>
<p>Modern governments are more than happy to set targets and announce plans to meet them. They seem to have lost the capacity or will to implement such plans. The <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/news/net-zero-economy-agency#:%7E:text=The%20Net%20Zero%20Economy%20Agency,of%20the%20net%20zero%20economy.">Net Zero Economy Agency</a>, created in July and chaired by former Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, could be charged with that task.</p>
<p>The first step is being taken – the <a href="https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/">Climate Change Authority</a> is now advising on emissions reduction targets for 2035 and perhaps beyond. The government’s work to create pathways to reducing emissions in every economic sector must be used to build a comprehensive set of policies that are directly linked to meeting the targets.</p>
<h2>How to get electricity moving in the right direction</h2>
<p>The electricity sector can be put on track with three actions. One, drive emissions reduction towards net zero using a sector-focused policy such as the <a href="https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/About-the-Renewable-Energy-Target">Renewable Energy Target</a> or the Safeguard Mechanism. </p>
<p>Two, implement the <a href="https://www.energy.gov.au/government-priorities/energy-supply/capacity-investment-scheme">Capacity Investment Scheme</a>, a policy intended to deliver dispatchable electricity capacity to balance a system built on intermittent wind and solar supply. </p>
<p>Three, set up a National Transmission Agency to work with the <a href="https://aemo.com.au/en">Australian Energy Market Operator</a> (AEMO) to plan the national transmission grid and with authority to direct, fund, and possibly own that grid.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/made-in-america-how-bidens-climate-package-is-fuelling-the-global-drive-to-net-zero-214709">Made in America: how Biden's climate package is fuelling the global drive to net zero</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For heavy industry, the scale and pace of change demands a 21st-century industry policy, in three parts. Activities such as coal mining will be essentially incompatible with a net-zero economy. Activities such as steel-making may be able to transform through economic, low-emissions technologies. </p>
<p>Finally, activities such as low-emissions extraction and processing of critical energy minerals, which are insignificant today but which in time could help Australia to capitalise on globally significant comparative advantages. </p>
<h2>Create a plan – and stick to it</h2>
<p>The government has made a good start by revising the Safeguard Mechanism and the <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/publications/australias-national-hydrogen-strategy">Hydrogen Strategy</a> and developing a <a href="https://www.globalaustralia.gov.au/industries/net-zero/critical-minerals#:%7E:text=Australia's%20Critical%20Mineral%20Strategy%202023,raw%20and%20processed%20critical%20minerals.">Critical Minerals Strategy</a>. These should be brought together in an overarching policy framework with consistent, targeted policies linked to clear goals, developed and executed in sustained collaboration with industry. </p>
<p>The Safeguard Mechanism will need to be extended beyond 2030 and its emissions threshold for the companies it covers lowered to 25,000 tonnes of emissions per year.</p>
<p>Industry funding will probably need to expand, and give priority to export-oriented industries that will grow in a net-zero global economy. And the federal and state governments should phase out all programs that encourage expansion of fossil fuel extraction or consumption.</p>
<p>In transport, long-delayed emissions standards should be set and implemented. Finally, government-funded research, some of it already underway, should focus on difficult areas such as early-stage emissions reduction technologies in specific heavy industries, transport subsectors, and emissions from grazing cattle and sheep.</p>
<p>There is little new or radical in the elements of this plan. What would be new is a commitment to its design and implementation. This is what government needs to do now. The consequences of failure are beyond our worst fears, the benefits of success beyond our best dreams.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213866/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Wood may have a financial interest in companies relevant to the article through his superannuation fund. </span></em></p>Australia’s move towards net zero emissoions by 2020 is in danger of stalling. If it is not to fail, the nation urgently needs a government plan, aligned with industry and with public support.Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/648192016-09-04T20:07:06Z2016-09-04T20:07:06ZThe Climate Change Authority report: a dissenting view<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136410/original/image-20160902-20238-1czc9fi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Climate Change Authority's latest report has divided its membership.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As Members of the Climate Change Authority who have participated fully in the <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/special-review/towards-climate-policy-toolkit-special-review-australias-climate-goals-and">Special Review of Australia’s Climate Goals and Policies</a>, we reached the conclusion, after much consideration, that we could not in good conscience lend our names to its report, published last week. </p>
<p>Rather than resign from the Authority we decided to write a minority report. Here we present edited extracts from our <a href="http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/cca-minority-report">report</a>, which is released today.</p>
<p>The basis of our disagreement with the majority report is its failure to recognise the importance of the constraint put on all future emissions-reduction targets and policies by Australia’s carbon budget. The carbon budget is the total emissions that Australia can release between now and 2050 while still contributing its fair share in holding the global temperature rise to less than 2°C – a key goal of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris climate agreement</a> negotiated last December.</p>
<p>The majority report should, but does not, address the relationship between its recommendations and Australia’s carbon budget, consistent with a fair and equitable national contribution to the global carbon budget. </p>
<p>This is all the more regrettable because the requirement to do so is embedded in the Special Review’s <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/files/special-review-request.pdf">terms of reference</a> and was analysed in the <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/special-review/first-draft-report">First Report of the Special Review</a> released in April 2015 (before the appointment of six new Members to the Authority in October 2015).</p>
<h2>The budget constraint</h2>
<p>In 2014 the Authority <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/targets-and-progress-review-3">recommended</a> an Australian emissions budget of 10.1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases for the period 2013-2050. On this basis, it advised that Australia should set an emissions-reduction trajectory for 2030 in the range of 45-65% below 2005 levels. Contrast that with the current 26-28% target <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-2030-climate-target-puts-us-in-the-race-but-at-the-back-45931">set by the Abbott government</a>.</p>
<p>Against the constraints of the carbon budget, the majority report accepts – explicitly in some places, implicitly in others – the government’s current target. </p>
<p>But accepting this less ambitious target for 2030 is consistent neither with the Authority’s own advice to government, nor with Australia’s commitment under the Paris Agreement to play its role in holding warming below 2°C.</p>
<p>The graph below shows the carbon budget for Australia put forward by the Climate Change Authority in its earlier report. (The budget is the area under the curve.) </p>
<p>The embedded pie chart shows the sliver of emissions that would remain to cover the 20-year period after 2030 if there is no change from the 26-28% target. More than 90% of Australia’s carbon budget to 2050 would be used up by 2030. Australia’s emissions would have to decline precipitously and reach net zero by 2035. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136401/original/image-20160902-20232-1dcd138.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136401/original/image-20160902-20232-1dcd138.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136401/original/image-20160902-20232-1dcd138.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136401/original/image-20160902-20232-1dcd138.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136401/original/image-20160902-20232-1dcd138.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136401/original/image-20160902-20232-1dcd138.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136401/original/image-20160902-20232-1dcd138.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136401/original/image-20160902-20232-1dcd138.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Keeping Australia’s current emissions targets in place would leave a huge amount of work to do after 2030.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Such a dramatic reduction would be impossible to achieve. So the current target of 26-28% lacks credibility because it is wholly inconsistent with Australia’s international obligations. If pursued it is likely to lead to a policy crisis within a decade or less. </p>
<h2>Political independence</h2>
<p>In our view, the failure of the majority report to make this clear to government and the public contravenes the Authority’s legislated obligation to deliver independent advice and to recommend measures that are “environmentally effective” and based on science. </p>
<p>We believe that the effect of the majority report will be to sanction further delay and a slow pace of action, with serious consequences for the nation. Those consequences include either very severe and costly emissions cuts in the mid-to-late 2020s, or alternatively a repudiation of Australia’s international commitments, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-the-us-and-europe-are-climate-free-riders-its-time-to-step-up-53953">free-riding</a> on the efforts of the rest of the world. </p>
<p>As we see it, the recommendations of the majority report are framed to suit a particular assessment of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-climate-change-authoritys-gamble-on-political-pragmatism-64745">prevailing political circumstances</a>. We believe it is inappropriate and often counterproductive to attempt to second-guess political negotiations, especially for a new and uncertain parliament. </p>
<p>The unduly narrow focus of the majority report, seemingly based on a reading from a political crystal ball, has ruled out policies, such as a strengthened renewables target and stronger land clearing restrictions, that have a proven capacity to respond most effectively to the nation’s climate change goals. </p>
<h2>Policy recommendations</h2>
<p>At the centre of the majority report’s recommendations is the retention of the current <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/direct-action-plan-5063">Direct Action policy</a> as the basis for further action. Its two pillars are the <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF)</a> and its incorporated <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund/about/safeguard-mechanism">Safeguard Mechanism</a>, which sets an upper limit on emissions from major polluters. </p>
<p>The report also recommends a new emissions trading scheme for electricity generation, based on an emissions-intensity baseline. Such a scheme would have lower price rises than the kind of cap-and-trade scheme favoured everywhere else in the world, and which Australia would have now if not for the Abbott government. After the rancour that engulfed the carbon price, the intensity-based scheme is presumably seen as more appealing to nervous politicians.</p>
<p>The majority report downplays the drawbacks of emissions-intensity schemes and the Safeguard Mechanism. There is not space to discuss them here, but we would like to comment on the flaws in the ERF because the majority report recommends that it be hugely expanded.</p>
<h2>Flaws in the ERF</h2>
<p>Under an expanded ERF policy, the cost to the federal budget would increase sharply, and even more so if Australia adopted tougher emissions targets in line with the science. Using the ERF in this way would be, in <a href="https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/rossgarnaut/files/2016/01/SENATE-COMMITTEE-Ross-Garnaut-070314-rek812.pdf">Professor Ross Garnaut’s words</a>, “an immense drain on the budget”. </p>
<p>We believe it is unwise to make Australia’s climate policy hostage to disputes over fiscal policy.</p>
<p>As a rule, the replacement of the widely accepted “polluter pays” principle with the ERF’s “pay the polluter” principle is bad economics, bad ethics and bad policy. The practical drawbacks include the need for an expert bureaucracy to evaluate each prospective project and then to monitor, over several years, each successful project to ensure that the promised emissions reductions actually happen. </p>
<p>There are also serious and continuing concerns about the issue of “additionality”. Under the ERF, it is hard to know whether the Commonwealth is wasting money by paying for emissions reductions that would have taken place anyway – that is, projects that are not additional. Bear in mind that businesses plan energy-saving projects all the time, so why wouldn’t they try to get a subsidy if one is on offer?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.tai.org.au/content/poll-electorate-reject-arena-cuts-backs-new-mechanism-retire-coal">Surveys show</a> that a large majority of Australians want stronger action to reduce Australia’s emissions. The role of the Climate Change Authority is to advise on how that desire can be realised, in a way that is consistent with the best scientific and economic evidence.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The full minority report can be read <a href="http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/cca-minority-report">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64819/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Karoly receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He also shares in funding from the European Commission for his role as a Research Director in the EU Centre on Shared Complex Challenges at the University of Melbourne. He is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Hamilton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Two members of the Climate Change Authority offer an alternative view on its latest report, arguing that the recommendations are not in line with Australia’s international climate obligations.Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics, Centre For Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt UniversityDavid Karoly, Professor of Atmospheric Science, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/647452016-09-01T20:17:45Z2016-09-01T20:17:45ZThe Climate Change Authority’s gamble on political pragmatism<p>The Climate Change Authority’s <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/special-review/towards-climate-policy-toolkit-special-review-australias-climate-goals-and">latest report outlining a recommended climate policy “toolkit”</a> is a reflection of what is seen by many as politically feasible in Australia now. But it is piecemeal and lacks a vision for the longer-term policy framework needed to get Australia on track to a low-carbon economy. </p>
<p>After years of political fighting over carbon pricing, a conventional emissions trading scheme - the instrument of choice in many other countries - is widely seen as politically impossible in Australia. And both major parties are scared of any policy that is seen as raising electricity prices. </p>
<p>The CCA seems to take this political situation as a starting point, and makes a series of judgements about specific policy options. The intent clearly is to help policy progress in the medium term. But it risks locking in a policy suite that will not deliver much, or may cost too much. </p>
<p>If the CCA’s recommendations are misconstrued as being ambitious, we could end up with policy that falls far short of these recommendations. And if its political judgements are off the mark, the CCA’s specific recommendations could become an obstacle for the government’s 2017 policy review. </p>
<h2>Electricity intensity scheme</h2>
<p>The CCA’s “toolkit” suggests a mix of different policy instruments for different sectors of the economy, with quite specific suggestions in some areas and less detail in others.</p>
<p>For the power sector, the recommendation is for an “emissions intensity scheme”, designed to create a carbon price signal in electricity production while limiting the effect on power prices. This is its main selling-point: it would result in less price uplift than a standard emissions trading scheme or carbon tax. </p>
<p>The flipside is that this does not encourage households and businesses to save energy, and so without other interventions it will be less efficient. </p>
<p>Another serious downside is that the government earns no money from the scheme because all permits are given out for free to industry. So there is no source of income to cut other taxes and help low-income households, as there was under the Gillard government’s carbon price.</p>
<p>Such a power sector scheme is in line with what <a href="https://theconversation.com/policycheck-labors-phased-emissions-trading-scheme-58496">Labor took to July’s election</a>, so there may be hope for bipartisanship. It is a scheme you choose if you are afraid of political backlash over power prices, and if you are prepared to forego fiscal revenue. </p>
<p>Its effectiveness will depend on its credibility and ambition. The CCA envisages it as a stand-alone scheme without trading links (except possibly sales of “white certificates” from energy efficiency schemes). The CCA recommends baselines going linearly to zero before 2050, which could drive significant change in power generation. But whatever trajectory is mandated is certain to be economically less efficient than a standard emissions trading scheme with flexibility between sectors and over time. </p>
<h2>Renewables, innovation and coal exit</h2>
<p>The report notes that uncertainty over the future of an emissions intensity scheme “could affect investor confidence” and cause cost increases and delays, and that this is an argument for continued support for renewable energy deployment policies. However it recommends that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/renewable-energy-target-8912">Renewable Energy Target</a> not be continued beyond the present commitment to new investments until 2020 and support for existing plants until 2030. </p>
<p>On innovation for low-emissions technologies, the CCA calls for government support both through debt and equity funding, as well as public funding for research, development and demonstration. The former is currently done through the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/">Clean Energy Finance Corporation</a>, the latter by the <a href="http://arena.gov.au/">Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)</a>. This recommendation runs counter the government’s present plan – possibly supported by Labor – to <a href="https://theconversation.com/cutting-arena-would-devastate-clean-energy-research-64586">withdraw A$1.3 billion in funding from ARENA</a>. </p>
<p>Mechanisms to facilitate closure of high emissions power stations have received much support in the debate over the last year. The idea of a <a href="http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_A-Switch-In-Time_Final.pdf">regulated closure scheme</a> is rejected by the CCA, on the basis of modelling of a version of the proposal that would not allow any flexibility. The proposal for a <a href="https://ccep.crawford.anu.edu.au/department-news/7022/phasing-out-emissions-intensive-power-stations">market-based scheme to help shut down the highest-emitting power stations</a> is mentioned only in the CCA’s accompanying <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/special-review/special-review-electricity-research-report">electricity report</a>, where it is dismissed without analysis. </p>
<h2>Emissions Reduction Fund and more complexity</h2>
<p>Outside the power sector the CCA proposes evolving the existing <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF)</a>, a patchy scheme of subsidies paid to businesses for projects presumed to cut emissions. </p>
<p>It suggests that industries that burn fossil fuels or otherwise release greenhouse gases should be covered by an ERF with “enhanced safeguards”. Companies that exceed a specific benchmark emissions intensity (falling over time) would have to buy emissions credits, while companies can earn credits for projects that meet the ERF’s criteria. But companies that remain below the benchmark and do not engage in projects would not be involved at all and have no incentive to cut emissions. </p>
<p>The government would continue to buy credits from land sector projects. This means continued payments of taxpayer dollars to businesses, and continued <a href="https://theconversation.com/direct-action-not-giving-us-bang-for-our-buck-on-climate-change-59308">doubts over whether the emissions reductions are real</a>. </p>
<p>For energy efficiency, yet another approach is recommended, by harmonising existing state-based “white certificate” schemes that award credits for energy savings, and then feeding those credits back into the electricity supply scheme. Selective efficiency standards are also supported, along with emissions standards for cars and perhaps trucks.</p>
<h2>Setting our sights higher</h2>
<p>The CCA’s report focuses heavily on Australia’s existing emissions target, of a 26-28% reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. But in reality, Australia will have to do more as part of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris Agreement</a> ratcheting process. The existing target is too weak to meet the Paris deal’s global warming limit of below 2°C. The goal must be a net zero-emission economy around mid-century.</p>
<p>The more hodge-podge our climate policy regime, the weaker the signals to promote investment in modern, clean technologies. The incrementalism of the CCA’s proposed approach contrasts starkly with the need to drive a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-can-get-to-zero-carbon-emissions-and-grow-the-economy-32015">fundamental transformation to a low-carbon economy</a>, and is at odds with the Authority’s own <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/targets-and-progress-review-3">recommended carbon budget</a>.</p>
<p>An apt comparison is with Australia’s economic reforms of the 1980s. The road to success was fundamental change such as floating the dollar and dismantling tariffs, not timid tinkering. Today, neither side of politics shows such vision or determination. So it is all the more important that independent bodies raise everyone’s sights to the larger possibilities. </p>
<h2>The CCA’s judgements</h2>
<p>The “policy toolkit” report is not supported by two of the CCA’s board members, Clive Hamilton and David Karoly, who have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/30/climate-change-authority-splits-over-ets-report-commissioned-by-coalition">made it known that they will issue a dissenting minority report</a>. </p>
<p>Under its previous board the CCA provided strongly principled advice for ambitious climate policy, such as its recommendations for emissions targets and a carbon budget. A report on climate policy instruments that put principle over political circumstance would almost inevitably recommend a comprehensive carbon pricing scheme as its core. </p>
<p>The hope for this week’s report is that it might help achieve some convergence on climate policy, albeit at a lower denominator, and encourage the government to embark on reform. </p>
<p>The initial signals from the government are not positive. Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/01/josh-frydenberg-rejects-climate-change-authority-calls-for-tougher-emissions-limits">quick to distance the government from the report</a>. He said that there are no plans to change baselines for the “safeguards”, which would be required for the main aspects of the CCA plan. </p>
<p>Meanwhile the CCA has ruled out a number of options, making it harder for the government to pick up these options if it wanted to. </p>
<p>The pragmatic gamble could backfire.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64745/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Jotzo has received grant funding from various organisation including the Australian government. He has been a member of various advisory bodies. None of the funding or affiliations impinges on the subject of this article. </span></em></p>A new “toolkit” of suggested climate policies looks politically feasible, but it’s too complicated and not ambitious enough to drive a real move to a low-carbon economy.Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/473662015-09-11T06:08:27Z2015-09-11T06:08:27ZIgnored by the government, shrunk by resignations – where now for Australia’s Climate Change Authority?<p>Bernie Fraser’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/bernie-fraser-quits-climate-change-authority-after-difficulties-with-hunt-47228">resignation</a> as chairman of Australia’s <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/">Climate Change Authority</a> has left many wondering what is left of it and what its future might be.</p>
<p>Established three years ago as part of the climate change package negotiated by the previous parliament’s Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, the Authority was formed to serve as the principal source of climate policy advice to the federal government, particularly on the issue of emissions targets. Championed by the then Greens deputy leader Christine Milne, it was modelled closely on Britain’s <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/">Committee on Climate Change</a>.</p>
<p>The Authority is legislated to have nine part-time members, including the Chief Scientist <em>ex officio</em>. When the Abbott government was elected two years ago it expressed its intention to abolish the Authority along with the rest of the Labor government’s climate policy architecture. </p>
<p>Unlike the former Climate Commission, which had a public education role (and since losing government backing has morphed into the independent <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/">Climate Council</a>), the Authority was established by legislation as a statutory authority.</p>
<p>The government could not obtain sufficient support in the Senate to abolish the Authority. In particular, Palmer United Party leader Clive Palmer struck a deal with the government in which he would support the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/carbon-tax-repeal">carbon tax repeal</a> but <a href="https://theconversation.com/palmer-will-repeal-carbon-tax-but-rejects-other-parts-of-abbotts-package-28457">not the abolition of the Climate Change Authority</a>.</p>
<p>With the Authority saved, Palmer said he wanted the government to instruct it to assess whether Australia should have an emissions trading system at some time in the future, and what conditions should trigger its introduction, taking special note of the policies of Australia’s major trading partners.</p>
<p>The government agreed to Palmer’s request to extend funding for the Authority. Continued funding was essential in order to sustain the Authority’s secretariat, based in Melbourne, which at its peak reached around 35 but now <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/about-cca/corporate-plans/corporate-plan-2015-16">stands at around 25</a>. On its formation the Authority attracted some of the best and brightest to work for it.</p>
<h2>The job at hand</h2>
<p>As a result of the Palmer deal the Authority is now conducting a <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/node/293">major review</a> of an emissions trading system (the kind of system that would have entered into force on July 1, 2015 under Labor’s Carbon Price Mechanism), with a draft report due on November 30. The final report is due, after public consultation on the draft, by June 30, 2016.</p>
<p>While this work is important, the Authority’s most significant project was its 2014 <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/targets-and-progress-review-3">Targets and Progress Review</a>, which recommended that Australia should set an emissions reduction target of 19% below 2000 levels by 2020, and cut emissions by 40-60% by 2030.</p>
<p>This year the Authority revisited its recommendations after the Abbott government set up a <a href="http://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Issues_Paper_greenhouse_gas_1.pdf">committee within the Prime Minister’s department</a> to advise it on a target for Australia to take to the crucial <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/paris-2015-climate-summit">United Nations Paris climate summit</a> in December. The Authority published a brief report reiterating its earlier recommended targets, adding that Australia should <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-authority-calls-for-30-emissions-cut-by-2025-40554">cut its emissions by 30% by 2025</a>. </p>
<p>The Government subsequently announced it would <a href="https://www.dpmc.gov.au/taskforces/unfccc">pledge to cut Australia’s emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030</a>, which for comparison with the Authority’s recommendation is equivalent to 19-22% below 2000 levels.</p>
<h2>Resignations</h2>
<p>Although the government could not act on its wish to abolish the Authority, it made it clear that it would not listen to its advice (although it does seem to have been influenced by its recommendations on vehicle emissions standards and international permits). In this situation, four members of the Authority last year notified environment minister Greg Hunt of their resignations. </p>
<p>The other four appointed members (including myself) took the view that the Authority exists to serve the parliament, as well as the government, and as long as the parliament wants it to continue and the Authority can do useful work, they would carry on in their roles. </p>
<p>They also took the view that the Authority’s reports play an important role in providing independent advice to the public. This has proved true with the Authority’s recommended emission reduction targets being viewed widely as the benchmark against which the government’s targets should be evaluated.</p>
<p>Such a situation of course sets up tensions between the Authority and the government. Fraser’s job, as chairman, of liaising with Hunt became increasingly difficult, an issue perhaps illustrated by the <a href="http://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-daily-telegraph-sydney/20150810/">story in the Daily Telegraph</a> that claimed the Authority’s modelling gave a projected cost of Labor’s carbon policy of A$600 billion – a claim that the Authority <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-authority-head-bernie-fraser-issues-blistering-rebuke-to-abbott-government-20150814-gizh1f.html">rejected</a>.</p>
<p>Bernie Fraser’s extraordinary stature as a public servant (he served with distinction as Treasury Secretary and Governor of the Reserve Bank) lent authority to the work of the Authority in a way few others could. </p>
<p>His resignation is a blow, yet the work of the Authority will continue. </p>
<p>For more than a year the Government has chosen not to replace the four members who resigned soon after it took office. There is a logic to this – after all, it has said it has no confidence in the Authority, so why spend public funds on new appointments? And perhaps the most relevant question is: who would agree to be appointed by the government in such a situation anyway?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47366/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Hamilton is a Member of the Climate Change Authority. The opinions expressed here are his personal views and should not be taken to be those of the Authority.</span></em></p>The Climate Change Authority, rocked by this week’s resignation of its chairman Bernie Fraser but saved last year by the Senate, will continue reviewing climate policy - even if its advice is ignored.Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics, Centre For Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405332015-04-21T20:12:38Z2015-04-21T20:12:38ZReport calls for emissions cuts, but plays down the opportunities<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78742/original/image-20150421-9051-1mmyqez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C2%2C1780%2C1157&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scaling back coalmining is one way Australia could make big progress towards its emissions targets.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACSIRO_ScienceImage_174_A_Coal_Dredge.jpg">CSIRO/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia should cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2000 levels by 2025, according to a <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/prod.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/files/reviews/ret/2015draft/Australia%27s%20future%20emissions%20reduction%20targets%281%29.pdf">draft recommendation</a> released by the Climate Change Authority today. </p>
<p>Australia will need to put a solid emissions target for 2025 on the table for international credibility on climate change. The Authority’s recommendation is justified on principle but will likely be unacceptable to the government. </p>
<p>Meanwhile the Authority gives surprisingly little heed to the opportunities for Australia of a low-emissions economy, instead highlighting international emissions trading. </p>
<h1>The post-2020 target game</h1>
<p>Under the United Nations climate negotiations, all countries are called on to submit an emissions commitment for the period after 2020 in the coming months. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-2015-climate-summit-countries-targets-beyond-2020-38427">United States, European Union and some other countries have already announced their targets</a> and China has announced the outlines of its contribution. </p>
<p>What would it mean for Australia to pull its weight? The Climate Change Authority, the independent statutory body to advise on emissions targets and policies, factored three aspects into its recommendation today: Australia’s relative capacity to afford action to reduce emissions, the nation’s responsibility to do so, and the effort required to meet the target. </p>
<p>Australia is right up at the top end of per person income, indicating strong capacity to act. </p>
<p>It is similar for responsibility: Australia emits the highest amount of greenhouse gases per person among the major developed countries. And add self-interest: as a country that is highly vulnerable to climate change, Australia has much to gain from global action.</p>
<h1>How hard is it to cut emissions in Australia?</h1>
<p>That leaves the question of effort. As Australia’s Ambassador for the Environment, Peter Woolcott, pointed out at a recent <a href="https://ccep.crawford.anu.edu.au/events/5318/australias-post-2020-emissions-target">public forum at ANU Crawford School</a>, views will diverge about “what Australia can realistically achieve given its unique national circumstances and characteristics, including its resource endowment, and economic and population growth”. </p>
<p>It is a fair guess that the government will point to Australia’s ample <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/tony-abbott-says-coal-is-good-for-humanity-while-opening-mine">endowment with fossil fuels</a>, relatively high population growth and the expectation of continued economic growth as justifications for going for a lower target than other countries. </p>
<p>The recommended 30% target translates into large reductions in per capita emissions and in the emissions intensity of Australia’s GDP. But as the Authority’s report shows (in Figure 3 of its report, see below), Australia’s per capita emissions and emissions intensity at 2025 would still be much higher than those of the United States and more than twice Europe’s, under their respective targets. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78734/original/image-20150421-9038-1cjh127.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78734/original/image-20150421-9038-1cjh127.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78734/original/image-20150421-9038-1cjh127.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=680&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78734/original/image-20150421-9038-1cjh127.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=680&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78734/original/image-20150421-9038-1cjh127.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=680&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78734/original/image-20150421-9038-1cjh127.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=855&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78734/original/image-20150421-9038-1cjh127.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=855&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78734/original/image-20150421-9038-1cjh127.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=855&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Climate Change Authority</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the world gradually turns away from emissions-intensive development, the national-interest case for such reductions strengthens.</p>
<h2>The coal question</h2>
<p>What about resource endowment, specifically the abundance of coal in Australia? </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/carbon-reduction-in-asia-will-punch/6408204">resources boom</a> is coming to a halt, and growth in mining and energy extraction will be slower than expected.</p>
<p>Energy use and emissions in resource industries will grow more slowly or tail off. The government’s most recent <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-projections">projections</a> of slower underlying emissions growth bear this out. </p>
<p>And most importantly, as a country with high coal use and relatively low energy efficiency, Australia has much more room to manoeuvre than other countries that do not rely so much on coal or where energy productivity is already much higher. Phase out coal and stop wasting energy, and we get big reductions in emissions. </p>
<p>A solid international commitment underpinned by clever policy could create many new opportunities for economic growth.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, it is difficult to conceive that the government will decide on a target that is stronger in nominal terms than that of the United States. </p>
<h1>Australia can cut emissions deeply, cheaply, with benefits</h1>
<p>That is not to say that stronger cuts are out of reach, either technically or economically. </p>
<p>Our recent study with ClimateWorks Australia on <a href="http://www.climateworksaustralia.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/climateworks_pdd2050_initialreport_20140923.pdf">Deep Decarbonisation Pathways</a>, which built on modelling by CSIRO and Victoria University, showed that Australia can cut emissions deeply and do so while maintaining strong economic growth. </p>
<p>The scenario gets Australia’s net national emissions to zero by 2050. That is on the basis of zero-carbon electricity supply drawing on Australia’s ample endowment and technical potential for renewables, shift from direct fuel use to electricity, and economically valuable improvements in energy efficiency and industrial processes.</p>
<p>Remaining emissions – many of them from agriculture and mining for export – are fully offset by carbon plantations. </p>
<p>For 2025, the modelling shows a one-third cut below year 2000 levels, and a halving to 2030. The estimated economic costs are modest and major changes in Australia’s economic structure would be unlikely as a result. </p>
<p>Reviewing the major reports produced over the last eight years in a <a href="http://www.wwf.org.au/?13220/Media-release-for-Emissions-report">report</a> for WWF Australia released yesterday, we found that the estimated costs of future emissions reductions in Australia fell in every successive modelling exercise. </p>
<p>A major reason is that the outlook for many zero-carbon technologies keeps improving and costs are falling. For example, the cost of solar cell power stations is now already only about half what the Australian Treasury projected it to be in the year 2030 in modelling done in 2008.</p>
<p>Add to that co-benefits from going to low-carbon technologies including less local pollution, <a href="http://www.vivideconomics.com/publications/energy-efficiency-and-economic-growth">economy-wide productivity benefits from energy efficiency</a>, and the possibility for Australia to gain a new comparative advantage in low-carbon industries of the future.</p>
<h1>Trading makes life easy – and might miss part of the point</h1>
<p>But the Climate Change Authority does not even call for most of the actual emissions reductions to be made in Australia. It sees international trading in emissions units as a legitimate and possibly large part of the overall contribution. </p>
<p>Modelling for its earlier <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/reviews/targets-and-progress-review-3">report</a> has purchases of international units playing a decisive part in meeting future reduction targets. </p>
<p>As long as it is assured that such trading amounts to actual investment in emissions reductions in other countries where cuts can be achieved at lower cost, this is sensible. </p>
<p>But if international trade is used to avoid domestic transition towards a cleaner economy, this would mean missing out on broader benefits. </p>
<h1>Pie in the sky, yet really not so bold</h1>
<p>And so the Climate Change Authority’s recommendations are simultaneously more ambitious than the government will be prepared to accept, and not so ambitious by way of assuming that international emissions trading may mean no deep emissions cuts domestically. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, the central issue is not what number government picks, but what steps will be taken towards a lower-emissions economy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40533/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Jotzo is chief investigator of current projects at ANU funded by the Australian government and WWF Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Howard Bamsey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Climate Change Authority has recommended Australia cut greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2000 levels by 2025. While sensible, the government is unlikely to accept, and the target misses bigger opportunities to cut emissions.Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National UniversityHoward Bamsey, Adjunct Professor, Regulatory institutions Network, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/357172014-12-22T05:32:38Z2014-12-22T05:32:38ZClimate Change Authority calls for delayed renewables deadline<p>The Climate Change Authority has recommended that the government move back the deadline for the large-scale Renewable Energy Target by three years, from 2020 to 2023, rather than risk jeopardising investment by reducing the target itself.</p>
<p>The recommendation was made in one of two reviews released by the authority today, covering two climate policies: the <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/node/267">Renewable Energy Target (RET)</a>, and the now defunct <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/node/271">Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI)</a> together with its successor, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF)</a>. </p>
<h2>Renewables: defer, don’t cut</h2>
<p>The CCA’s <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/node/267">key recommendations for renewables</a> are that the large-scale RET, which calls for Australia to have 41,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy capacity by 2020, should be maintained, but the target year deferred by three years. Meanwhile, the authority recommends that the small-scale Renewable Energy Target, which offers subsidies for domestic solar power, should be left as it is.</p>
<p>The recommendations contrast with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/review-calls-for-renewable-energy-target-cuts-what-it-means-29787">Warburton review</a> of the RET, released in August, which called for cuts to the large-scale target, and the government’s subsequent policy announcement that it wanted to <a href="https://theconversation.com/planned-cut-to-renewable-energy-target-a-free-kick-for-fossil-fuels-33317">cut the target to around 27,000 GWh</a>.</p>
<p>The new review carefully points out that the original RET objective was for renewables to deliver at least 20% of the then-projected electricity supply by 2020. But the authority adds that it does not see anything “magic” about the idea of implementing a so-called “real 20%”, or indeed in targeting any particular percentage of future demand. </p>
<p>The CCA has emphasised the importance of stable signals for the growth of renewable electricity to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and the risks for both the renewable industry and society created by uncertainty over the target.</p>
<p>The review says that slashing the RET will do little to solve the current problems of excess electricity generation capacity, in that it won’t save the existing electricity generators from the pain of managing excess capacity. </p>
<p>Indeed, it seems obvious that, if the RET is cut, the electricity industry, governments and some commentators will lose a convenient scapegoat, and will be exposed to even more sceptical public scrutiny over electricity prices. Meanwhile, renewable energy growth would lose its momentum, at significant cost to Australian efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>While the government seems likely to ignore the CCA’s advice, its efforts to protect the existing electricity industry by attacking renewable energy seem doomed to failure. Already, several state and territory governments (such as those of the ACT and South Australia) and consortia of local councils (including the City of Melbourne and others) are filling the gap by seeking bids for renewable electricity supply. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the takeup of rooftop solar panels continues to grow, while electricity demand continues to decline. Multi-level democracy at work!</p>
<h2>Keep farming carbon</h2>
<p>In its <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/node/271">other review released today</a>, the CCA concludes that the original Carbon Farming Initiative – which provided incentives to cut emissions in sectors such as agriculture, landfill and forestry that are unsuited to carbon trading – did its job reasonably well. </p>
<p>Established by the previous government to complement carbon pricing, the review estimates that the initiative cut Australian greenhouse gas emissions by 10 million tonnes in its four years of operation. But the authority says it involved intense administrative work and had high transaction costs.</p>
<p>CCA observes that many lessons seem to have been taken on board from the CFI for application to the government’s new Emissions Reduction Fund, which is basically an expansion of that approach. However, the ERF is still an administratively complex, expensive and risky approach with limited potential to cut emissions beyond a few percent. </p>
<p>The Authority recommends that extra attention be paid to ensuring that larger projects actually deliver emissions cuts beyond what would have happened anyway: otherwise Australian tax payers would just be paying for “hot air”. </p>
<h2>Unwelcome advice?</h2>
<p>Both of the CCA’s reports seems to confirm the view that “polluter pays” policies such as carbon pricing are more efficient, cheaper and more effective than “pay the polluter” policies such as the ERF. Given that the government this year repealed the carbon price and introduced the ERF, the government is hardly likely to welcome this advice.</p>
<p>It is unfortunate that these two reports, along with several other important reports (such as Pitt&Sherry’s <a href="http://www.sa.gov.au/topics/water-energy-and-environment/energy/government-energy-efficiency-initiatives/national-energy-efficient-building-project">building energy regulation report</a>), have been released just before Christmas, when many specialist media commentators are on leave and many people’s attentions are focused elsewhere.</p>
<p>Of course, this is a long-held tradition among governments of all persuasions, aimed at minimising the negative impacts of inconvenient information. We will have to wait until the new year to see whether the government heeds the Climate Change Authority’s advice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35717/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Pears has carried out consulting work for many sustainable energy organisations and provides policy advice to a variety of organisations. At present he has no paid roles for such organisations. He is an honorary adviser to the Energy Efficiency Council, Climate Alliance and Alternative Technology Association</span></em></p>The Climate Change Authority has recommended that the government move back the deadline for the large-scale Renewable Energy Target by three years, from 2020 to 2023, rather than risk jeopardising investment…Alan Pears, Sustainable Energy & Climate Researcher, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/337142014-11-02T10:55:48Z2014-11-02T10:55:48ZTerms of reference give Climate Change Authority’s emissions trading inquiry a wide remit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63435/original/m6z32k5y-1414924725.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Greg Hunt is trying to downplay the scope of the climate authority's inquiry. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Environment Minister Greg Hunt has played down the inquiry the government has accepted into emissions trading, but examination of the detail in its terms of reference suggests it shouldn’t be underestimated.</p>
<p>The inquiry was the condition Clive Palmer extracted for PUP support of the direct action legislation, and focus has been on spending taxpayers’ funds on something the Coalition says it will never implement under any circumstances.</p>
<p>Hunt cast the inquiry narrowly on Sunday, telling Sky that Palmer’s request was “to have a review of what other countries are doing. I was very happy to do that”.</p>
<p>But other countries’ schemes are only the start of it. The terms of reference for the review, to be undertaken by the Climate Change Authority, cover almost everything about an ETS and more.</p>
<p>It will “assess whether Australia should have an emission trading scheme in the future and what conditions should trigger the introduction of such a scheme”.</p>
<p>The review must consider:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Whether the USA, China, Japan, South Korea, and the EU have established emissions trading schemes or equivalent schemes;</p></li>
<li><p>Australia’s international commitments and undertakings under the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol;</p></li>
<li><p>Whether Australia should introduce an ETS that does not harm businesses’ international competitiveness.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The review is also to consider what future emissions reduction targets Australia should commit to as part of an effective and equitable global effort to achieve the objective of the UNFCCC and subsequent agreements to which it is a party.</p>
<p>It has three reporting dates – and look at the detail of what each report is to cover.</p>
<p>By June 30 the authority is to issue a draft report, for public consultation, on what future targets Australia should agree to. This is in good time before the December Paris climate conference that will consider post-2020 targets.</p>
<p>By November 30 it will produce a draft report on an ETS, for public discussion.</p>
<p>Its final report, due by June 30, 2016, will be on “what action Australia should take to implement outcomes flowing from the [Paris] conference”.</p>
<p>Part of the deal also was that the government would appoint one person nominated by PUP and agreed to by the government as an associate member of the authority for the review.</p>
<p>The authority is headed by Bernie Fraser, former head of Treasury and former Reserve Bank governor. He was appointed to his position by Labor and believes carbon pricing should be part of the “policy toolbox” to tackle emissions.</p>
<p>It is true the government can and no doubt will ignore the recommendations of the authority. But the review can potentially affect the climate debate next year and in the run-up to the election.</p>
<p>Hunt noted on Sunday that the Australia Institute had been involved in the negotiations for the deal. Key Institute players are its head Richard Denniss and Ben Oquist, its strategy director who was right-hand man to former Greens leader Bob Brown (and for a while to Christine Milne). Oquist now informally but actively advises Palmer, while keeping channels open across the spectrum.</p>
<p>Denniss and Oquist – who back carbon pricing and deep emission cuts – wanted to see direct action passed with modifications as the best that can be achieved at the moment. They want maximum pressure applied on the issue of post-2020 targets and to keep emissions trading on the agenda. Via Palmer, they have achieved a remarkable amount.</p>
<p>They’ve also indirectly helped Bill Shorten, who has said he will take emissions trading to the 2016 election. The inquiry will produce a great amount of authoritative data as Labor prepares its policy. It would be surprising if it did not come down in favour of emissions trading, which would back Shorten’s case. But if it did not, that would provide political cover for a Labor retreat in the event the opposition decided one was necessary.</p>
<p>Palmer – who originally said he’d never support the direct action legislation and had a starting point of a “dormant” ETS – rejects the proposition he has just folded.</p>
<p>He says changes were made to the legislation and the ETS debate has been kept alive for the election.</p>
<p>“Some people in Labor would have liked to put it to bed,” he told The Conversation last night. If in two years direct action hasn’t achieved progress towards the target of 5% emission reductions (on 2000 levels), he predicts there will be a “groundswell” for an ETS. “We believe the final [Climate Change Authority] report will be very positive towards an ETS, which will make it a strong political issue” at the election.</p>
<p>Hunt on Sunday again expressed confidence that the direct action program will enable the government to achieve the promised 5% target by 2020. He would not speculate on what target Australia would put forward for post-2020.</p>
<p>The initial auctions under the Emissions Reduction Fund would be held in the first quarter of next year, he said. The pipeline of abatement projects was greater than expected. “My message to business, to farmers and to households is very clear – the Emissions Reduction Fund is open for business. We are looking for abatement … I think that that’s a very positive way of reducing emissions, as opposed to an electricity tax.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33714/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has played down the inquiry the government has accepted into emissions trading, but examination of the detail in its terms of reference suggests it shouldn’t be underestimated…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/336422014-10-31T02:00:24Z2014-10-31T02:00:24ZDirect Action’s here, but how will Australia cut carbon after 2020?<p>With the passage of the Emissions Reduction Fund <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/direct-action-climate-plan-passes-the-senate-with-help-from-palmer-united-party-20141031-3j9bq.html">through the Senate</a> last night, the federal government has taken a step towards achieving Australia’s minimum target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 2000 levels by 2020. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/emissions-reduction-fund-white-paper">Emissions Reduction Fund</a> is the centrepiece of the Coalition’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/direct-action-plan">Direct Action plan</a>, which will replace the <a href="https://theconversation.com/obituary-australias-carbon-price-29217">Carbon Pricing Mechanism</a> repealed in July this year. </p>
<p>But questions remain over how Australia will achieve the post-2020 transition to a decarbonised economy by mid-century. Avoiding dangerous levels of climate change is the reason for emissions reductions policy. </p>
<h2>Glimpses of an ETS</h2>
<p>We now know that we have a limited “carbon budget” that means emissions must be close to zero by 2050. The carbon budget is well described by the <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/node/181/">Climate Change Authority</a> which fortunately was <a href="https://theconversation.com/palmer-deal-gives-green-light-to-direct-action-experts-react-33601">retained in a deal</a> between the coalition and the Palmer United Party to see the fund through the upper house . </p>
<p>The deal also provides a review into emissions trading schemes (ETS) and Australia’s future target or cap.</p>
<p>It has frustrated many to see a working emissions trading scheme abolished only to commence a new review into an ETS. Still, this shows that the ETS is a topic that won’t die. </p>
<p>Glimpses of an ETS exist in the deal. The promise of a safeguard which acts as a cap on large emitters as part of the Emissions Reduction Fund deal could over time be strengthened to match the decarbonising trajectory needed. Shortfalls could possibly be met by buying abatement units achieved by others. </p>
<h2>Meeting a 2020 target</h2>
<p>Both of Australia’s major parties have agreed to a minimum national target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 2000 levels by 2020. The Emissions Reduction Fund is the Federal Government’s signature policy to achieve this minimum target.</p>
<p>The fund involves direct payments made by the government to businesses who agree to take actions to emit fewer greenhouse gases than expected. It will achieve this through an auctioning process whereby business can “bid” with their emissions reduction projects, and the projects that can reduce emissions at the lowest cost are paid to do so.</p>
<p>ClimateWorks’ <a href="http://www.climateworksaustralia.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/climateworks_submission_to_emissions_reduction_fund_consultation_20131118_final.pdf">previous research</a> suggests that, if well designed, the fund could effectively fund some emissions reduction opportunities in Australia. </p>
<p>In particular, it could be suitable to fund projects that deliver large reductions in emissions at reasonable cost through technologically proven methods, including projects to:</p>
<ul>
<li>Capture waste methane from coal mines, preventing the gas from escaping into the atmosphere</li>
<li>Undertake deep retrofits of commercial buildings and industrial facilities to make them more energy efficient</li>
<li>Take carbon out of the atmosphere through “carbon farming” – agriculture, afforestation (planting trees) and reduced deforestation.</li>
</ul>
<p>According to the government’s <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1f98a924-5946-404c-9510-d440304280f1/files/emissions-reduction-fund-white-paper_0.pdf">Emissions Reduction Fund White Paper</a>, the fund will have a budget of A$2.55 billion, with further funding to be considered in future budgets. The adequacy of the budget for the task remains a question.</p>
<h2>Beyond 2020</h2>
<p>The Emissions Reduction Fund is currently only designed to incentivise emissions reductions between now and 2020, with a view to meeting the 5% target.</p>
<p>However, even if this target is met, the far bigger question is how Australia will achieve the fundamental transition to a low carbon economy, which we now know will be required globally and in Australia by the middle of this century.</p>
<p>In particular, a major transition is needed in energy systems, and these investments need longer timeframes than the next five years. The <a href="http://unsdsn.org/what-we-do/deep-decarbonization-pathways/">Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation</a> project report, which was presented to world leaders at the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-view-from-the-2014-un-climate-summit-in-new-york-32118">UN Climate Summit</a> in New York, shows that near-zero carbon energy systems are feasible for all major emitting countries, while sustaining economic growth.</p>
<p>Australia’s pathways are detailed in an additional <a href="http://www.climateworksaustralia.org/project/current-project/pathways-deep-decarbonisation-2050-how-australia-can-prosper-low-carbon">national report</a> which shows that Australia has abundant renewable energy options and can achieve near-zero carbon electricity through renewables alone.</p>
<p>Alternatively, a mix of renewables, carbon capture and storage and/or nuclear could be used. This low carbon electricity could then replace petrol and diesel in cars and passenger transport and replace gas used for cooking, heating and cooling buildings. Gas would be used in trucks replacing diesel, and gas would be the main fossil fuel used in industry. Some of this can be shifted to bioenergy or sequestered with carbon capture and storage, and the rest sequestered with carbon forestry.</p>
<p>Australia’s report sees a 71% reduction in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from energy, while the economy grows by almost 150% by 2050 and retains mining and manufacturing, in a world that is also decarbonising. </p>
<p>To reduce the remaining emissions to stay within Australia’s share of keeping warming below the “safe” threshold of 2C, a large increase in land-based carbon sequestration is needed to complement the energy use transition.</p>
<h2>How to decarbonise by 2050</h2>
<p>The Deep Decarbonisation Pathways reports show that it is possible to transition to a decarbonised economy by 2050, but that this would require a rapid acceleration in activity in all sectors of the economy to reduce emissions and set the economy on an achievable trajectory for deep decarbonisation. </p>
<p>Further, the project highlighted the need to start making decisions today across the economy based on the required long-term emissions reductions. </p>
<p>In particular, it will be necessary to:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Accelerate action to reduce emissions now, particularly through energy efficiency opportunities which are already proven and profitable</p></li>
<li><p>Avoid lock-in of emissions-intensive technologies, particularly for long-lived assets such as buildings, industrial facilities and power plants which if built today could still be in operation in 2050</p></li>
<li><p>Prepare for the future by investing in research and development to bring down the cost of low carbon technologies, building the necessary supply chains and developing local skills and capabilities in these new technologies and processes.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In theory, the Emissions Reduction Fund could continue to operate beyond 2020, with the proposed “safeguard mechanism” operating like a cap on total national emissions. The could be reduced each year in line with the necessary trajectory to achieve complete decarbonisation by 2050.</p>
<p>However, this would require budget allocations to be made every year for a task that will only get larger, or an evolution toward trading between emitters rather than purchasing by government.</p>
<p>In its current design, the Emissions Reduction Fund is most suited to incentivising a certain set of emissions reduction activities. </p>
<p>The Deep Decarbonisation report shows that the transition will be required across all sectors of the economy, and some areas will be better incentivised through other mechanisms. </p>
<p>These mechanisms include minimum efficiency standards for long-lived assets such as vehicles, buildings and industrial developments to avoid “locking in” inefficient technologies, and long-term incentives for the transition to zero carbon electricity, such as an increased Renewable Energy Target or similar measure and ongoing support for new technology development.</p>
<p>Whether or not the Emissions Reduction Fund has a role to play post-2020, a suite of additional measures will be required to drive this transition. We don’t have long to switch to the technologies that can power our economy without creating emissions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33642/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Skarbek works for ClimateWorks which is funded by philanthropy and Monash University. Additional funding was received for the Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project from ARENA, Accenture, the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, TransGrid and the Mullum Trust.</span></em></p>With the passage of the Emissions Reduction Fund through the Senate last night, the federal government has taken a step towards achieving Australia’s minimum target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to…Anna Skarbek, Executive Director at ClimateWorks Australia, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/312782014-09-04T20:04:08Z2014-09-04T20:04:08ZFinally, some light relief for the Renewable Energy Target<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58188/original/y5xsrgfr-1409791100.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Renewable energy is an excellent way to hedge against the impacts of climate policies. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/indigoskies/6438065087">Indigo Skies Photography/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Australian government has just received a vitally important report to guide their decisions on the future of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET). </p>
<p>But it’s not the RET review <a href="https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/">report</a> of the Coalition-appointed expert panel, led by Dick Warburton, which was released last week. </p>
<p>Rather it is the draft <a href="http://www.ipcc-syr.nl/">final report</a> of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/ipcc-fifth-assessment-report">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report</a>, which has just been sent to the governments of the IPCC’s 195 member countries. The report integrates the three previous reports on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-fifth-assessment-report-more-certainty-not-much-news-18509">science</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-expert-wrap-costs-of-climate-change-mounting-time-to-adapt-24939">impacts</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-emissions-cuts-are-about-ethics-as-well-as-economics-25379">mitigation</a> of climate change already released over the past year. </p>
<p>Its intent is to provide policymakers with a scientific foundation, based upon the work of the thousands of researchers volunteering their time to the IPCC, to tackle the challenge of climate change.</p>
<h2>Carbon emissions need to rapidly decrease starting now</h2>
<p>The report will be publicly released in November but a draft copy for review was recently leaked to the media. Its language is considerably more forceful than the previous report of 2007, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/27/3476258/climate-scientists-draft-ipcc-report">noting that</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The report also highlights the growing challenges already posed by climate change including extreme weather such as heat waves, flooding and droughts, and its potential to worsen violent conflicts, refugee flows and food production. </p>
<p>A key focus of the report is on the growing risks of climate change – the synthesis report apparently uses the term “risk” <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/26/un-panel-global-warming-_n_5717139.html">351 times in just 127 pages</a>.</p>
<p>In 2009 countries around the world, including Australia, made a commitment to keeping global warming below 2C. However, the report says that it is looking more likely that the world will shoot past that point. Limiting warming to this level is possible but would require dramatic and immediate cuts in greenhouse emissions. </p>
<p>Indeed, the <a href="http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf">IPCC’s work on mitigation options</a> suggests that near-complete decarbonisation of the electricity sector by 2050 will likely be required and that renewable energy has a key role to play, particularly given the evident challenges facing other low-carbon generation options including carbon capture and storage and nuclear power.</p>
<h2>Renewable energy to reduce risk</h2>
<p>By comparison, the report of the <a href="https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/">Warburton review</a> gives almost no consideration of these climate change challenges, and the Renewable Energy Target’s contribution to addressing them. This is surprising given that the RET is, after all, one of the most significant greenhouse emission reduction policies that Australia has implemented to date, and has already started to transform the Australian electricity industry towards a lower carbon future. </p>
<p>The review, however, framed its climate change considerations in terms of the Australian government’s current 5% emission reduction target from 2000 levels for 2020 — a target which the government’s own Climate Change Authority has determined is <a href="https://theconversation.com/steep-emissions-cuts-needed-or-well-blow-australias-carbon-budget-climate-authority-23425">entirely inadequate</a> given the scale of the climate challenge, and the efforts of other countries to date. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the Warburton review assumes that the target can best be achieved by the government’s proposed Emissions Reduction Fund — part of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/direct-action-plan">Direct Action plan</a> — a measure that remains largely unspecified and hasn’t yet been modelled, let alone legislated. </p>
<p>Instead, the main modelling undertaken by the review towards its first term of reference — the need to consider the economic, environmental and social impacts of the RET scheme — assumes there are no costs associated with the greenhouse emissions of fossil fuel generation out to 2030. </p>
<p>How, then, do they consider the future uncertainties associated with international action on climate change? They don’t, other than the inclusion of one scenario in their analysis featuring a token shadow carbon price of A$10 per tonne of carbon dioxide starting in 2021. Such a shadow price is not meaningful in terms of the climate challenge - even oil multinationals like BP and Shell are using a <a href="https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/companies-carbon-pricing-2013.pdf">shadow carbon price</a> of US$40 per tonne for their own investments. </p>
<p>Modelling work by groups including our <a href="http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au">Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets</a> here at the University of NSW has highlighted that increased renewable generation provides an excellent hedge against the risks future international <a href="http://ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/CEEM%20RET%20Submission%20-%20fnl.pdf">gas and carbon price increases</a> currently pose for the Australian economy. </p>
<h2>The other RET review</h2>
<p>Fortunately, the Australian government does have before it an excellent and highly detailed report on ways to reform some of the present inadequacies of the RET.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that’s not the Warburton report either. </p>
<p>It’s the 2012 report from the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/killing-renewables-softly-with-endless-reviews-23409">Climate Change Authority</a> on the RET. It rightly argues against changing the current target for renewable generation and highlights the importance of providing some measure of investment certainty to facilitate timely and least-cost renewables deployment. It also suggests a series of useful suggestions on how the scheme’s operation and performance might be improved. By comparison, the Warburton review offers two possible ‘reform’ options that both would pretty much kill the existing renewable energy support provided by the scheme.</p>
<h2>Some light relief</h2>
<p>After reading the IPCC and Climate Change Authority work, members of the government may well be needing some light relief. </p>
<p>And fortunately, they also have a report for that — yes, the Warburton review. The review was specifically asked by the government to consider the impact of the RET towards rising household and business prices. Its modelling, however, found — in broad agreement with other modelling exercises <a href="http://ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/CEEM%20RET%20Submission%20-%20fnl.pdf">including again work here at UNSW</a> — that the RET is likely to reduce these prices by increasing market competition. </p>
<p>Rather than households paying for the emission reductions delivered by the scheme, it is the incumbent fossil-fuel generators. </p>
<p>Seeing the panel tie themselves in knots trying to explain why they recommend ending or greatly reducing the target even though it will increase emissions, increase household and business electricity prices and deliver windfall profits to the large fossil-fuel generators is quite something to behold. </p>
<p>But after this light relief, the work of the government to actually address our climate change challenges still remains to be done. Confirming that the RET target will not be reduced is the place to start. <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-renewable-target-should-be-ramped-up-not-cut-28888">Expanding the target for 2030 and beyond</a> should come next.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31278/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Iain MacGill is an Associate Professor in the School of Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications at UNSW Australia, and Joint Director of the University's Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets. The Centre receives funding from a range of government sources including the Australian Research Council and ARENA. He contributes unpaid expert advice to a number of government organisations, industry associations and not-for-profit groups in the clean energy area within Australia and internationally. </span></em></p>The Australian government has just received a vitally important report to guide their decisions on the future of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET). But it’s not the RET review report of the Coalition-appointed…Iain MacGill, Co-director, Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/310942014-09-01T20:29:34Z2014-09-01T20:29:34ZRenewable Energy Target review confirms influence of coal and climate sceptics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57853/original/36gg7cz4-1409558738.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Renewable Energy Target represents another shift towards fossil fuel power.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/yewenyi/2534899116">Brian Yap (葉)/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The release of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/review-calls-for-renewable-energy-target-cuts-what-it-means-29787">Renewable Energy Target review</a> last week is yet another indication of the disproportionate influence of the fossil fuel industry and climate sceptics on governments in Australia. </p>
<p>Many <a href="https://theconversation.com/renewable-energy-target-review-experts-respond-31050">experts have said</a> that, if the recommendations are implemented, they would have a serious impact on the renewable energy sector. </p>
<p>The review follows the repeal of Australia’s carbon “tax” (read: fixed price period of an emissions trading scheme) with government bills to abolish the independent Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency put before the Parliament.</p>
<h2>Review process was not consistent with legislation</h2>
<p>The legislation which established the Renewable Energy Target states that the independent <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5136">Climate Change Authority</a>, now facing abolition, must review the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rea2000283/s162.html">operation of the Act</a>. Yet this statutory task was given to a “panel of experts” chaired by Dick Warburton, a well-known sceptic of human-induced <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3946806.htm">climate change</a>.</p>
<p>Not only that, but the panel’s terms of reference were not consistent with the legislation and were skewed to require consideration of the government’s agenda of “reducing business costs, cost of living pressures, cutting red and green tape, and the Direct Action plan”. </p>
<p>It seems that not even those wealthy people who the government is levying 2% for budget recovery can afford any climate change impost on their electricity prices. Certainly not AUD$550 a year for the carbon price and probably not any short-term increases to electricity prices resulting from the Renewable Energy Target. What’s more, the Direct Action plan has not even been approved by the Parliament. </p>
<p>And now the recommendations weaken the target in favour of coal-fired power. Although Warburton <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/dick-warburton-says-climate-sceptic-views-did-not-influence-report-recommending-slashing-of-renewable-energy-target-20140829-109tgd.html">states publicly</a> that he brought an open mind to the review, in a democracy we expect those who exercise public functions to “be seen to be” impartial.</p>
<p>We have already witnessed the Prime Minister and Treasurer ordering the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to <a href="http://www.afr.com/p/national/coalition_promise_hits_hurdle_wzxElSPPbkKEEpQ56lXIvO">stop disbursing funds</a> contrary to its statutory mandate. Again, our democracy requires the repeal of the legislation by the Parliament to achieve this, not orders barked from the executive. </p>
<h2>Coal lobbying in NSW</h2>
<p>In New South Wales, the Independent Commission against Corruption has been <a href="http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/investigations/current-investigations/investigationdetail/192">investigating corruption</a> associated with the opening up of land for coal mining, the granting of coal licences, the <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/nathan-tinkler-tells-icac-that-53000-donation-was-for-federal-liberal-party/story-fni0cx12-1227041321571?nk=cb539972dfacb6de660d1b9b3474fc64">construction of coal terminals</a>, and the taking of illegal developer donations. </p>
<p>What is also of great concern is the political influence of the coal mining lobby. In October 2012 the NSW Minerals Council lobbied the NSW government to cut funds to the Environmental Defender’s Office of NSW. The council objected to the EDO bringing applications, on behalf of communities, for judicial review and merits appeals against mining approvals granted by the government. </p>
<p>Yet these remedies are essential to a functioning democracy and are indeed protected legal rights in Australia. That month, the O’Farrell government cut the Environmental Defender’s Office’s funding by 25%. The Federal government has since <a href="http://www.edonsw.org.au/edo_offices_face_closure_after_government_funding_cuts">cut funding</a> of A$10 million to EDO offices around Australia.</p>
<p>Last year when a NSW court <a href="http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=164038">refused consent</a> for a coal mine on the grounds of ecological sustainability, the O’Farrell government amended a NSW mining environmental planning policy to make the <a href="http://planspolicies.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6065">economic significance of coal</a> the principal factor in assessment.</p>
<p>Environmental and social factors must now only be considered proportionately to the economic significance of coal. This was ostensibly to give “certainty” to the coal miners and the community. </p>
<p>Yet public submissions on the changes showed that over 84% of individuals and over 66% of organisations were opposed to the amendment. </p>
<h2>Climate change off the agenda</h2>
<p>Meanwhile the Federal Government has said that climate change will not be on the agenda when the G20 meets this November in Brisbane. The Prime Minister only wants to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-off-g20-agenda-20140604-39jdx.html">talk about</a> “economic security and private sector-led growth for a strong prosperous future” — and does not consider climate change part of that agenda, despite evidence to the contrary. </p>
<p>Instead, the Abbott government enthusiastically celebrates the repeal of the carbon price mechanism, for which it claims it had a democratic mandate, as a win for the economy. But a question remains whether those who voted for the Abbott government really understood that the government intended to abolish the emissions trading scheme as well, leaving the fossil fuel industry free to emit greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Also, instead of building a scientific citizenry to fully engage with climate change, the Climate Change Commission was axed on the Abbott government’s second day in office. There’s also now no longer a Minister for Science. Funds to the CSIRO have been slashed, impacting their climate change programs. Yet an informed and engaged public discussion is essential to democratic participation in decision-making around climate change. </p>
<h2>Australia going against the grain</h2>
<p>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report tells us with high confidence that from 2000-2010 greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were the highest in human history with CO<sub>2</sub> accounting for 78% of the total. </p>
<p>Energy supply contributed 47% of total increases in emissions during this decade. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the energy supply sector must reduce its emissions by 90% below 2010 levels between 2040 and 2070 if we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous global warming.</p>
<p>The EU’s <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm">growth strategy</a> Europe 2020 aims to “absolutely decouple” economic growth from the environmental impacts of energy use, while reducing greenhouse gases by 20% below 1990 levels, enhancing competitiveness, and promoting energy security. </p>
<p>Jobs growth is key to the “green economy” with the renewable energy sector alone expected to generate more than 400,000 new jobs by 2020 .</p>
<p>Yet the Abbott government keeps attempting, sometimes successfully, to deliver knock-out punches to controls on fossil fuel energy sector emissions and Australia’s potential to move towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. </p>
<p>Governments in Australia should govern to protect the interests of all sectors of society — not just a business sector that wants to free itself from the tangles of “green” and “red” tape. What’s more, Australian governments should stick to the rules and democratic conventions which protect all of our rights and interests. There are too many instances which suggest that many of those who govern don’t even know, or care, that the rules exist. </p>
<p>Something is rotten in the state of Australia and that something is the disproportionate influence of the fossil fuel industry and climate change sceptics over government in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31094/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rosemary Lyster has received funding from the Australian Research Council (2009-2013) to investigate, with others, Indonesia's efforts to establish legal and policy frameworks for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) </span></em></p>The release of the Renewable Energy Target review last week is yet another indication of the disproportionate influence of the fossil fuel industry and climate sceptics on governments in Australia. Many…Rosemary Lyster, Professor of Climate and Environmental Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/293572014-07-18T00:16:58Z2014-07-18T00:16:58ZUK shows how Australia can cut emissions without a carbon tax<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54150/original/n4jtd8k3-1405640595.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A tourist train from Sheringham to Holt steams past an offshore wind farm, one of many that have sprung up along the UK coast.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/8929612@N04/8141143528/in/photolist-dppukA-8NVEYJ-e2jgZX-e2jgVp-hGKn1B-7jMMAk-9Wr7hS-jWcV76-fe6tB3-nizEr9-8NVEYE-8NVEYA-7d8FqR-hMGeYs-6tUqeB-au1Mtx-4DwGph-hMFRNC-czxej-5xLoX3-7Z5sdt-8gf1iv-j8MQZn-jWfom1-eXueF-jWfoUA-fpUKx9-7Z8EXo-8NVEYG-kv6hfz-fnjznT-6srRDF-6rYxde-65FXd-bFkyA2-7VzBcw-4Znjxd-9F2oCr-cLQ21h-8mvrnQ-8MSYox-8MSYkc-edrwbv-bsqFMS-bsqG49-bFkzue-bsqFC3-eGF4P-dvnMii-vMHks">Gerry Balding/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia’s carbon price has gone – but a UK review released this week shows that to lay the foundations for a low-carbon economy, pricing carbon is far from the whole story. </p>
<p>Over recent months, as Australia’s carbon tax repeal has edged ever nearer, expert voices from around the world have united in their support for carbon pricing. Both the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/imf-world-bank-push-for-price-on-carbon-20140412-36jg7.html">International Monetary Fund and the World Bank</a> back it; Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz has <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/7/1/carbon-markets/carbon-tax-no-brainer-stiglitz">called putting a cost on pollution a “no brainer”</a>; and earlier this month <a href="http://economics.com.au/?p=9995">59 eminent economists signed an open letter</a> urging the Australian parliament to keep the carbon price, to no avail. It might appear that, among experts at least, carbon pricing is a policy idea that is almost completely beyond reproach. </p>
<p>But a <a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/news-stories/policy-strengthening-required-to-meet-future-carbon-budgets/">new report from the UK’s Committee on Climate Change</a> this week provides strong evidence that simply putting a price on carbon – important though that may be - isn’t enough.</p>
<h2>Lessons from Europe</h2>
<p>In Europe, home to the world’s largest and nearly decade-old carbon pricing policy, the carbon price has collapsed. Despite this, progress has been made to lay the foundations of a low-carbon economy, with striking success in some areas.</p>
<p>Europe’s carbon price was introduced in 2005 and designed to be the central pillar of policy to guide low-carbon investment. The price, which in Europe’s case is established through a market for carbon permits, collapsed from a level of up to around €30 in early years of the scheme to around €4 in 2013. Commenting from the perspective of business, <a href="http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/category/cap-and-trade/page/2/">Shell’s chief climate change advisor David Hone</a> said a year ago that the price is now “effectively zero” and that “investment is either not happening at all or is being driven by other factors and policies”. </p>
<p>Lessons have been learnt. It’s now understood that greater checks and balances are needed to ensure a trading system continues to produce a meaningful incentive to reduce emissions over time, and are factored in to the design of emissions trading schemes that have followed Europe’s lead. </p>
<p>But further changes are needed if Europe’s carbon price is to work more effectively, because as it stands it will not provide much of an incentive for emissions reduction. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329841/EU_ETS_vision_for_phase_IV_final_version.pdf">A new UK government paper released this week</a> recommends a number of solutions, including tackling the oversupply of emissions allowances in the market:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>which, if not tackled, threatens to depress the signal for low-carbon investment for at least a decade and may increase the overall costs of meeting our future targets.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The UK has stressed its commitment to keeping the EU emissions trading scheme as the cornerstone of EU energy and climate change policy. But the good news is that while that work is underway, there are plenty of other ways to cut emissions in the meantime.</p>
<h2>Progress in the UK</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/news-stories/policy-strengthening-required-to-meet-future-carbon-budgets/">new UK Committee on Climate Change</a> review charts progress to date in the UK – and it found that a package of other policies, which are complementary to the carbon price, have made the greatest difference to UK emissions to date. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54149/original/r2hwqr86-1405637667.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54149/original/r2hwqr86-1405637667.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54149/original/r2hwqr86-1405637667.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54149/original/r2hwqr86-1405637667.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54149/original/r2hwqr86-1405637667.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54149/original/r2hwqr86-1405637667.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54149/original/r2hwqr86-1405637667.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54149/original/r2hwqr86-1405637667.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CCC-Progress-Report-2014_web_2.pdf">UK Committee on Climate Change, 2014 Progress Report to Parliament</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, in the power sector, a major step up in investment in wind generation has occurred, including establishing the UK as the world’s largest offshore wind industry. The underlying emissions intensity of the UK’s electricity grid – meaning the intensity that could be achieved if the grid were operated to minimise emissions - has dropped by around 40% since 2007. </p>
<p>The boom in wind generation is due to a mix of subsidies for low-carbon generators, supportive arrangements for associated infrastructure such as transmission lines, and changes to the planning system that expedited approvals. To build on this progress, a major reform of the electricity market has been designed to almost completely decarbonise power generation by 2030.</p>
<p>In the transport sector, EU legislation governing emissions has spurred manufacturers to deliver new cars in the UK with 20% lower emissions over a five-year period to 2012, meeting the legislated objective 2 years early. </p>
<p>In the longer-term a greater shift towards electric vehicles will be required. While numbers of electric vehicles sold remains low, models are now coming onto the market. Financial support towards the purchase cost is available, and infrastructure to charge electric vehicles also being developed.</p>
<p>In buildings, too, policy instruments go well beyond carbon pricing. Regulations were tightened in 2010 and again in 2013 to prepare for all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016. Also, the renewable heat incentive is the world first feed in tariff for low-carbon heating systems, which if taken up could put the UK on track to installing around 4 million heat pumps in homes by 2030.</p>
<h2>More than one tool in the kit</h2>
<p>While a strong, stable and rising carbon price is an important part of the policy toolkit, progress made in the UK is a reminder that many of the challenges of decarbonisation lie beyond the scope of the price mechanism. </p>
<p>In its advice for policy makers, the <a href="http://www.iea.org/publications/insights/insightpublications/managinginteractionscarbonpricing_final.pdf">International Energy Agency makes this point</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A carbon price is generally considered necessary … However, it alone is not usually sufficient. The costs to society as a whole of decarbonisation over the short and long term can be reduced by implementing a package of policies including energy efficiency, technology development and deployment, and support to overcome underlying infrastructure or financing barriers.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The task ahead for Australia</h2>
<p>In Australia, some of these other measures are already in place. For example, legislation to drive energy efficiency for lights and appliances was implemented in 2008 and is having a real impact on reducing emissions. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/energy-smart-appliances-cut-australian-power-bills-by-billions-25816">energy efficiency expert Alan Pears recently wrote on The Conversation</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the value of energy saved in Australia last year alone was around A$3.2 billion. Of this, some A$2.7 billion was saved by households … The Equipment Energy Efficiency program [also] reduced Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 13.5 million tonnes</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, across many major policy areas, such as transport and buildings, major policy gaps remain. </p>
<p>For example, passenger and other light commercial vehicles (known as light vehicles) contribute 10% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Australia’s independent Climate Change Authority recently recommended <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/light-vehicle-emissions-standards-australia">raising light vehicle emissions standards</a> between 2018 and 2025, because it would improve the fuel economy of cars, cut emissions and slash drivers’ fuel bills.</p>
<p>While the Climate Change Authority found that improving Australian vehicle standards could be expected to increase the an average new car’s cost in 2025 by about A$1500, drivers stood to win more than a five-fold payback, with fuel savings of about A$8500 over the life of the vehicle.</p>
<p>The proposed standard would also be expected to save 59 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions up to 2030, equivalent to the current annual emissions of all light vehicles around Australia.</p>
<p>Whether Australia decides to take a long or short break from carbon pricing is yet to be seen. But for all those wondering after this week’s axing of the carbon price – there is still plenty that Australia can do in other policy areas to lay the foundations for a prosperous and low-carbon economy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29357/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Kazaglis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia’s carbon price has gone – but a UK review released this week shows that to lay the foundations for a low-carbon economy, pricing carbon is far from the whole story. Over recent months, as Australia’s…Alex Kazaglis, Masters of Science Project Supervisor, Imperial College; Senior Analyst Power Sector, UK Committee on Climate Change, Imperial College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/284992014-06-27T03:01:28Z2014-06-27T03:01:28ZPalmer’s climate play and what it means for business<p>Clive Palmer has been an easy target for some to lampoon, but this week he has proved himself to be a shrewd political operator.</p>
<p>Who would have guessed that Palmer would forge a partnership with a former US Vice President and environmental warrior? Who would ever have dreamed that Al Gore, the environmental warrior, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, the teller of inconvenient truths, would be endorsing what for many people is one of the lunatic fringe minority parties uncomfortably injecting themselves into parliamentary decision- making?</p>
<p>But it happened. And Clive Palmer has managed to craft a political strategy that will likely see the carbon tax abolished, but the retention of the Green Energy Finance Corporation, the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and the Climate Change Authority. </p>
<p>He is also pushing for legislative amendments that seek to compel business to hand on the savings to consumers in the former of lower prices. Perhaps the biggest surprise was his support for a carbon trading scheme similar to the one originally promised by former Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, but with the proviso that it was only comes into operation once Australia’s trading partners established their own carbon trading schemes.</p>
<p>There is now some space for more sober assessment of it all. To begin with, it is worth noting that many unknowns remain about the details of the proposal on the table – how for instance will consumers be guaranteed price reductions will flow on? It could be an administrative nightmare – for government and for business. More likely, it will be more window dressing than a hard legislative intervention.</p>
<p>What all this means for business depends on the industry. There will be a collective sigh of relief from the renewable energy sector who see the retention of the broader framework established by Labor as critical to its continued growth and profitability. Again, Palmer has managed to attract support from an unlikely ally.</p>
<p>However, business support from other quarters is hard to find. Representing the big end of town, the Business Council of Australia has made its continued opposition to the Renewable Energy Target well known and expressed disappointment that it may now continue. For the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the major industry body representing small business, the danger lies in the prospect of the resurrection of the Carbon Trading Scheme. Both groups expressed concern that this policy shift represents a new era of ongoing uncertainty around environmental policy and its impact on business.</p>
<p>Indeed, for those sectors likely to be most affected by carbon pricing, uncertainty about the future is somewhat greater. While there was short term certainty around the carbon tax (whatever you think of its merits), if Palmer’s proposed carbon pricing scheme is to enacted, it is far from clear when and how it is to be implemented. Having no doubt spent a great deal on preparing for the existing scheme and its affect their businesses, the task may need to start again.</p>
<p>More broadly there will be growing concern among business leaders over what Clive Palmer’s growing influence on the dynamics of parliamentary politics will produce in the future. If this is any indication, PUP may provide ongoing support for Abbott’s key policy agenda items, but perhaps on terms that will test his pragmatism. </p>
<p>For business, it will be the fact that Palmer equals uncertainty that will drive a growing concern over whether government is able to deliver on the types of reforms it was hoping for. </p>
<p>For many it may be easy to see this as a one-off event – a rabbit-out-of-the-hat moment – in which the Palmer United Party has managed to manoeuvre itself into a prime position to drive the direction of policy. </p>
<p>But that may be a position that underestimates Clive Palmer’s ability to find novel solutions to hairy political problems. After all, his rise as a businessman has been built on just this sort of acumen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28499/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Gahan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Clive Palmer has been an easy target for some to lampoon, but this week he has proved himself to be a shrewd political operator. Who would have guessed that Palmer would forge a partnership with a former…Peter Gahan, Professor of Management + Director, Centre for Workplace Leadership, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/240742014-03-13T04:37:58Z2014-03-13T04:37:58ZFacts won’t beat the climate deniers – using their tactics will<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/43811/original/ntxhtr5z-1394683289.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=31%2C23%2C5282%2C3611&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facts not enough: the climate message is still not getting through.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A colleague of mine recently received an invitation to a Climate Council event. The invitation featured <a href="https://www.facebook.com/climatecouncil/posts/10151956752276603?stream_ref=10">this Tim Flannery quote</a>: “An opinion is useless, what we need are more facts.”</p>
<p>My first thought was that my colleague was taking the piss. Tim Flannery is an experienced science communicator, but that phrase made my jaw drop. It was apparently meant in earnest, but it’s wildly off the mark.</p>
<p>The quote is ludicrously, appallingly, almost dangerously naïve. It epitomises the reasons we are still “debating” climate science and being overwhelmed by climate skeptics/deniers/contrarians in the public space.</p>
<p>My intense frustration about the current state of the climate issue is shared by Climate Change Authority chairman Bernie Fraser, who says the public has been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/12/climate-change-body-chief-bad-guys-won-when-the-good-guys-lay-down">left confused and fed up because deliberate misinformation has been allowed to spread unchecked</a>.</p>
<p>But the “more facts” solution is no solution at all. We have enough facts now and none of them are good. Yet here we are, in Fraser’s words, watching the “bad guys” win. </p>
<h2>Communication without opinion?</h2>
<p>Opinions are a cornerstone of human communication. They may be based on obvious, acceptable, objective evidence, or they may not. There will be opinions with which you agree, disagree, or don’t care. Regardless, they are intrinsic to the way humans interact – at work, chatting over dinner, everywhere.</p>
<p>By asserting that opinions are useless in climate change communications, Flannery might as well be saying we should stop using language at all. </p>
<p>It’s as disappointingly innocent as the cries I’ve heard regularly from scientists who want us to “leave the politics out of climate change”. </p>
<p>Like opinion, politics is not an “add-on”. It’s the way we decide things as a society. It’s unavoidable when more two or more people have competing plans for the same resource. </p>
<p>That’s why decrying the usefulness of opinions is simply irrelevant. Opinions just are. They exist. We use them all the time, and perhaps nowhere more vehemently than when bashing out positions in the world of politics, advocacy or activism. </p>
<p>To top it off, Flannery’s assertion about the uselessness of opinions is itself an opinion, so by his own logic, useless.</p>
<h2>To facts</h2>
<p>If there’s one thing decades of advertising, public relations, psychology research and science communication have taught us, it’s that throwing facts at opposing opinions with the hope of changing people’s minds is like playing golf with a pineapple: it’s not just useless, it’s actively counterproductive. </p>
<p>At best, presenting people with facts to counter their beliefs makes them ignore you; at worst, it drives them further away. How much more evidence do you need than the singular failure of scientific facts to convince deniers that humans are buggering up the climate?</p>
<p>It’s a bit like this classic caricature of old-school British colonialism:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Lord Ponsonby: “How do you speak to the natives?</p>
<p>Lord Snot: "In English, of course”</p>
<p>Lord Ponsonby: “What if they don’t understand?”</p>
<p>Lord Snot: “I speak louder”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Time for action</h2>
<p>The fact is that the time for fact-based arguments is over. </p>
<p>We all know what the overwhelmingly vast majority of climate science is telling us. I’m not going to regurgitate the details here, in part because the facts are available everywhere, but more importantly, because this tactic is a core reason why climate messages often don’t resonate or penetrate.</p>
<p>If, like me, you’re convinced that human activity is having a hugely damaging effect on the global climate, then your only responsible option is to prioritise action. </p>
<p>Why, then, do so many who represent the experts, the science, and the evidence seem to prioritise their perceived moral standing as a scientist above all else? </p>
<p>What’s worse: being convinced bad things are happening and resorting to “unscientific” means that inspire real action, or watching things go to hell while taking comfort in the knowledge you were a worthy, well-behaved scientist who didn’t stoop to getting political?</p>
<p>Ultimately, we can only say “that’s not cricket” for so long. Eventually we have to stop tutting and accept that others aren’t even trying to play cricket – they’re boxing. We can decry climate deniers for their unfair, lowbrow tactics, but their tactics are getting them exactly what they want. Ours are not.</p>
<p>The continuing focus on gathering and presenting more and more scientific data to reinforce a position the vast majority already holds is not leading to the changes we need. Yes, scientists should keep monitoring, researching and reporting on the climate. But assuming that we want people to act according to the science, the focus must now be on influencing positive action. </p>
<h2>So, what now?</h2>
<p>There’s no profit in trying to change the position of deniers. Their values and motivations are fundamentally different to those of us who listen to what the weight of scientific evidence tell us. So forget them.</p>
<p>Forget the Moncktonites, disregard the Boltists, and snub the Abbottsians. Ignore them, step around them, or walk over them. Drown them not just with sensible conversations, but with useful actions. Flood the airwaves and apply tactics advertisers have successfully used for years.</p>
<p>What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means. We actually need <em>more opinions</em>, appearing <em>more often</em> and expressed <em>more noisily</em> than ever before.</p>
<p>The biggest impediment to climate action these days is not because of the human frailties that science is hell-bent on resisting – those alleged failings of opinion, belief and emotion. Ironically, it’s exactly because we are still trying to suppress them that we are now stalled.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24074/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Lamberts has received funding from the ARC linkage program</span></em></p>A colleague of mine recently received an invitation to a Climate Council event. The invitation featured this Tim Flannery quote: “An opinion is useless, what we need are more facts.” My first thought was…Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/234092014-02-19T02:52:19Z2014-02-19T02:52:19ZKilling renewables softly with endless reviews<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41904/original/s2yhnhhp-1392777105.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One in five Queensland homes have gone solar, like this house in Brisbane's Alexandra Hills.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/68676385@N00/6689340997/in/photolist-bc7C2t-bc7BX8-9bweoo-9Qvv3L-7AC2Nq-8R8hLQ-9s2fi6-beg99H-dcWj5G-czAMZA-cAfXZS-dUXAQP-bxxCXp-hTMFjw-99Et3T-9eyfMV-dBQu7n-9MVSHX-9MYCn5-9MYB2W-i6Vjes-9YhkfW-dUbJ7p-dQmU1Q-dUkUp4">Melanie Cook/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You have to feel sorry for people working in renewable energy. Their industry has been reviewed to within an inch of its short life, and the goalposts have been shifted so many times that they don’t know where to kick the ball.</p>
<p>And now they are to be reviewed again, this time by a panel that is hostile to them. The chair of the review, Dick Warburton, <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/australia-chooses-climate-change-denier-to-head-renewables-review-65883">does not believe</a> in human-caused climate change. So if there is no problem with greenhouse gas emissions, why would we need policies to reduce them?</p>
<p>He is joined, <a href="https://theconversation.com/renewables-inquiry-leader-vows-open-mind-on-targets-future-23305">among others</a>, by Brian Fisher, who has a long history of working closely with the fossil fuel industries. For many years he was the executive director of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, a government research agency that was <a href="http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/files/investigation_1998_01.pdf">castigated</a> by the Commonwealth Ombudsman for taking money from the fossil fuel industries to finance its work on climate change policy. Fisher did not agree that his work had been “compromised” or that he displayed “poor judgment” in having his agency’s policy work partly funded by Exxon, BHP and the Australian Coal Association.</p>
<h2>Renewables under review - again</h2>
<p>The last review of the <a href="http://ret.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/about-the-schemes">Renewable Energy Target (RET)</a> was published just over a year ago, and was conducted for the federal government by the independent Climate Change Authority. I was part of that review and remain one of the <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/board">Authority’s members</a>.</p>
<p>The RET scheme currently mandates that electricity retailers must source 41,000 GWh of electricity from new renewable sources by 2020. During the six months that our review took, the most frequent plea from industry we heard was to provide investment certainty for the emerging companies.</p>
<p>Even the Australian Industry Group, <a href="http://www.aigroup.com.au/policy/submissions/environment">no friend of strong greenhouse gas reduction policy</a>, argued that any further change threatened to “reduce the credibility and reliability of energy policy as a whole”.</p>
<p>The Climate Change Authority published <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/ret">its findings in December 2012</a>, concluding:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Transitioning to a clean energy future will require considerable investment over decades. A stable and predictable policy environment is crucial to fostering the confidence required for such investment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Authority’s 2012 conclusions echoed those from a decade earlier.</p>
<p>Back in 2003, the Howard government called its own review into whether to extend or end Australia’s first renewable energy target. Chaired by former Coalition Senator Grant Tambling, it came to the same conclusion — stop meddling.</p>
<p>In fact, the <a href="http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3085554">Tambling review</a> recommended <em>expanding</em> the renewable energy target, “as a sensible insurance policy against significant greenhouse gas abatement measures being introduced in the future”.</p>
<h2>History repeating?</h2>
<p>Yet the meddling with the renewables industry has begun again. Even before the new Warburton review gets under way, the message has been sent to renewable energy investors: the coal lobby is back in town. </p>
<p>As former Liberal staffer Guy Pearse revealed in his shocking book, <a href="http://www.highanddry.com.au/media/GP_High%20_Dry_Oct_07_presentation.pdf">High and Dry</a>, in the Howard years the fossil fuel lobby became so accustomed to setting energy policy that they bragged about vetting cabinet submissions.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1566257.htm">“greenhouse mafia”</a>, as they called themselves, have certainly had the ear of the Coalition in the past. In May 2004, Prime Minister John Howard convened a <a href="http://www.blackincbooks.com/blackitv/scorcher-dirty-politics-climate-change-clive-hamilton">secret meeting</a> with Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane (in the same portfolio then as now) and energy executives to come up with alternatives to avoid expanding the Renewable Energy Target, which was then a piddling 2% objective.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/02/1096527990014.html">Leaked minutes</a> taken by Rio Tinto’s Sam Walsh show Macfarlane chiding senior executives of Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Alcoa, Origin Energy and others for their “roaring silence” and for letting renewables advocates set the public agenda. At the end of the meeting, <a href="http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP56.pdf">the minutes</a> noted Macfarlane: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>stressed the need for absolute confidentiality. He said if the Renewables Industry found out there would be a huge outcry.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Falling demand boosting renewables’ market share</h2>
<p>A decade on, the coal-fired generators need all the political help they can get because something has happened that no one predicted. Four years ago, after 100 years of uninterrupted growth, demand for electricity in Australia went into decline.</p>
<p>Energy analyst Hugh Saddler <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-is-electricity-consumption-decreasing-in-australia-20998">estimates</a> that the fall from expected levels has been equivalent to the output of three coal-fired power plants. He attributes it to more energy-efficient buildings and appliances, structural change in the economy away from energy-intensive industry (including manufacturing), and residential consumers taking less power from the grid, in part because of huge growth in rooftop solar panels.</p>
<p>The decline in demand means that the 41,000 GWh of new renewable energy is expected to represent around 27% of electricity supply in 2020, instead of the 20% initially estimated. This is very good news, not least to those concerned about climate change – but not for coal-fired power generators.</p>
<p>But isn’t renewable energy too costly? Interestingly, the Climate Change Authority found that the entry of new renewables into the market has actually been <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-15-a-year-really-too-much-to-pay-for-renewable-energy-22848">driving the wholesale price of electricity down</a>, both because they increase supply and because they have lower marginal costs of production. The profits of coal-fired generators are being squeezed, and they hate it.</p>
<p>For all their lobbying of <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/cabinet-rift-on-ret-hunt-firm-amid-scrapping-calls/story-e6frg6xf-1226799349909">sympathetic MPs and senators</a>, there is a problem. Other than in some local communities where attitudes to wind farms have been poisoned by disinformation spread by groups like the shadowy <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Waubra_Foundation">Waubra Foundation</a> (which shares a PO box with a mining investment company), Australians love the idea of getting energy from the wind and the sun.</p>
<h2>Solar homes as a political force</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41876/original/973q3pb5-1392768189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41876/original/973q3pb5-1392768189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41876/original/973q3pb5-1392768189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41876/original/973q3pb5-1392768189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41876/original/973q3pb5-1392768189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41876/original/973q3pb5-1392768189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41876/original/973q3pb5-1392768189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41876/original/973q3pb5-1392768189.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=776&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Solar photovoltaic panel uptake across Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files/ACILAllenSolarPhotovoltaic2013.pdf">ACIL Allen Consulting for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41878/original/gvw93vx3-1392768516.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41878/original/gvw93vx3-1392768516.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41878/original/gvw93vx3-1392768516.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41878/original/gvw93vx3-1392768516.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41878/original/gvw93vx3-1392768516.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=638&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41878/original/gvw93vx3-1392768516.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=802&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41878/original/gvw93vx3-1392768516.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=802&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41878/original/gvw93vx3-1392768516.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=802&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Going solar in the suburbs: solar PV uptake in Brisbane.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files/ACILAllenSolarPhotovoltaic2013.pdf">ACIL Allen Consulting</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While most Australians took a set against the carbon price, the Renewable Energy Target has always enjoyed strong public support, even if it does increase average household electricity bills by <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/20121210%20Renewable%20Energy%20Target%20Review_MASTER.pdf">$1.30 a week</a>, or $68 a year, as the Authority’s <a href="http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/20121210%20Renewable%20Energy%20Target%20Review_MASTER.pdf">report found</a>.</p>
<p>Australians particularly like the element of the scheme that encourages the installation of rooftop solar energy. The surge in demand caught everyone by surprise, and now <a href="http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/mcardle-plain-wrong-energy-says-howard-adviser/2174677/">1.4 million homes</a> across the nation generate their own electricity from the sun. </p>
<p>And contrary to popular myth, that’s not just happening in wealthy homes. <a href="http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files/ACILAllenSolarPhotovoltaic2013.pdf">Research for the federal government</a> late last year found that outer suburbs and regional areas have led the way in going solar, as these maps of Australia and Brisbane show. (You can see detailed city and state maps at the end of <a href="http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files/ACILAllenSolarPhotovoltaic2013.pdf">this report</a>.)</p>
<p>For this reason, the government knows it cannot simply kill off the scheme as <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/no-end-in-sight-to-soaring-electricity-prices/story-e6frgd0x-1226830886617">the mining lobby</a>, some <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/renewable-energy-target-distorting-market-bca/story-e6frg6xf-1226826629736">power companies</a> and <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/cabinet-rift-on-ret-hunt-firm-amid-scrapping-calls/story-e6frg6xf-1226799349909">many Coalition MPs and senators</a> would like. </p>
<p>Instead, it is easier to choke renewables slowly - and the Warburton review is the government’s way of slipping the rope around the industry’s neck.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23409/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Hamilton is a member of the Climate Change Authority.</span></em></p>You have to feel sorry for people working in renewable energy. Their industry has been reviewed to within an inch of its short life, and the goalposts have been shifted so many times that they don’t know…Clive Hamilton, Vice Chancellor's Chair, Centre For Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.