Hi Everybody,
It is looking like Santa has organised for our Christmas wish to come true!…Australia will have a fixed price on pollution (with NO international offsets allowed) starting 1 July 2012, YAY!
But, because scientists are telling us that we have only a very small window of opportunity to transition away from greenhouse gas pollution, we have to get the fine print right, NOW.
A low carbon price of $10-20/tonne is somewhat useful, as it will still create a disincentive to build new coal-fired power stations, and will ensure that coal is more likely to be displaced by renewables (like wind and solar) than by gas. However, a carbon price which is greater than $25/tonne will ensure a mass rollout of gas-fired power stations, while renewables are left out in the cold. (See the BZE Report at http://tinyurl.com/BZE-Carbon-Price-2011-02-28)
Careful analyses of the way our energy markets work shows that if the new price on pollution is introduced at anything below $200 per tonne (dreaming) OR without any schemes to directly support 100% renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, then all we will achieve is a big win for entrenched, finite, BIG fossil gas (NOTE: methane from leaking gas is 72 times more greenhouse gas intensive than carbon, connect the dots…).
So to avoid a lot of money being invested in gas infrastructure—which would, in a very short period of time, become stranded assets and need to be taken apart and replaced because, like coal, it is finite and greenhouse gas polluting—the most affordable and sensible path is to bite the bullet and directly invest in the right solutions NOW. We must call for renewable energy sources (0% coal) that will 1) ensure we have energy security (peak oil will soon force prices of everything way up), 2) stimulate jobs in more sustainable, local economies, and 3) bring our greenhouse gas emissions from stationary electricity down to zero as fast as we can.
There are several paths we could take:
- Introduce a price of around $20 per tonne on CO2, combined with a national, gross-metered Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) (learn more at http://www.energymatters.com.au/government-rebates/feedintariff.php#fit-gross-net) , along with a stronger Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (learn more at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/renewable-target.aspx). Together these policy measures have driven the renewable energy boom in Europe and we think this is the more likely of our two options to be adopted; OR
- Introduce a carbon price of at least $200 per tonne so that gas is not a feasible option (I repeat ‘dreaming’ because we know that is not going to happen). But that is around the price that the free market will need to pull out of polluting energy sources. Remember that our current (read very old) energy system was not built by free market forces, it was by and large established by governments and paid for by tax payers.
You can be sure about this: once the renewable energy infrastructure is established—except for basic maintenance, operating and transmission costs, which are in fact much less for renewable energy technologies than large power plants—the electricity generated from renewable energy sources costs nothing. Renewable energy is very cheap in the LONG run and that is what we must remain focused on.
Also, renewable energy supplies—sourced from a range of technologies located in numerous locations using high voltage direct current lines that will allow more flows and considerably reduce transmission losses—will ensure a more robust and secure power supply than the current centralized models. By their very nature centralised power supplies are more vulnerable to major disruptions caused by storms—which scientists predict will become more ferocious and more frequent. This summer has been bad enough!
And more good news is that—contrary to what deniers/scare mongers are saying—in places where renewable energy has entered the market, the wholesale price of electricity has decreased. This is because the low operating costs of renewable energy reduces wholesale price spikes, which is how fossil fuel electricity generators make most of their money.
So, it seems the planets are aligning for this ideally timed national campaign calling for A Fair Go for Renewables, http://100percent.org.au/content/help-gather-20000-survey-results-nation-wide-community-survey to gather more than 20,000 surveys for Rob Oakeshott to table in Parliament in June, just prior to the new Greens Senators entering the Senate. LIVE is supporting A Fair Go for Renewables and would love to hear from you if you would like to help too.
And, another exciting initiative launched last night in Melbourne is CoalWatch see http://www.environmentvictoria.org.au/coalwatch. This important new project is tracking the coal industry’s dangerous expansion plans and includes rich content about why coal is the problem, along with a list of all coal projects on the table in Victoria. Once you see how many billions of dollars are being spent on coal you will fully understand why we claim that there is no shortage of money to fund renewable energy now.
In the meantime, we suggest that you write or telephone members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee (MPCCC) to encourage them to take effective action to reduce Australia’s soaring emissions. As you have probably heard they are under enormous pressure from vested interests and their foot soldiers, including at least one reported death threat.
Julia Gillard: (02) 6277 7700 webform: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm
Wayne Swan: (02) 6277 7340 email: Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au
Greg Combet: (02) 6277 7920 email: Greg.Combet.MP@aph.gov.au
Tony Windsor: (02) 6277 4722 email: Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au
Rob Oakeshott: (02) 6277 4052 webform:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=IYS
Christine Milne: (02) 6277 3063 email: senator.milne@aph.gov.au
My email to the MPCCC is here if you are looking for some ideas. Or if you are listening to talk back, it would be great if you could challenge the misinformation being spread by vested interests.
Thanks and best wishes!
Deborah Hart
PS: Please forward this email, or a link to this page, onto your friends.
March 7, 2011
Dear Mr Tony Abbott,
I believe that I am one of many Australians that do care about the future state of our planet, my children’s future and how we as Australians are going to cope with what climate change is going to bring.
I don’t agree with you or your party’s beliefs to NOT introduce a carbon tax. I don’t appreciate a one-sided view about this issue, lack of evidence and unsubstantiated claims which is creating fear among the Australian population. There are far more Australians than you realize that actually support action on this matter. After this year’s weather events, although fuelled by El Nina – are only a taste of things to come. The very things that make Australia a special place to live will be taken away from us (freedom, choice, peace) unless we do something about climate change. We as Australians are sick of all the in-fighting between parties over important issues, sick of hearing all the same rhetoric, same arguments, same vision about our country. Generations are changing and we don’t want to hear it anymore. We want action and we want it fast! Australians and governments preceding us have shaped our generation to be critical and impatient with a desire for change and we want change for the better. I want to be able to tell my children that we did the best we could to prevent the climate from changing further and that all political parties chose to take the precautionary principle, instead of a let’s wait and see what happens mentality.
Why are you so afraid of supporting a more sustainable future? Our livelihoods will not come to an end as we know it (Cuba and a host of other countries have proven that) and our economy won’t come crashing down, in actual fact, the very nature of our economy is unraveling around us around the world, and not due to any carbon tax. If we have a closer look… its come from the very way we are living, the way our money markets have been created, the way in which we are fuelled on a never ending growth paradigm. Perhaps we need to look at this at as a sign of something not quite right, a symptom of a much bigger problem.
Finally, do not cave in to vested interests, no matter what. Remember that it is your job to stand up for every Australian and what we want, not to a few number of corporations and industry. Why are you dividing our community on this issue, when it seems that for most of us we want change? Transitioning to a low carbon economy is in EVERYBODY’S best interests!
Thank you for your time and attention to my views on this most urgent of issues.
Yours sincerely,
I’ve sent this because I’m worried that all our efforts in reducing our carbon emissions will amount to nothing, if we continue to supply coal i.e. it’ll just get burned overseas. Personally, I think we should be capping the supply of fossil fuels, as well as the emissions… and stop mining altogether once the existing contractual obligations are fulfilled.
This is a letter I sent to my local MP, Anna Burke
Dear Anna Burke MP,
I am unsure which minister is involved, but would you please urge the federal government to stop the Wandoan coal mine, and all other coal mines, from going ahead?
I heard that a final decision is due to be made during the week. So please deal with this urgently.
My reasoning is simplistic, but I think it is valid.
Mined coal has only one destination: it gets burned, and ends up as CO2.
Whether this is burned locally or overseas is not relevant. Australia would be at fault, in much the same way that suppliers of illegal drugs are criminals.
Such suppliers cannot plead their economic case as an excuse. In the case of mining, there is no valid economic argument unless the cost of dealing with the pollution, and its effects, is internalised as part of the equation.
Also, the promise of “offsets” is no justification for deliberately adding to what is already an out-of-control problem.
The government sends mixed messages when it comes to climate change mitigation.
On one hand, there is an announcement of a price on carbon.
On the other, there is conditional approval of yet another coal mine.
And in the background, is the funding of $1b p.a. to climate change mitigation, but $11b p.a. to various fossil fuel subsidies.
Approving the mine now, while the carbon price debate is in full swing, would be a very odd thing to do.
Sincerely.
Name and Address Supplied
Looking through my copy of the MPCCC Carbon Price Mechanism Document I can only find reference to a ban on overseas offsets for the fixed price period. Anyone who hasn’t seen it I recommend a good look at FOE Europe’s Assessment of the EU ETS (it’s more of a dud than I realized) and their analysis of what is wrong with it. A summary can be found here.
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2010/Oct14_Dangers_of_carbon_trading.html
and the full document can be downloaded here;
http://www.foeeurope.org/climate/download/FoEE_ETS_Oct2010.pdf
There are a lot of scary lessons for the MPCCC.
Also the price rises to consumers that attach to various starting prices for carbon pollution are very variable depending on who you decide is likely to be telling the truth. An analysis by Tristan Edis of the Grattan Institute published in 3 parts in Climate Spectator
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/putting-price-carbon-0
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/putting-price-carbon-part-ii
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/putting-price-carbon-part-iii
suggests that at $40/tonne household electricity increases by about $120/household/year and gas by about $60/year. Petrol increases by about 9c/litre. Note that Edis also says that $40/tonne is the price we have to ramp up to if we are to achieve the government’s paltry 5% reduction by 2020.
Apart from all this I am inclined to agree with Ben that a price high enough to make coal fired power uneconomical and bring wind closer to parity is a pretty good starting point. No hope of persuading anyone with power that gas is not the answer until there is a greater weight of research demonstrating that this is so.
There are plenty of other areas to concentrate on. We need a price on carbon but we also desperately need fossil fuel subsidies to be wound back. Energy efficiency programs to be cranked up. The Renewable Energy target to be strengthened etc etc. The complementary programs will be the main drivers of change if this battle is to be won. The market will not do it but can help at the margins.
I may be missing some extraordinary counter-intuitive reality here , but a carbon price of $10-20 /tonne carbon is surely going to be better for gas-fired power stations (and coal-fired power stations) than a carbon price of greater than $25 – yet the otherwise admirable BZE baldly asserts otherwise.
Chemistry, my scientific research discipline for nearly 50 years, says natural gas is mostly methane (CH4) and that burning methane means CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O. The higher the tax on the CO2 from gas burning the less return for the gas-fired power station operators. Is BZE saying that “less means more”?
Pro-gas Labor and no doubt the gas-fired power industry want a Carbon Tax to enable a rapid transition from coal burning-based power to gas-fired power. Indeed Ministers Combet and Ferguson have been clearly stating this.
However natural gas is largely methane (CH4) which leaks and is 72 times worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20 year time scale (21 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 100 year time scale).
At current rates of industrial methane leakage (3.3% pa in the US according to the latest US EPA data) natural gas burning is about as dirty as coal burning GHG-wise. At 3.7% leakage the GHG effect of leaked methane is the same as the GHG effect from the CO2 from burning the remaining 96.3% of the methane.
At the latest estimated US level of industrial methane leakage, replacement of Hazelwood with 96% gas burning (one of Environment Victoria’s Report scenarios) yields very little reduction in GHG per MWh of electricity.
The pro-gas, anti-science Labor plan for a Carbon Tax will scupper viable and crucial plans for 100% renewable energy for Australia by 2020 (Google BZE) and will pointlessly replace coal burning with gas burning; Labor’s ETS approach is empirically unsuccessful, dangerously counterproductive and inherently fraudulent (Google 300.org for a compendium of expert science-informed opinions on this matter ) ; and Labor’s ignoring of Agricultural GHG ignores what is over 50% of the GHG problem (according to recent World Bank analysis by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang).
Pro-gas Labor’s Carbon Tax-ETS-Ignore Agriculture plan commits Australia, a world-leading per capita GHG polluter, to climate change inaction. Accordingly, from a science-based, pro-environment perspective Mr Abbott and the Coalition are quite correct (albeit for the wrong reasons) in resolutely opposing it (for details and documentation Google “Australia commits to climate change inaction”).
I was invited to prepare a detailed Report for people in the flood-devastated Lockyer Valley opposed to the construction of a 1000 MW gas-fired power plant 1.5 km from Gatton (the plan of the company involved was rejected by the Lockyer Shire Council and the company is appealing the decision in the Court). I have incorporated my detailed, documented Report into a document published on Bellaciao and entitled “Resource to stop gas-fired power plants, fossil fuel burning, GHG pollution & man-made climate change: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article20592 .
Gillard Labor is ignoring the science by claiming or implying that ‘”gas is clean” and by resolute inaction on climate change when top scientific bodies have declared “Delay is not an option” and “Inaction is inexcusable”. Pro-coal, pro-gas Labor has not just betrayed Australia, the World, Humanity and the Biosphere, it has also betrayed pro-environment Labor voters.
I know we live in an Orwellian Age in which we are daily told by 2011-realized 1984-style Big Brothers that “war is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength and two plus two does not equal four” but after half a century of science, like Winston I still think otherwise, notwithstanding absurd claims that a lesser carbon tax means more disincentive for gas-fired power i.e. “less means more”.
Of course what nobody is talking about in look-the-other-way Australia are the huge Carbon Taxes we already have, specifically the $9 billion pa Carbon Tax on taxpayers to promote fossil fuel burning ($53 per tonne carbon “negative Carbon Tax”) and the huge cost of the estimated 10,000 Australian deaths pa from pollutants from carbon burning – the minimum Carbon Price to cover carbon burning-derived deaths and carbon burning subsidies is $554 per tonne of carbon as compared to the best political offer yet of $20 per tonne of carbon (Google “Labor Government of world-leading per capita GHG polluter Australia commits to climate change inaction”).
We ignore Science at our peril. We are facing the horrible prospect that just like the ACF, WWF and the Climate Institute over the CPRS/ETS, much of the climate activist movement plus the Greens will roll over and supinely support pro-gas Labor’s Carbon Tax-ETS-Ignore Agriculture Plan for climate change inaction on the absurd “gradualist” basis that “something is better than nothing”. Yet it is estimated that under this “gradualist” scenario Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution will increase to nearly 150% of the 2000 value by 2020 (in stark contrast to Labor’s derisory promise of “5% off 2000 value by 2020″).
It’s enough to make one vote 1 Green and Put Labor last – unlike the equally pro-war, human rights-abusing, pro-coal, pro-gas Coalition, pro-war, human rights-abusing, pro-coal, pro-gas Labor has utterly betrayed all decent Labor voters as well as, like the Coalition, betraying Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere.
I haven’t had enough time to properly engage with this BZE argument around pricing at this stage, but, in comparing a price on carbon of $10/tonne and $50 tonne, suggest that the following questions worth thinking about,.
a) If you were Hazelwood producing 17 million tonnes of pollution each year would you prefer a liability of $170 million per year or $850 million per year? Which would you be more likely to be able to pass on to consumers? Which would shut you down faster?
b) If you run a wind farm with operating costs of $110 MWh you compete with coal who is producing for $30 MWh (approximate numbers). Your shortfall is $80 MWh. Would you like the carbon price to reduce this shortfall to $70 MWh or to $30 MWh? I know what I’d prefer. Then the Renewables Target for feed-in tariff can do the rest of the work.
c) You are a politician who wants to look like they are doing something on climate change. Would you rather be pushed to introduce a $50 carbon price (or whatever other number) or $10? If you got away with introducing a $10 price on carbon and industry was still screaming it was going to collapse, would you think you still needed to introduce a feed-in tariff. Or if we were pushing for a $50 price and complained bitterly about getting a $10 price would we build more pressure for a feed-in tariff.
Anyway sorry to be so brief and not to have engaged properly in this paper, but suspect that some of the assumptions made in the BZE proposal require some further consideration.
I appreciate your wonderful efforts – but couldn’t your views and proposals/thoughts etc. be forwarded to appropriate members of the opposition – even though they may be in denial/and ‘opposition’ – your experience may decide they are ‘closed’ no matter what – on party lines.
my husband thinks that our Govt. chambers are the wrong shape in plan, – opposing leaders and Ministry members, in State and Feds. sit, facing each other and snarl and abuse each other- unlike many European, even Japan chambers, and others, which are wide ‘u’s where opposite sides actually speak to the speaker instead of abuse opposite, but I suppose they’re not necessarily doing much better .
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Grieb.
I don’t object to your email in the sense that it will help the debate in a general sense. However there is potential danger in it.
Everyone who thinks properly about this knows that gas is not the answer. But we currently have the gas lobby firmly onside with a carbon price of $25-30. They probably believe they can keep it in this range for long enough to support their profitability over the next few years, which is all they care about.
My view is we accept a carbon price of $25 in the short term. Once it is place and the naysayers have gone quiet, the question will then naturally turn to what is an effective (as opposed to politically acceptable) carbon price. The gas lobby will not support this, for obvious reasons, but by then it will be too late for them to do anything about this.
If we push for a higher price in the short term, the gas lobby could go feral very quickly and this could set everything back.
I didn’t explain this really clearly, but I’m at work and busy and it’s all I have time for!