A new study has found that the Coalition’s “Direct Action” plan has not provided the impetus required for polluters to take responsibility for carbon emissions.
Source: Australia’s biggest emitters say Coalition’s Direct Action is ineffective
Tag: Direct Action
Recent developments on the climate change front (both from scientists and politicians) prove the issue is still vexed, but there are signs voters are warming to the scientific view, write Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods.
If there’s one thing settled on climate change, it is that the debate inevitably leads to extreme emotions, opinions and warnings of doom, be it the national economy or the global ecosystem.
Years of divisive politicking around the issue has culminated in a policy with little public support and an electorate split over an issue that scientists warn us we need to confront in the here and now.
The extremes have been on display this week, with a new report from the IPCC warning the window to act is closing, while the Abbott Government managed to finally shut the gate on a deal to enact its policy of “Direct Action” with the support of mining magnate and sometimes environmental activist Clive Palmer.
This week’s twin developments neatly sum up the debate in Australia – a scientific community calling for urgent action for the future and a political response focused on minimising impact on the here and now.
Our Essential Report shows that voters aren’t overly surprised by scientific predictions of more frequent extreme weather events.
Of those who think extreme weather events will increase, three quarters believe the increase is likely linked to climate change.
But a significant proportion, 16 per cent, still believe a link between extreme weather and climate change is unlikely.
This finding reflects a continuing divide in the community about the science of climate change. Our polling has shown a fairly consistent pattern over the last few years of about half believing climate change is real and human induced and a third believing any unusual climate antics are a normal fluctuation.
Most recently we’ve seen a decline in the “normal fluctuation” camp – down nearly 10 points since the start of the year, suggesting a swing could be on to greater acceptance of the scientific view put so forcefully by the IPCC.
The Coalition was highly effective in exploiting divisions about climate science and policy and tearing down Labor’s climate scheme, but it now faces the challenge of putting up its own credible alternative.
Direct Action has never appealed much to voters and has been consistently less popular than various options involving pricing carbon.
Support for Direct Action as the best means of tackling climate change has bounced around between 5 and 15 per cent over the past year, coming in at 10 per cent when we most recently asked at the end of September.
Adding to the complexity – as we’ve found before Direct Action gets the limited support it does from people who are less likely to believe that climate change is real and caused by human activity. In other words, Direct Action is the policy of choice for climate change deniers.
This picture suggests the Abbott Government is set to get tangled up in a political mess on climate policy in the same way Labor did – in large part because of its own determination to exploit the issue for political gain rather than work co-operatively towards a policy solution that could gain broad support.
But while Abbott has played hard on climate politics, he’s hardly the first.
The Greens have been roundly criticised for failing to make the compromises necessary to close the deal with Labor to secure the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme mark 1; while Labor wouldn’t have had to negotiate with the Greens if Kevin Rudd had prioritised getting a deal with Malcolm Turnbull over exploiting the political divisions on climate within the Coalition.
As it stands, Australians see a future of more frequent and extreme weather events caused by climate change, with a climate policy they’re not convinced by.
And if the expected long, hot summer eventuates, the only thing for certain is the loud voices on both sides of the debate will lock in behind their preconceptions.
Where is Team Australia when you really need it?
In an interview on Lateline in October last year, Greg Hunt said that the carbon price “doesn’t work”, “doesn’t do the job” and is “a just hopeless means of achieving the outcome.” The primary scientific agency is the Bureau of Meteorology. 1,700 staff.The CSIRO also backs those up.He then proceeded to cut $10 million from the BoM, with an anticipated loss of 80 jobs next year, and he cut CSIRO’s funding by $111 million over four years, which will result in 500 job cuts at the nation’s peak scientific organisation.
While the cost of living increase may have slowed, two new studies show that brown coal and black coal generation has jumped sharply in the four months since the carbon price was dumped by the Abbott government. The share of coal has gone up from 69.6% of sent out electricity in June to 76.4% in October. Emissions have also jumped sharply,10%
The Government, of course, hasn’t yet put anything out about how the penalties will work or the baselines will work which will be a challenge for the Government and they’re the two, you know, most difficult issues for the Government to deal with. But I guess we’ll get to see what the form of the penalty is going to be.
”Market analysts Reputex suggest the $2.5 billion fund may get Australia about a third of the way to our low 5% target, but not much more.At the start of his prime ministership Tony Abbott said, “We hope to be judged by what we have done rather than by what we have said we would do.Leading carbon market analysts and brokers including Bloomberg New Energy Finance, SKM-MMA and RepuTex suggest that the government has Buckley’s chance of reaching its target of 421 million tonnes with the allocated budget.
Direct Action is a “Mickey Mouse” scheme that falls short of the “real leadership” needed to tackle climate change, a former adviser to John Howard says.
The president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Geoff Cousins, has slammed the Abbott government’s Direct Action policy, which was approved by the Senate last week, following a surprise deal between the Coalition and the Palmer United Party.
The program will set up a $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, designed to help Australia meet its emissions reduction target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. Through the fund, the government will provide incentives to businesses, households and landowners to reduce their emissions
Mr Cousins told ABC TV on Sunday that politicians “of all stripes” were failing Australians in the area of climate change policy.
“What we’ve got to do is convince this government and all political leaders in this country to take real action on this,” he said.
“Not this Mickey Mouse scheme that has been stitched up with the leader of a mining company.”
Direct Action has been heavily criticised by economics and climate scientists, who say the scheme will fail to meet Australia’s reduction target.
Mr Cousins singled out Prime Minister Tony Abbott for not doing enough to address the issue.
“When the big United Nations summit [on climate change] was on in New York [in September], only three world leaders failed to arrive and one of them was our Prime Minister,” he said.
“What was he doing? Riding a bike or shirt-fronting someone? Australians aren’t silly. They understand that the government is not really interested in these issue at all.”
On Sunday, Environment Minister Greg Hunt again said the government would meet the target with the current funds and approach.
He said that the first auctions under the Emissions Reduction Fund will begin in the first quarter of 2015.
“The Emissions Reduction Fund is open for business,” he told Sky News.
Labor’s environment spokesman, Mark Butler, said the policy was not a good one for the country.
“There has not been one single credible economist or climate scientist or business organisation that has said this is a good use of taxpayer funds that will achieve the stated objective, which is to reduce carbon pollution,” Mr Butler told ABC TV.
Mr Cousins, who is also a millionaire businessman, was a consultant to prime minister John Howard for 10 years.
He has a long history as an environmentalist, campaigning against the Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania in 2007
ns pulp mill in Tasmania in 2007
Poll: Do you support Direct Action to help Australia meet its 5% emissions reduction target by 2020?
- Yes. It’s the best way to reduce emissions without pushing up electricity prices
- 5%
- Kind of. It’ll do the job for now and is better than no emissions reduction policy at all
- 4%
- No. It will never meet the target and pays the worst emitters
- 91%
Total votes: 2385.
Poll closed 3 Nov, 2014
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 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.
The Emissions Reduction Fund is the centrepiece of the Coalition’s Direct Action plan, which will replace the Carbon Pricing Mechanism repealed in July this year.
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.
Glimpses of an ETS
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 Climate Change Authority which fortunately was retained in a deal between the coalition and the Palmer United Party to see the fund through the upper house .
The deal also provides a review into emissions trading schemes (ETS) and Australia’s future target or cap.
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.
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.
Meeting a 2020 target
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.
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.
ClimateWorks’ previous research suggests that, if well designed, the fund could effectively fund some emissions reduction opportunities in Australia.
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:
- Capture waste methane from coal mines, preventing the gas from escaping into the atmosphere
- Undertake deep retrofits of commercial buildings and industrial facilities to make them more energy efficient
- Take carbon out of the atmosphere through “carbon farming” – agriculture, afforestation (planting trees) and reduced deforestation.
According to the government’s Emissions Reduction Fund White Paper, 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.
Beyond 2020
The Emissions Reduction Fund is currently only designed to incentivise emissions reductions between now and 2020, with a view to meeting the 5% target.
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.
In particular, a major transition is needed in energy systems, and these investments need longer timeframes than the next five years. The Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation project report, which was presented to world leaders at the recent UN Climate Summit in New York, shows that near-zero carbon energy systems are feasible for all major emitting countries, while sustaining economic growth.
Australia’s pathways are detailed in an additional national report which shows that Australia has abundant renewable energy options and can achieve near-zero carbon electricity through renewables alone.
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.
Australia’s report sees a 71% reduction in CO2 emissions from energy, while the economy grows by almost 150% by 2050 and retains mining and manufacturing, in a world that is also decarbonising.
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.
How to decarbonise by 2050
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.
Further, the project highlighted the need to start making decisions today across the economy based on the required long-term emissions reductions.
In particular, it will be necessary to:
- Accelerate action to reduce emissions now, particularly through energy efficiency opportunities which are already proven and profitable
- 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
- 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.
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.
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.
In its current design, the Emissions Reduction Fund is most suited to incentivising a certain set of emissions reduction activities.
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.
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.
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.
Abbott could spend $2bill less to achieve the emissions reduction target of 19% set for 2020. It would boost our chances of achieving the 5% cut in emissions on the levels of 2000. We could buy International credits for 20% of the $2.5bill allocated to Direct Action. The Business Council of Australia & The Australian Industry Group support it. However our Rhodes Scholar PM back in 2011 was known to have said ” money shouldn’t be going off shore into dodgy carbon farms”.
The Climate Change Authority ,which Abbott wants to axe, says meeting the targets with only domestic action is too expensive when there is a flood cheap international permits about. After all “Australia is open for business” and business is a two way street. Why not trade.
Is he really going to override the UN & cut down 74,000 hectares of trees in Tasmania and then replace them and call the result Direct Action ? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to leave them all alone after all he didn’t support the car industry.
olddogthoughts 