The whole process of charging for solar export has to be seen in the context of Australian Politics – and the confusion around policies, or the reluctance to move on from fossil fuels.
I will be expanding this….
But let’s start with a quick point about the Coalition Federal Government:
representatives of the Climate Change Authority confirmed to a senate estimates hearing earlier in the week that Angus Taylor [Minister for Emissions Reduction] has never asked the expert authority to provide a pathway to net zero emissions. It follows earlier revelations that Taylor has also never asked his department to prepare such modelling.
Mazengarb Taylor requests yet another review of future grid needs, to deal with “intermittents”. RenewEconomy 25 March 2021
You might expect a Minister for Emissions Reduction to want to model emissions reduction and find the best way to zero emissions, but apparently not. However, Taylor has initiated yet another inquiry into the transition. It does not seem improbable that the aim of the inquiry is to justify more tax payer subsidy of gas and coal, especially given that it mentions in its title: “future need and potential for dispatchable energy generation,” when for the Coalition ‘dispatchable energy’ has nearly always meant fossil fuels (even if coal power takes quite a while to ramp up and down).
When asked whether agriculture would be excluded from the 2050 emissions goal. The Deputy Prime Minister responded:
Well indeed that could well be one of the options. But as I say, it is a long way off. There are huge challenges in 2021 and we’re not worried, I’m certainly not worried about what might happen in 30 years’ time…. there is no way known that we are going to whack regional Australia, hurt regional Australia in any way, shape or form to get a target for climate in 2050. It’s not going to happen. The Prime Minister has said it’s not going to happen. If we get there, we will get there through technology. We’ll get there though our technology roadmap.
Transcript: interview with Kieran Gilbert – SkyNews 7 February 2021
Unfortunately, the main technological roadmap the government seems to support is its “gas-led recovery,” and other ways of supporting fossil fuels. The ABC claims:
The federal government is spending millions of dollars on consultants to advise [it] on how to subsidise the multi-billion-dollar gas industry, despite it employing just 0.2 per cent of the Australian workforce, according to tender documents and ABC sources….
[The Government is] refusing to say what the consultancy fees are for, citing commercially sensitive information.
A request to see the specific terms of the contracts with [the Boston Consulting Group] was denied, despite the AusTender website listing them as “not confidential”….
One of the contracts with BCG, worth more than $2.5 million, was awarded without an open tender
Roberts Federal government paying millions in consulting fees for advice on subsidising gas industry, documents show. ABC News, 9 March 2021
The Boston Consulting group seems to have been commissioned to design the National Gas Infrastructure Plan (NGIP), which will subsidise gas infrastructure with taxpayer funds. It is not clear why the Australian Energy Market Operator could not do the work.
The gas-led recovery means opening gas fields in Narrabri and risking the bore water and local agriculture, and opening massive fields in the Norther Territory, ignoring the protests of those who live on the land. In the October 2020 Budget, the Government budgeted to “unlock five key gas basins. Starting with the one in the Northern Territory and the North Bowen and Galilee Basins in Queensland”. They also promised more money for CCS, which does not work, and for keeping the most polluting coal fired power station in NSW going.
They have tried to use the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) to provide support for the gas fields in the NT and for taxpayer funded infrastructure for the massive Adani mine in Queensland, which has been struggling to raise private funding.
Independent MP Zali Steggall sought to introduce amendments that prohibited the NAIF from investing in fossil fuel projects, but the government and Labor opposition blocked the changes.
If my amendments had been successful, they would have prohibited taxpayer money being used to fund the fossil fuel industry.
Only Helen Haines, Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie supported the amendments. We stared down the rest of the Chamber as both the Government and Labor passed this legislation supporting the fossil fuel industry.
Zali Steggal on Facebook 25 Marsh 2021
See also Hansard Thursday, 25 March 2021, pp:37-8
The resources minister Keith Pitt said later:
It was the height of hypocrisy to see inner-city southern MPs trying to delay the Bill because the NAIF proudly supports resources projects throughout the north….
NAIF supports a wide range of industries and I look forward to the Bill passing through the Senate so we can deliver new projects for the north as soon as possible
Keith Pitt NAIF reforms pass through House of Representatives, 25 March 2021
Objecting to producing more climate change through increasing emissions is not even vaguely hypocritical, and they were not interested in stopping the NAIF from supporting a wide range of industries, only in stopping it from supporting fossil fuels.
On the other hand, the Labor Opposition has already announced its support for fossil fuels, particularly gas, but coal is included. Chris Bowen the Shadow Minister for Climate Change, is reported as saying:
“To be honest, gas is not a low emissions fuel. It is not the answer to climate change. I don’t refer to it as a transition fuel either. But it is a very important part, nevertheless, of the transition, and will be for some time to come…
When there’s long periods of no sun or low wind, a battery is great for hours, not for weeks or months. Pumped hydro and hydrogen is better for longer periods. But we’re going to need gas to assist in that process. If you’re not going to have renewables, you’ve really got a limited number of choices: Nuclear, which I don’t support, or an ongoing role for coal. Well, actually, gas has a better role to play…
Should we have that serious conversation about what role coal has in the future? Yes. Do I think it should be providing alternative jobs in diversifying regional economies? Absolutely.
Mazengarb Bowen pitches Labor’s new gas-friendly climate platform, and an end to “toxic politics”. RenewEconomy 25 March 2021
He also made the usual attacks on the Greens, perhaps because they don’t pretend we can nanny the gas industry and achieve climate aims.
The Greens on our left, and the Liberals and Nationals on our right, have taken every opportunity to play identity politics, and it’s still that toxic politics in this country. And we won’t see real climate change action until that ends…
If you are asking for every coal-fired or gas-fired power station to be turned off tonight. I respectfully disagree. We are being powered by one tonight….
Will Australia stop coal exports tomorrow? No, we won’t. Is the international accounting mechanism, which says where those emissions will be counted written by me or the Labour Party or in Australia? No
Mazengarb Bowen pitches Labor’s new gas-friendly climate platform, and an end to “toxic politics”. RenewEconomy 25 March 2021
If I can find a press release from Bowen I will use that, but at the moment, he has not updated his website since last year.
He gives a great set of reasons not to put Labor first in the Senate or House of Reps, even if you have to put them ahead of the Coalition.
Lack of responsibility: It was not the Greens that mucked up Labor’s policies but the Labor party who refused to talk to the Greens about the first carbon price plan, and Labor attempts to wedge the Coalition and support Tony Abbott, who they thought was unelectable.
Straw-manning: Who precisely is “asking for every coal-fired or gas-fired power station to be turned off tonight”? and who is suggesting we stop coal exports “tomorrow”? No one. Phasing out is precisely not stopping “tonight” or “tomorrow”, but over time.
Support for coal: the knowing nod that coal exports don’t count to our emissions because of an accounting trick so export is ok. Let’s be clear here, climate change does not respect national boundaries. Emissions are emissions, and if we help emissions we are helping to make climate unstable. Not too hard to understand.
Then we have the line that implies that coal “should be providing alternative jobs in diversifying regional economies.” Maybe they have a truly clever plan to provide jobs in coal, without mining it and burning it, but that seems unlikely, given they are not mentioning it. The implication is that coal mining could be expanded, no doubt threatening water yet again, and being burnt and raising emissions.
Two way bets, or speaking with forked tongue: “To be honest, gas is not a low emissions fuel. It is not the answer to climate change. I don’t refer to it as a transition fuel either. But it is a very important part, nevertheless, of the transition, and will be for some time to come.” So gas is not a transition fuel but we have to use it to fuel transition.
I guess we hope there is a difference between the ALP and the Coalition, but its only a hope. When it comes to policy, there’s not much difference to see – especially given that there is evidence to suggest we may not hit our inadequate 2030 targets.
The Governmental Regime in Australia seems to be devoted to postponing transition or making it difficult.
***************
Added 20 March. I can’t find a transcript for Mr Bowen, so have to rely on other back sources….
In an interview dated 5 March 2021 Mr Bowen said
If you’re voting on the morality of climate change, you’re almost certainly voting left of centre. If you’re a climate-change denier, you’re almost certainly voting right of centre. But there’s a chunk of people in the middle who accept that climate change is an existential threat to the world, but losing their job is an existential threat to them. As a former treasurer and long-standing shadow treasurer, trained with an economics degree, I can bring a sensible economic case.
Law, Chris Bowen: ‘I could live my entire political career, never be leader and retire satisfied’. Sydney Morning Herald, 5 March 2021
The only problem here is that the Left of centre voter is probably talking about a “just transition” which means precisely, that workers are looked after, that new well-paying and secure jobs are provided, and that the transition does not disadvantage ordinary people. There are many on the right who claim to accept that climate change is a threat, but it is a lesser threat than the economic one. So this is all a bit of a strawman, a making a false centre, to try and sound reasonable. What we don’t know, is what a “sensible economic case” means to contemporary Labor. Does it mean more mines, tax payer support for emissions producing industries and so on? The excerpts from the later talk, imply that it does. “Sensible economics”, may well be a code word for not challenging powerful players invested in climate destruction.
Asked if 2050 is too late, which it might well be for restrained climate change. Bowen replies:
More than 120 countries around the world have adopted [the 2050 target]; you can’t turn it around overnight. The best time to start dealing with climate change was 25 years ago. The second best time is today.
Law, Chris Bowen: ‘I could live my entire political career, never be leader and retire satisfied’. Sydney Morning Herald, 5 March 2021
The idea being that we should not do more than other people. While it is true that it was better to have started 25 years ago, this does not make doing less now, somehow ok.
gas is an important provider of grid reliability as we transition to renewables, so we’re going to need some gas in the system. There are extremes to the argument: the government’s gas-led recovery at one end and the “Let’s get rid of all gas the day after tomorrow” position at the other. I don’t think either end of the spectrum is realistic.
Law, Chris Bowen: ‘I could live my entire political career, never be leader and retire satisfied’. Sydney Morning Herald, 5 March 2021
Again this is trying to make a false centre to make himself sound reasonable, and it is avoiding the questioner’s reference to Labor’s $1.5 billion plan to unlock more gas that will create more carbon emissions than Adani’s mine. Looking at the policy is not saying that much. And his comments at the talk imply he is ok with those emissions, just as he is ok with the emissions from burning the coal from the Adani mine. He is certainly not staking a position in opposition to making more emissions, or against doing more damage to country.
******************
Added, 4 April 2021
Richard Marles of the Labor Party, who is essentially the shadow minister for Recovery from Covid, or as he says “focusing on two priorities: jobs, and the future,” gave a talk at the National Press Club, which almost confirms the worries here. His talk on the recovery, although filled with talk about science, did not mention climate change or climate, temperature, weather, energy, renewables, emissions, pollution, ecology or environmental concerns. Not once.
This has to be thought a somewhat deficient view of the future, or a suppressed view of the future, and does not bode well for an ALP government that they cannot talk about any of these subjects.
Since that time the ALP has released its platform, some comments on that here.
Tags: politics, renewable energy
Climate, technology and chaos Blog 
Leave a comment