Biofuels

April 19, 2021

Biofuels have been a major part of the supposed energy transition. They have been the subject of much investment, governmental legislation and subsidy, to make them attractive and sometimes to force consumption.

The fundamental problem is that as biofuels work through burning, they produce greenhouse gas emissions now, and do not lower greenhouse gas emissions (even in theory) until the emissions released in their production are recovered through regrowth, and it is generally much quicker to burn material than to grow it back again. They may never reduce emissions if they do not replace other worse sources of emissions and pollution, rather than being used in addition to fossil fuels, or producing no incentive to lower fossil fuel consumption.

That biofuels fulfil either of these conditions is dubious, but they can also produce systemic problems:

  • Biofuels may take a lot of energy and land to produce and transport repeatedly to places of consumption, so their EREI could be extremely low while pollution could be high.
  • Farming, or extracting, these fuels, can: require fertile land and dispossess small holders, forest dwellers, and dependent labour from land (increasing food problems); bring about destruction of old growth forests (increasing CO2 emissions); decrease biodiversity; increase systemic vulnerability to plant disease; and increase price of food by taking land away from food production.
  • Using genetically modified algae for biofuels could risk ecological damage, if the algae escape.
  • Using organic waste, usually for the production of biogas, may remove natural fertilisers from the soil, and increase the energy consumed in making replacement chemical fertilisers. It may also lead to the deliberate production of ‘waste’ to fuel the biofuel plant – as with wood chipping.
  • Using plastics as sources of biofuels, is simply using fossil fuels in a rather complex way.
  • Harmful, or dubious biofuels may be used to boost the illusion of a progressing renewable energy transition, and take attention away from more beneficial technology.

All of these factors make the ecological and social situation worse.

To solve the ‘burning problem’ people and organisations have proposed using biofuels with Carbon Capture (BECCS), but this assumes carbon capture is feasible and works, and that we can store or use the extracted gas without risk of releasing it. This seems to be largely an argument from fantasy.

This does not mean that all biofuels are useless in all circumstances. There are small scale exceptions when locally made biofuels can be used locally to add power to villages which are not connected to reliable electricity, or who suffer from a lack of traditional fuels, but even then replanting trees, and regenerative agriculture may be necessary as well.

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

CO2 Increase since the 1970s

April 18, 2021

Atmospheric CO2 readings from the 1970s until today.

Yes we have done nothing but make the situation worse in a very short period of time.

A case could be made for a return to the economic levels of the 1980s 🙂 It would be interesting to know whether the level of economic ‘development’ in Europe in the 80s, if spread throughout the world, using contemporary renewables and so on, would still result in a reasonable level of CO2 in the atmosphere?

  • 19 May 1974: 333.37
  • 13 April 1980: 340.98
  • 08 April 1990: 356.17
  • 09 April 2000: 372.17
  • 11 April 2010: 392.93
  • 09 April 2017: 409.03
  • 15 April 2018: 411.26
  • 14 April 2019: 413.82
  • 12 April 2020: 416.51
  • 11 April 2021: 418.96

Pre-industrial base: estimated 280

Supposed safe level: 350

Increase of about 78 points in 42 years (since 1980). Thats about an increase of 23%.

Source:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_weekly_mlo.txt

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A note on neoliberalism and ignorance

April 18, 2021

Neoliberals put faith in the virtues of the market they structure to favour established corporations. They call this “THE market,” or “THE free market” so people may not wonder if markets can be structured in any other way or any significantly different way. The “THE” implies this market is the only type of market there is, the only type possible. So this is one form of ignorance that neoliberals create – there are, and have been, many types of markets and societies in human history. There is no reason we could not have a more egalitarian, less destructive, more sustainable, or effective, market – or even all of these at once…

This particular form of ignorance is fundamental to neoliberal power, and could be said to be cultivated. However, there are other indirect types of ignorance or misinformation that circulate because of neoliberalism.

For example. Let us assume we accept the idea that THE market is the perfect information processor as Hayek and others have argued. Then:

Putting faith in this market as the arbiter of truth means that it is impossible to distinguish hype from reality, other than by success. Truth is what works in the market so, if hype works and produces profit or defers the business collapse of the hypers, then the hype is effectively or ‘pragmatically ‘true’, no matter how much destruction is caused, or how false the statements.

Attempts by humans to gain knowledge are useless, or pointless, as human knowledge cannot contain (or process) the information of THE market, so ignorance is to be valued, other than when it is used to constrain the market. As all knowledge is ignorance, other than knowledge that THE market is the best we can do, then all other knowledge is to be disallowed, especially if it contradicts the perfections of THE market.

If knowledge is pointless. then it is not worth having. Neoliberals truly did not need to know about coronavirus. Neoliberals did not need to know how we have slowed pandemics in the past. Neoliberals did not need to know about the consequences of ecological destruction. Neoliberals do not need to know about Climate Change. Neoliberals do not need to know about poverty, or the condition of the working poor. Indeed Neoliberals need everyone to be as ignorant, or misinformed, on these topics as possible

All neoliberals need to know is that THE market will solve the problem (if it is a problem), if THE market is left alone to do its work, because THE market is the perfect information processor, and human knowledge is beside the point.

That is; if climate change, or the energy system, or the pandemic, is a problem then THE market will fix it, as best it is possible to hope for. If people die, that is not a problem as long as its not the hyper-wealthy.

The idea that THE market always produces the best possible, result is both Neoliberal positive thinking and positive ignorance. You can only think THE market always produces the best possible result, by cultivating ignorance of history.

For example if THE market always delivers, then the answer to any problem with government service is to privatise it. You don’t have to do any research to find out if privatisation has worked well in the past, solved the problems which were alleged, or generated efficiencies; you just know that it must have worked well. In particular you don’t have to do research in to which forms of government provided service have been replaced adequately and which have not.

The ‘perfection of THE market’ is an article of faith, which cannot be contradicted by reality. We have a true ‘Vision of the anointed,’ full of self-congratulation to use Thomas Sowell’s terms. If there was such a contradiction between reality and THE market, then THE market could not be the ultimate decider of human virtue and fate, and powerful people might be disturbed by the actions of less powerful people.

Lack of knowledge amongst ordinary people is truly a good thing, as it stops them interfering with THE market – hence Murdoch and others.

Neoliberal ignorance also depends on cultivating people’s ignorance of the idea that markets are contained within planetary ecosystems.

If anything at all is the ‘perfect information processor,’ then it is the global ecology. Anything which disrupts that ecology is likely to be eventually wiped out as the ecology moves into its new form of chaotic equilibrium – and the wipe out is likely to include THE market.

Ecologies take no notice of human requirements, or human politics, or human power. Especially if the human systems not only cultivate ignorance of the ecologies they depend upon, but attempt to destroy them or subjugate them.

Neoliberalism heads towards the destruction of everything, and celebrates the process, by blocking its ears, eyes, mouth, touch and brains.

***************

Comment

A friend writes:

How do the neoliberals square this idea of the market as always being the best approach given its failure in the dotcom bubble, and the GFC? They seem like clear counterexamples, and one only needs a single counterexample to disprove a theory.

I think that, in general, people always try and get around counter-examples rather than give up their theory, especially when its tied to their status, money, and ways of making sense of the world. However, I would agree that there seem to be a large number of counter examples as to the efficacy of THE market.

However, neoliberals always say that the crashes were caused by the government interfering with the market.

Given that the market has to have some regulation and that capitalists always seek to regulate for their own sectional benefit, they can always point to the existence of some regulation. A market which gives massively unequal wealth gives massively unequal power, and hence THE market is always structured by politics. Consequently, given the ease of blaming the government, rather than the corporately controlled market and government, they are never at a loss for a way out of the problem.

As well, the corporately owned and sponsored media tends not to blame the neoliberal, pro-corporate market for the problems of that market, and the counter examples can get hidden.

Australia made two big experiments in turning over government to private enterprise and they nearly resulted in the collapse of Victoria and West Australia.

With google I could only find one paywalled reference to Western Australia Inc. https://search.informit.org/…/INFORMIT.098371697477048

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

More on the Politics of Technology and Markets for electricity

April 13, 2021

In the post A New Report on the possibility of Renewable Transition, I discussed the politics of the way the Australian National Energy Market was being designed (and restricted) to maintain reliability, stability and security, and whether fossil fuels were a necessary part of that design. One of the main players in the process was the Energy Security Board.

Another main player is the government. As the reader probably knows the government is in favour of massive investment in methane gas, which is probably not that economic, and will just lock us into high levels of methane emissions, but their plan for the electricity market seems to be centered on keeping gas going.

Methane, Methane and more Methane

Angus Taylor, the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, has made the backing of methane, very clear. He said:

The Government backs the gas industry, backs Australians who use gas and it backs the 850,000 Australians who rely on gas for a job. The manufacturing sector alone relies on gas for over 40 per cent of its energy needs.

Gas is a critical enabler of Australia’s economy. It supports our manufacturing sector, is an essential input in the production of plastics for PPE and fertiliser for food production. 

In 2019, we overtook Qatar to be the largest LNG exporter in the world, with an export value of $49 billion.

Australia’s energy future 29 October 2020

No mention that Australia received less than $2 billion in royalties from these sales between 2016 and 2018 under the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT), whereas Qatar is estimated to have received $26 billion in royalties. In 2019, tax credits for oil and gas companies, taking Australian fossil fuels rose to $324 billion – that is there is $324 billion in tax the companies owe but do not have to pay [1], [2], [3]. I guess the idea is that taxpayers have to subsidise mining, and they have to keep methane gas going.

Taylor continues:

This Government will secure a future gas market that is attractive for gas development and investment. This will allow us to remain one of the top LNG exporters.

We will ensure that long-term domestic gas contract prices are internationally competitive to support our manufacturing and industrial sector.

We will ensure that there is sufficient new gas generation to maintain a reliable grid.

We have proven through the Snowy project at Kurri Kurri that the Morrison Government doesn’t bluff.

Our National Gas Infrastructure Plan will identify the major priorities for investment. If we don’t see the investment that we need to keep our gas market strong then we will act.

Australia’s energy future 29 October 2020

It is terrible when fossil fuels shut down, and the government will threaten to build methane gas powered energy, if other people will not.

ANGUS TAYLOR: What’s very clear is in the last few years, there hasn’t been enough investment in dispatchable generation [this means fossil fuels, even though coal is not ‘dispatchable’ because it is slow to ramp up or down], at the same time as we’ve seen big closures like we saw at Hazelwood in Victoria a couple of years back. So it’s that dispatchable generation, making sure there’s enough of that in the system is where it’s gone awry. Now, you know, we’re now saying to the big energy companies, if you don’t invest in that dispatchable generation, we will do it ourselves. That’s exactly what we’ve said we’ll do in the Hunter Valley at Kurri Kurri [with methane gas]. But it is true, there hasn’t been enough of that investment. Now, there has been some and it is increasing. I opened a gas generator in South Australia, for instance, around a year ago, which was has made a real difference in the South Australian grid. Helped to drive down prices, increased reliability [presumably unlike the batteries?]. But we need to see more of that. And if the private sector doesn’t do it, we’ll step in. That’s exactly what we said we’ll do in the Hunter Valley.

Interview with Luke Grant, 2GB, 5 January 2021

Conflict and Cancelling

The government argues that the closure of the Liddell power station…

will leave NSW 1000 megawatts short of electricity. Others dispute this, including the agencies tasked with regulating and maintaining the energy system: the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Energy Security Board.

KERRY SCHOTT, CHAIR, ENERGY SECURITY BOARD: The operator AEMO who keeps a close watch on the availability and what they need in the system, has said that there’s a gap when Liddell goes in 2023 of about 200 megawatts or so.

Fired Up. 4 Corners, 12 Apr 2021

This is a fair difference, and this perhaps sets the ESB, the AEMO and the government on a collision course.

Last night the ABC program, 4 corners, reported that:

Four Corners understands the federal government became so frustrated with the Energy Security Board chief’s refusal to support their position on gas that the minister’s departmental secretary called Kerry Schott and urged her to resign.

KERRY SCHOTT, CHAIR, ENERGY SECURITY BOARD: It was a private discussion

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN, REPORTER: Right, so there was pressure on you though?   

KERRY SCHOTT, CHAIR, ENERGY SECURITY BOARD:  Oh, there’s always pressure on me.   

Fired Up. 4 Corners, 12 Apr 2021

So no confirmation or denial from Schott.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN, REPORTER:  Why did your head of department call Kerry Schott and suggest she resign?

 ANGUS TAYLOR, FEDERAL ENERGY MINISTER:  Well, he didn’t. So I reject that, absolutely. But what I will say is that there was an independent review of the ESB that proposed and recommended the abolition of the ESB.  Obviously, there was discussion about how best to respond to that recommendation. We’ve ultimately made the decision we want to support the ESB to completing the 2025 market design work. This is a crucial piece of work about the future of our electricity grid. And we strongly supported Kerry to lead that work.

Fired Up. 4 Corners, 12 Apr 2021

There were other stories of pressure

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN, REPORTER: Four Corners has also been told that last year the minister personally intervened to try to pressure the head of the Australian Energy Market Operator to change its forecasts, which were unfavourable to gas.

AEMO boss Audrey Zibelman refused to do so.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN, REPORTER: AEMO’s Integrated Systems Plan published in July last year also makes a clear case that if gas is going to compete with batteries in electricity generation, the price will need to be well below $4 gigajoule by 2030 and beyond. And that battery charging costs would need to stop falling. Now, why did you feel it necessary to try to pressure Audrey Zibelman to change those conclusions? 

ANGUS TAYLOR, FEDERAL ENERGY MINISTER: Well, look at the end of the day, there has to be a balance in the system and gas is part of that balance. Batteries can play a particular role over shorter durations, particularly in that period when you’ve got destabilization of the grid, we’ve seen batteries play an enormously important role, but the longer duration storage or the longer duration backup overnight or during periods when we’re getting less sunshine or wind, we actually need a source of energy … Can I just, is that me? Sorry, mate. I have no choice. 

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN, REPORTER: The bells signaled a parliamentary vote and cut our interview with the Minister short.

Fired Up. 4 Corners, 12 Apr 2021

Market design in practice

The ESB’s Market Design Options Paper has now been handed to Angus Taylor. RenewEconomy comments:

there is serious concern about the lack of transparency in this process and [for] the creation of a new [market] structure that leaves Taylor in apparent sole arbiter of the process, acting for a government which has been opposed to wind and solar and which has mocked new technologies such as big batteries.

Vorrath. Taylor reportedly put pressure on Schott and Zibelman over gas plans RenewEconomy 13 April 2021

It is possible the States will object:

MATT KEAN, NSW ENERGY MINISTER: Let’s get the facts on the table: using gas to create electricity is a really expensive way to do it. If you’re interested in driving down electricity prices, then you’d be mad to use gas….

The cheapest way to now deliver electricity or energy, is a combination of wind, solar, pumped hydro, and renewable technologies. So it’s not fossil fuels, it’s now cleaner energy. Those people defending old technologies are the equivalent of defending Blockbuster in a Netflix world.

Fired Up. 4 Corners, 12 Apr 2021

DAN VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN, SA ENERGY MINISTER: We’ll use less and less gas over the time. We have four grid-scale batteries operating at the moment in South Australia, we have two more already established to, started construction, and we’ll get more and more of those.

Fired Up. 4 Corners, 12 Apr 2021

And that methane gas might be replaced with hydrogen

DAN VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN We in South Australia actually have the largest hydrogen electrolyzer in the nation operating at the moment in Tonsley, in the Southern suburbs of Adelaide. It’s actually a relatively small one at 1.25 megawatts, but it’s the largest in Australia. We are right at the leading edge of that, and it’s all operating from renewable energy. So we are determined to deliver, well, we’re determined to produce, and to consume, and to export green hydrogen in South Australia.

Fired Up. 4 Corners, 12 Apr 2021

Another view on whether methane gas is useful for leading recovery

A Grattan Institute report argues that:

Far from fuelling the recovery from the COVID recession, natural gas will inevitably decline as an energy source for industry and homes in Australia…

The east coast has already burned most of its low-cost gas, and will not go back to the good old days of low prices…

Even if the Government could significantly reduce gas prices, the benefits to manufacturing are overstated. The companies that would benefit most contribute only about 0.1 per cent of gross domestic product, and employ only a little more than 10,000 people. And much of this gas-intensive industry is in Western Australia, which has low gas prices already.

Flame out: the future of natural gas. Grattan Institute 15 November 2020

They suggest that gas has a role as:

a ‘backstop’ for the power system – used for relatively short bursts to maintain reliability…, [but this] contrasts strongly with the idea of gas as a ‘transition fuel’…

This [backstop] role doesn’t need lots of gas or cheap gas, but it does require flexible gas. The Federal Government’s recently announced policies focus on supporting new gas production and pipelines…., but these require relatively constant gas demand to keep average costs as low as possible

https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Flame-out-Grattan-report.pdf

A later report from the same organisation claims:

moving to a system with 70 per cent renewable energy – and closing about two-thirds of today’s coal-fired power plants – would not materially increase the cost of power but would dramatically reduce emissions….

The economic modelling suggests that moving to a system with 90 per cent renewable energy – and no coal – could also be reliable. But some additional costs – such as more generation, transmission, and storage – would be necessary to ensure supply…

Gas is likely to play the critical backup role, though not an expanded role. Australia will make a gas-supported transition to a net-zero emissions electricity system – but not a ‘gas-led recovery’ from the COVID recession.

Go for net zero: A practical plan for reliable, affordable, low-emissions electricity. Grattan Institute, 11 April 2021

Gas and modernising the grid

The determination to force more methane gas on to Australia, to counter predicted declines, is probably the reason that Angus Taylor has been so hostile to the idea that the electricity grid needs modernising and expanding, to deal with the energy transition and the kinds of ‘solar traffic jams‘ we have discussed before.

The Australian Energy Market Operator’s offered a 20-year blueprint, known as the ‘Integrated System Plan’ (ISP) and the Labor party pledged $20 billion to modernise the grid to support the the plan [2].

Taylor tweeted that:

The ISP had been recommended by the Finkel Review and endorsed by all governments at the Coag Energy Council which Taylor chairs.

AEMO has made it clear that these upgrades are essential to modernise the grid, and improve reliability and security, with the happy bonus that it will cut emissions and keep down prices. 

Parkinson. “Lines to nowhere:” Taylor mocks ISP and Labor’s $20bn grid plan. RenewEconomy, 8 October 2020

So it seems clear the government, at this moment, do not want the grid improved so that the transition can work better. This may be because they don’t want to do anything to help further the decrease of fossil fuels, because they don’t to risk public money on something constructive, or they just don’t believe there is a climate problem and we can keep on with fossil fuels endlessly.

Conclusion

The question then is whether politics can hamper and disrupt supposed ‘economic reality’. I’d argue it can. It has mainly been politics that has delayed response to climate change, and which makes it hard to expect that we can now solve the problem before facing major disruption, and that has continually involved weirding markets to favour the old ways.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A meditative approach to Complexity. Western Dadirri?

April 11, 2021

Cross Cultural Christian theologian Raimon Panikkar makes what seems like an important point in dealing with complexity and in producing peace.

He suggests that people conditioned by Modern Life, or Western consciousness or culture, can run away from both reality and wider eco-systems in order to live and participate in their societies. These societies are hostile to ecologies and to humans because they seem to seek complete domination and control over the ‘world and events’, rather than accept the dynamics of ‘world and events’ and work with them. People in these societies seek security through that sense of domination, and through the assurance that any disruption of required order will be temporary.

Climate turmoil is particularly threatening because it undermines that sense of domination and the sense of security which has grown around the idea of controlling the world. It clearly states we do not have control, and that the control we do have is going to lead to disaster. Hence, what I’ve called the Existential Crisis of Climate Change.

Complexity thinking is also a challenge, as recognising the real complexity of social and ecological systems also threatens that sense of security and control, as we can then perceive that our best-intentioned, and most understood, actions are likely to provoke unintended consequences.

If we place ourselves in a continual rush, without regard to likely futures, and the trajectories from the past, it becomes easier to suppress the trauma provoked by awareness of climate failure and complexity, and to carry on destroying the world without facing deliberation or awareness. Society helps generate that rush through work, and distracts us from anything ongoingly important by daily scandal, or the emergency of the moment – often without putting the emergency into historical context, so it is just another overwhelming event (hopefully happening to others). This does not produce peace. Indeed this society apparently requires upset and strife.

Panikkar’s solution is simple, but perhaps difficult to practice, and resembles what I understand of Daddiri.

Panikkar emphasises the importance slowing down, and of cultivating a receptive attitude, rather than a dominating attitude, when working with life and complexity – and everything is complex.

Receptive in this case means accepting what is happening and allowing the dynamics of what is happening to be present, while:

  • Not attempting complete control over, or complete security in, the situation.
  • Not running away; because accepting does not make things worse, it only increases awareness of how bad things are, and allows us to face the fears undermining us,
  • Not trying to change what is there immediately – giving it, and yourself, space to be,
  • Suspending attempts at total understanding, as they are not possible,
  • Being ok with normal ignorance, but learning what you can,
  • Not isolating the present completely from previous experiences, but not dominating it with previous experiences, it is both unique and continuous with other experiences.

His idea is to start with maximal awareness of what is – including perhaps awareness of death – and then to proceed gently without force, and with flow, while still being receptive to events as they occur whether expected or not.

This process encourages us to retain our memories and experience, while giving us context for understanding, and making change. In this way we can acknowledge and mourn our losses (anticipated or otherwise), honour the value of what is lost, or may be lost, and bring what might be the future into our present consideration.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Grant King and the Climate Change Authority

April 10, 2021

After looking at the Misfortunes of Malcolm, we can now look at another board, this one appointed by the Federal Government, that seems to be getting by with only half hearted protest….

The Climate Change Authority has a long and chequered history.

In 2014, it recommended the government set a 2030 climate target equivalent to a 45-60% cut in emissions below 2005 levels. The Coalition ignored the advice, setting a 26-28% reduction target.

Cox. A ‘win’ for fossil fuels: green groups critical as former Origin Energy boss named chief of climate body. The Guardian 9 April 2021

The Coalition tried to abolish the Authority and failed, so cut funding and staff.

CEO of the Climate Change Authority, Brad Archer, told a senate estimates hearing in February that the Morrison government has not asked the body to undertake any new work and has not been asked to complete any modelling or research into what may be required to transition Australia to a zero net emissions economy.

Mazengarb. Taylor slammed for “stacking gas lobbyists” on Climate Change Authority. RenewEconomy 9 April 2021

However the Federal government recently appointed, as its head, Grant King, well known for being the former CEO of Origin Energy, and a persistent advocate for the methane industry.

Dan Goucher of the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility said:

Under his leadership, Origin forcefully opposed credible climate policy. During his tenure on their boards, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) campaigned to repeal the carbon tax, the only effective policy Australia has ever had to reduce emissions

O’Malley ‘Uniquely unsuited’: Government accused of stacking climate body with fossil interests. Sydney Morning Herald, 9 April 2021

The Australia Institute remarks

King was responsible for initiating Asia Pacific LNG,  the largest Queensland coal seam gas LNG project which has resulted in well over 200 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions already, which will rise to well over one billion tonnes over the life of the project

O’Malley ‘Uniquely unsuited’: Government accused of stacking climate body with fossil interests. Sydney Morning Herald, 9 April 2021

King was also on the board of the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA), which has campaigned strongly against climate action, and described itself as “the effective voice of Australia’s upstream oil and gas industry on the issues that matter“. It needs to be said that this body is more radical than the Government as they claim:

Policies should achieve emissions reductions consistent to achieve net zero emissions across the Australian economy by 2050 as part of a contribution to a goal of global net zero emissions by 2050. The Australian Government has the responsibility to set interim targets and for the policy framework that meets them.

APPEA Australia’s cleaner energy future, p2.

In counterposition, the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, told the National Press Club:

Our goal is to reach net zero emissions as soon as possible, and preferably by 2050.

Morrison. Address to the National Press Club, Barton ACT, 1 Feb 2021

Which might be said to mean, as soon as possible as late as possible ?? No interim targets have been mentioned.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the APPEA recommend more gas, and the money consuming fantasy of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

The Minister for Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, described Mr King as:

a thought leader who has already made a significant contribution to the development of Australia’s emissions reduction policy framework

Taylor. Appointments to the Climate Change Authority, Press Release 9 April 2021

Which means, I suppose, that Mr King can be reliably expected to go along with Mr Taylor’s views.

The new board will also include Susie Smith, who was a long serving executive for the gas company Santos (who have large projected and new projects in Australia, one of which has been described as so rich in CO2 that it “looks more like a CO2 emissions factory with an LNG by-product.”) She is also head the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, which has been heavily pro-fossil fuels, and some members once apparently called themselves the “Greenhouse Mafia“.

King and Smith have previously worked together on the ‘King Review’ which recommended CCS, and that ARENA and the CEFC not to be constrained to supporting only clean energy projects. The Review’s consultations have been described as being “heavily stacked towards representatives of big industrial emitters and the fossil fuel industry.”

Independent MP, Zali Steggall, said:

These new appointments are completely at odds with the Authority’s purpose to give independent advice on climate, science and policy to the Government.

The Morrison Government continues to only listen to vested interests in fossil fuels. We need a truly independent expert Climate Change Commission, as the UK has had since 2008, to advise the Government if we want a chance at achieving net zero by 2050. The Climate Change Authority, as it is currently is now constituted, is not it.

Steggall. MEDIA RELEASE: New appointments by the Morrison Government to the Climate Change Authority miss the mark

It is too early to tell what the media and political reaction will be, and I’ll keep adding as information accumulates, but my bet is that the media will largely leave it alone, or make it a one day wonder. The current most popular headline suggests the pick “ruffles feathers” – which suggests those who are complaining fuss about nothing. I also suspect in the current political climate that the government will see protests by climate concerned people as showing the Government is completely right about the appointments, as opponents have to be completely wrong. They are unlikely to be criticised by the Murdoch Empire, which may be almost all the media Coalition parliamentarians take seriously, so they will be happy. King and Smith do not have the political enemies that Turnbull made, so they will brazen it out, and the government will ignore protests.

This kind of standard neoliberal approach could lead to corruption, which is not corruption for neoliberals, such as taxpayer support for polluting gas, gas pipelines, gas exports, or legal threats against NSW if it decides it does not want the gas it agreed to. They will also encourage wasting more taxpayer funds on CCS, which almost certainly will not achieve its promises. But this will happen anyway, because its not corruption, or vested interest, its just what is called plain business good sense – it supports established business.

However, the news may not all be bad. King is associated with several organisations that want firm targets for 2050, and targets on the way, which is better than what the government wants, which seems to be aspiration alone.

The new members may also encourage a carbon price, which at least is a direct encouragement for people to reduce emissions (yes it has problems but I’ll take what I can get).

We shall see.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Malcolm Turnbull: Coal and Renewable futures

April 9, 2021

Recently former Coalition Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was briefly appointed by the NSW Cabinet to being the Chair of the NSW Net Zero Emissions and Clean Economy Board.

It was not a long lasting appointment, and the politics are illuminating

For those who are not local. Malcolm Turnbull is a member of the supposedly conservative Coalition of Liberal and National parties. He was deposed from Prime Ministership because he took a few vague steps towards climate action and had an energy policy of sorts. The current PM does not take action or have an energy policy in favour of transition, but says he does. The other main figure in the story is NSW Energy Minister, Matt Kean who also appears to believe in climate change and is working to produce an energy transision policy for NSW. The policy has been exceedingly vague, but is slowly taking shape.

The Announcement

Matt Kean, organised the position for Turnbull on the Net Zero Emissions and Clean Economy Board and said the Board would provide strategic and expert advice on program design and funding proposals under the State’s inaugural $1 billion Net Zero Plan Stage 1: 2020-2030.

The Board will help us to drive a clean industrial revolution for NSW – providing advice on opportunities to grow the economy, create jobs of the future, support industry to develop low emissions technologies and modernise industrial processes,… The Board is also going to be key in delivering low-carbon jobs in the Hunter and Illawarra [where there are coal mines and old industries], to help those economies diversify.

Environment NSW, Malcolm Turnbull AC to chair Net Zero Emissions and Clean Economy Board, 29 March 2021

At the Launch on the 29 March (?) Mr Turnbull said

the world’s move to net zero emissions by 2050 will create huge economic opportunities for Australia and I intend to make sure NSW realises them.

Environment NSW, Malcolm Turnbull AC to chair Net Zero Emissions and Clean Economy Board, 29 March 2021

and:

“In reality, we are going to move away from burning, and the world is going to move away from coal,” he told the Herald and The Age. “I’m very concerned we do that in a way that preserves and increases economic opportunities for everybody”.

Hannam. Turnbull named head of NSW government’s climate advisory board. Sydney Morning Herald, 29 March 2021

The previous month, Mr Turnbull was appointed chairman of the Australian arm of Fortescue Future Industries, the new venture set up by Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest to invest in renewable energy and so-called green hydrogen – which would later be used to indicate a conflict of interest. It should be noted that the Coalition do not, in general. seem to think that membership on government advice bodies and on boards of fossil fuel organisations seem to be conflicts of interest at all.

Turnbull had previously clashed with members of the Coalition at Federal and State level. However NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro, who is also important to this story, said that when approached by Matt Kean:

many weeks ago… I said then, as I say now, that Malcolm Turnbull is very much qualified for such a role…. I’m not opposed, and believe this appointment is based on Mr Turnbull’s merits.

Maddison Turnbull to head climate board. The Australian, 30 March p.2: Paywalled.

The clash begins: the by-election

However a clash started almost immediately. On the 31st March a government member who had allegedly raped a sex worker, and had offered another(?) sex worker money to have sex in Parliament resigned, due to the scandal – probably the scandal was made more prominent by the series of rape and sexual abuse scandals coming from the Federal Coalition, and their propensity to ignore the problem.

A by-election was called for the Upper Hunter. If the NSW government lost, then they would become a minority, so this is an important by-election.

The Hunter Valley can be described a coal mining area or an agricultural area being rapidly turned into a coal slag heap, depending on one’s politics and aesthetics. The problem for NSW is intensified as while some of the Coalition seem in favour of a low emissions economy, otherwise Kean would not be in his position, many do not seem to be in favour of a low emissions economy which does not include coal burning or coal sales. Coal is supposedly popular with people, and the Upper Hunter has the highest proportion of coal mining jobs of any seat in the state, but is also the fifth-highest for agricultural jobs.

A Report from the Australia Institute found that proposals for new projects in the Upper Hunter amounted to 98 million tonnes of extra coal production a year, or 10 times the size of currently approved for the Adani mine in Queensland. In NSW, 23 mines or mine expansions where being requested for a total production of 155 million tonnes of coal. Coal production in NSW doubled between 2000 and 2014, from 130m tonnes to 260m tonnes a year.

The Australia Institutes’ Richard Denniss said:

At the moment there are more mines seeking approval than could ever be handled by the rail networks and the Port of Newcastle, let alone the world’s coal customers.

Hannam Turnbull calls for halt on new coal mines, inquiry on rehabilitation funds. Sydney Morning Herald, 31 March 2021

The morning of the day the MP resigned, and before the resignation occurred, Turnbull called on the NSW government to pause the approval of new coal mines in NSW, saying the industry is already in decline as the world makes changes to address the climate crisis.

“I think [approvals for new mines are] out of control”, Mr Turnbull told the Herald and The Age, emphasising he was speaking in a private capacity as a landholder in the Upper Hunter region. “It’s like a lunar landscape… There is massive devastation that’s going [on].” [emphasis added, for reasons which will be seen later.]

Hannam Turnbull calls for halt on new coal mines, inquiry on rehabilitation funds. Sydney Morning Herald, 31 March 2021

He accused coal mining companies of “trying to get in before the party ends”, and that approvals are being made without any regard for the cumulative effects.

“The rehabilitation challenge is gigantic and it’s far from clear where those resources are coming from,… It would be good to have a public inquiry into the whole rehabilitation program. The state government is going to end up picking up the tab”

Hannam Turnbull calls for halt on new coal mines, inquiry on rehabilitation funds. Sydney Morning Herald, 31 March 2021

“We have no reason to believe that the companies concerned will have the financial capability to remediate the land, or whether in fact remediation is really possible. And there is no transparency about the level of the bonds or the adequacy of the bonds that have been lodged to support the level of remediation.”

Morton Malcolm Turnbull backs moratorium on new coalmines in NSW. The Guardian 31 March 2021

Turnbull said the government should encourage industries with a long-term future such as clean energy, agriculture, tourism, thoroughbred racing and wine-making. He supported the Australia Institute’s call for a regional plan and coal approval moratorium. “If we want to look after the future of the people in the Hunter as opposed to a few coalminers – coalmining companies – we’ve got to carefully plan it” [1]

He also noted that he had written a submission opposing the proposed expansion of the Mount Pleasant mine [2]

Other reports suggest that the Upper Hunter postcode 2333 area has the worst air quality of any postcode in the state, almost certainly from the existing coal mines, so expansion of coal would be dangerous for resident’s health [3]. This is apparently unimportant, and is rarely mentioned by politicians except to be denied [4].

Condemnation

John Barilaro slammed Mr Turnbull’s comments, saying the government remained “firmly committed to the coal industry in NSW” and there would be no pause on coal mining approvals anywhere in the state.

“Malcolm Turnbull has been appointed to chair the NSW Net-Zero Emissions and Clean Economy Board but this is not a mandate for him to speak on behalf of the NSW government when it comes to coal,” Mr Barilaro said.

“I was willing to give Mr Turnbull the benefit of the doubt but by day two of his appointment he has misjudged his role by calling for a moratorium on mining.”

Hannam Turnbull calls for halt on new coal mines, inquiry on rehabilitation funds. Sydney Morning Herald, 31 March 2021

“He needs to set aside his war on the Coalition, because of his damaged ego after being rejected as leader and prime minister, like I’ve set aside my own past grievances on this issue,…

“Under the NSW government there will be no moratorium on coal in the Upper Hunter or anywhere else in the state”

Morton. John Barilaro attacks Turnbull over ‘war on Coalition’ and says NSW ‘firmly committed’ to coal. The Guardian 31 March 2021

I don’t know if his past grievances show that much sign of being put aside – they were pretty easily triggered. Later on Barilaro said that he supported plans for an expanded coal mining industry in New South Wales, and that this was the wider position of the NSW government.

“For someone to be appointed in a government role, and not to understand the passion and the policy position of the government, that in itself shows that they are thick-headed and and they aren’t interested in what is right and good for the economy.”

Mazengarb. Turnbull pulled from NSW net zero advisory board, after calling for halt to new coal mines. RenewEconomy 6 April 2021

The Minerals Council of Australia joined in the condemnation. They are probably the most powerful lobby group in the country, and already claim the demise of one Prime Minister.

““The NSW government has a Coal Strategy and, given the importance of the sector to the NSW economy, Malcolm should read it because 12,000 Hunter coal miners don’t need another rich guy from Sydney telling them what’s good for them,”

Hannam Turnbull calls for halt on new coal mines, inquiry on rehabilitation funds. Sydney Morning Herald, 31 March 2021

Only minor points for readers noticing that the minerals council is also representing “rich guys.”

Matt Canavan a federal senator stated:

“Stopping our coal going to poor countries is an inhumane policy to keep people in poverty.”

Hannam Turnbull calls for halt on new coal mines, inquiry on rehabilitation funds. Sydney Morning Herald, 31 March 2021

I suppose its worth noting the pseudo climate justice justification for coal, for poisoning locals and making money.

And the Federal Minister for emissions reduction said:

“I was a bit surprised that Malcolm took on this role, a former prime minister, we’ll work with the NSW government to do the work we really need to get more gas into the market…. What I’ll be doing is working with the NSW government to make sure they keep their commitments on gas, on keeping enough energy in the system to put downward pressure on prices.”

McHugh Mal’s green job a shock. Daily Telegraph, 31 Mar 2021: 19. Paywalled

The Federal Coalition is keen on supporting fossil fuels, and considers more gas is vital to economic recovery and growth. Emissions reduction is apparently not something one can plan.

Murdoch Empire

The Murdoch Daily Telegraph reported that Matt Kean had asked Turnbull to stop attacking coal and that the appointment had “sparked an inundation of angry calls from the party’s rank and file, with multiple Liberals now ‘ropeable’ about the former PM’s role.” One MP, Lea Evans, said the job should have gone to “anybody else but Malcolm”. Multiple MPs also told the Telegraph that the rank and file Liberals are furious at the appointment.[O’Doherty Libs hit a minefield as Mal-content fires up. Daily Telegraph 2 April 2021, p2. Paywalled]

Attacks extended to Matt Kean

Mr Kean has been allowed to run, unchecked by the Premier, with energy policies more suited to Labor or even the Greens. Now those misguided policies are coming home to roost.”

Terrible time to hire Turnbull. Daily Telegraph, 2 April 2021. p.28

Another Murdoch vehicle SkyNews was also against the appointment. Immediately on 29 March, Commentator Alan Jones said:

a “rejection” of NSW Liberal MP Matt Kean’s nomination of former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull to head the NSW Climate Policy board, is “precisely” what the state government “ought to do”. Mr Jones said Mr Kean… “ought to declare an interest; does any of Malcolm Turnbull’s family have a financial interest, yes or no, in renewable energy,” he said. “I think this is beyond extraordinary and if Matt Kean thinks it’s going to win votes for the Liberal Party, he’s kidding.”

NSW govt must ‘reject’ Turnbull as nominee for NSW Climate Policy board: Alan Jones. SkyNews 31 March 2021

Chris Smith said:

the Liberal Party needs to “wake up to itself and cut ties” with their “miserable old ghost” Malcolm Turnbull.

The former prime minister is set to head up the New South Wales Government’s climate advisory board after being nominated by state Energy Minister Matt Kean.

“How they consider this loser even a valid member of a conservative party, defies everything that comes out of his mouth – especially since he was given the boot,” Mr Smith said. “Everyone who knows anything about politics knows what Turnbull is trying to do – trying every way possible to bring down the government that turned on him…”

Mr Turnbull is “already planning some kind of scorched earth policy” even before they’ve “designed the letterhead for this new agency”.

“On his favourite media again yesterday – the ABC, he called for a moratorium on all new coal mines in New South Wales…. Turnbull might have some kind of renewable dream, but he has no technology or existing system to replace coal.”

Liberals need to ‘wake up and cut ties’ with ‘miserable ghost’ Malcolm Turnbull. SkyNews 1 April, 2021

Rowan Dean said:

Within hours of this ludicrous appointment Turnbull was doing what he does best, sabotaging his federal colleagues at the same time as selling the coal miners of the Hunter down the river… But the biggest fool of them all is Gladys Berejiklian by allowing this lunatic Matt Kean to destroy the future prosperity of Australia’s premier state. We will all be paying for this folly for decades.

‘Biggest joke’: Turnbull’s new climate change job. Sky News. 4 April 2021

There was more in the same temperate vein.

On the 6th April. The daily Telegraph had the headline Malcolm’s Coal War:

EXCLUSIVE Ex-PM’s NIMBY activism against mine

MALCOLM Turnbull wrote to the NSW government objecting to the expansion of a coal mine citing his family’s nearby 2700 acre grazing property among reasons for his concern.

Caldwell. Malcolm’s Coal War. Daily Telegraph, 6 April 2021, p1. [Unavailable online]

Turnbull protest letter exposes the former PM as ‘anti-coal activist’

MALCOLM Turnbull wrote directly to the NSW government objecting to the expansion of a key coal mine in the Upper Hunter citing his family’s nearby 2700 acre grazing property among reasons for his concern.

Caldwell. Mal’s mine shaft sparks furore. Daily Telegraph. 6 April, p.4 [Unavailable online]

This was the letter that Turnbull mentioned at the beginning of his remarks. It is hardly a triumph of investigative reporting to have ‘uncovered’ it. However the Telegraph recognises that:

The letter was sent before Mr Turnbull’s appointment as the chief of the government’s Net Zero board was publicly announced

So even if you protest against coal in your private life and make clear that you have protested against coal in your personal capacity as a landholder, you don’t escape the cancel… The Board had no influence on planning approvals so it was not a conflict of interest.

The Telegraph then appears to accuse Turnbull of hypocrisy for previously supporting coal.

On February 1, 2017, while he was still prime minister, Mr Turnbull told the National Press Club that old high-emissions coal power plants “cannot simply be replaced by gas, because it’s too expensive, or by wind or solar because they are intermittent”.

As prime minister, Mr Turnbull was also a keen supporter of coal exports to India and backed Australian miners to help power South Asian.

Enough to turn a fossil fan green. Daily Telegraph, 6 April 2021, p.5 [paywalled?]

So he can’t win, whether he supports or does not support coal, or changes his mind based on evidence. Changing your mind, from Murdoch orthodoxy, is not allowed.

On the 6th April Turnbull’s appointment was terminated…

John Barilaro was the first to announce the sacking on radio 2GB, saying:

We are not proceeding with the appointment of Malcolm Turnbull as chair… You need someone who brings people together and not divides and unfortunately Malcolm has done the opposite… He pulled my pants down within 48 hours of his appointment on an area that I take seriously.

Former PM Malcolm Turnbull dumped from NSW climate board after backlash. New Daily, 6 April 2021

And later:

Under no circumstances did this appointment provide [Turnbull] with a mandate to criticise the mining industry and, as a result of his comments, the NSW government has decided not to proceed with the appointment,

Smith How Turnbull’s new role was ended before it even began. Sydney Morning Herald, 7 April 2021

Matt Kean stated:

The purpose of the Net Zero Emissions and Clean Economy Board is to create jobs in low carbon industries and see the State reduce its emissions in ways that grow the economy… It is important that the focus is on achieving these outcomes, based on facts, technology, science, and economics.

The focus should not be on personality.

…no person’s role on the Board should distract from achieving results for the NSW people or from the government’s work in delivering jobs and opportunities for the people of NSW,

Kean Statement on Net Zero Emissions and Clean Energy Board 6 April 2021

Later Kean said:

I realised that I’d lost the support of my colleagues in keeping Malcolm as the appointed head of the net zero emissions board, and in order to keep the team together, I had to make a very tough decision about someone that I think the world of and I respect greatly.

in order to move forward, in order to keep reducing our emissions in the way we have in New South Wales, I need to bring the whole community along this journey,

Mazengarb “I lost the support of my colleagues”: Kean explains decision to dump Turnbull. RenewEconomy 7 April 2021

Turnbull said:

his [position] was a part-time role which I was asked to do. I didn’t seek it. I agreed because we need to move as quickly as possible to a net zero emissions economy… Unfortunately there are vocal forces in our country, particularly the fossil fuel lobby and the Murdoch media, who are absolutely opposed to that.

Morton. Turnbull blames ‘rightwing media’ for dumping from NSW climate change board. The Guardian 6 April 2021

The Labor Party

On the other side of politics, Labor politician and coal miner supporter Joel Fitzgibbon said on Facebook:

Malcolm Turnbull now formally speaks for the NSW Liberal & National Parties and wants to make the Upper Hunter a coal mine free zone. Every voter in the area should listen to Wednesday’s @RNBreakfast interview. Jodi McKay [the leader of the NSW opposition] should play it over and over again through loud speakers!

Joel Fitzgibbon Facebook, April 2nd

Adam Searle, Labor’s spokesman for climate change and energy said:

This appointment, made without consultation with the Opposition, looks like the government is playing politics and risks creating political divisions in this crucial area.”

Hannam. Turnbull named head of NSW government’s climate advisory board. Sydney Morning Herald, 29 March 2021

Later he wrote on Facebook:

Mr Turnbull’s dumping vindicates Labor’s opposition to his appointment.

It was a divisive appointment – not only on a partisan basis but within his own side of politics. It’s just humiliating for Minister Kean, the Premier and the government to dump him.

Labor is calling on the Berejiklian Government to learn from its mistake here and pick a respected independent person for this very important role.

Searle Facebook, April 6.

The opposition leader, Jodi McKay pointed out that:

It will take a miracle for the Nats [National Party, part of the Coalition] to lose the seat they’ve held for 90 years

McKay Twitter, April 1 2021

That Labor has never won the Upper Hunter, implies that coal miners are unimportant, have never been pro-Labor, or that the area is full of agricultural workers who vote for the supposed farmer’s party [Nationals], although it is pretty much a miner’s party nowadays.

McKay was reasonably quite on the Turnbull affair but wrote on Twitter:

How on earth did it even come to this? John Barilaro backed Turnbull’s appointment in Cabinet.

This should never have been a political appointment and was always going to divisive.

A monumental failure of judgment by John Barilaro.

McKay Twitter April 6 2021

Labor chose a coal miner and union official, Jeff Drayton, as their candidate, who said

I’m a coal miner and a proud coal miner,

Every time I open the newspaper or every time I turn the TV on I see somebody having a go at coal miners and that has to stop.

And I’m going to fight bloody hard to make sure that does.

Raper NSW Labor announce Jeff Drayton as candidate for Upper Hunter by-election. ABC News 13 April 2021

McKay said at the launch:

We have to protect the jobs that are here,” Ms McKay said.

We have to make sure that we respect each and every person that walks into a coal mine.

They don’t do it because they want to damage the environment, they do it because they’re paying the mortgage.

Raper NSW Labor announce Jeff Drayton as candidate for Upper Hunter by-election. ABC News 13 April 2021

Which seems to be missing the point. Who actually is disrespecting coal miners? The problem is that coal mining is dangerous for the world, not just the miners. Miners deserve a transition into decent jobs.

However, it does seem that few people in the Labor Party, perhaps no one, thought it worthwhile to defend either Turnbull’s right to have private opinions, or his proposition that the Hunter did not need more coal mines. No one seems to have thought it worthwhile to ask what was the point of an attempt to deal with climate change, while promoting more coal exports.

As a sidelight on the Election campaign, the Nationals registered websites under the names of their opponents. These seem to be currently not working, so I have no idea what was on them. John Barilaro, the deputy premier said:

They don’t like it when it’s the rough and tumble in reverse, we aren’t a charity, this is a political party and we are in the political game and we’ll use everything to our advantage… <He does not seem to bother describing what rough and tumble he is supposedly responding to>

They were slow off the mark, I’m sorry but it’s not illegal. They were slow off the mark and if you can’t even get your campaign right, the question is are you going to be good enough to run government?…

It’s not the first time, it’s happened to us. It’s a bit of fun, we’ll go through a process to see how we will resolve it but at the end of the day when you say negative campaign, you jump on those websites, it’s the truth…

If they did it to us, we’d be upset, we got them this time, we pulled their pants down,

Fellows. Barilaro: “We pulled their pants down.” Scone.com, 16 April 2021.

Apparently he has an obsession with pants being pulled down.

Economics of Coal?

Australia is one of the biggest coal exporters on the planet. It is the largest exporter of metallurgical coal, and the second largest exporter of thermal coal (Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Resources and Energy Quarterly December 2020: 42, 56). Exporting more will, unless other coal sellers collapse, more than likely completely blow any chances of containing climate change.

Last year during Covid the price of coal crashed from nearly $100 a tonne to $60-$70 a tonne. The Wambo mine closed for 8 weeks in June, and when the miners returned to work, the owners announced that half the jobs, at least 75 workers, would have to go.

Glencore announced a collection of temporary site and equipment shutdowns across its Hunter Valley mines due to the market. BHP confirmed it intended to offload its Mount Arthur open cut mine, near Muswellbrook.

It seems unlikely that without a major turn around in the coal price, that more coal mines would actually remedy this problem [1].

Later news suggests that Glencore might shut down three of its Hunter Valley mines by 2023 [2]

The Port of Newcastle in the Hunter, also fears the limited future of coal. It is one of the largest coal export ports in the World.

Recognising the terminal decline of coal use to be a long-term threat to the Port [of Newcastle] and the entire Hunter Valley region of NSW, the Port, which exported 158 million tonnes of thermal coal in 2020 (99% of its export volume), has outlined an urgent need to diversify into non-fossil fuel sectors, including green hydrogen/ammonia/aluminium….

The Port suggests demand for its coal exports are expected to peak by around 2027, however this timeframe is likely to have considerably shortened as its major export markets, China, Japan and South Korea have all pledged to become carbon neutral.

Rose. Australia: Port of Newcastle’s roadblock on the path away from thermal coal, IEEFA, 18 March 2021

Later Turnbull said:

Demand for export coal is declining,… That’s clear. The statistics are very clear there and the reasons are obvious. It’s that people in other countries are burning less coal.

We have a number of existing mines in the Hunter [that] are operating below capacity already. There is already enough capacity in the Hunter to meet export demand, you know, for a decade and more. Well into the future.

If you have an unconstrained expansion of existing mines like the expansion at Mt Pleasant or the opening of new mines, all that you are going to do is cannibalise the demand from the existing mines and put workers out of work today.

Kurnelovs & Morton Malcolm Turnbull accuses John Barilaro of ‘gaslighting’ with claim air quality data is manipulated. The Guardian, 8 April 2021

Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute remarked:

No-one would suggest building new hotels in Cairns to help that city’s struggling tourism industry. But among modern Liberals it’s patently heresy to ask how rushing to green light 11 proposed coal mines in the Hunter Valley helps the struggling coal industry.

Coal mines in the Hunter are already operating well below capacity and have been laying off workers in the face of declining world demand for coal, plummeting renewable energy prices and trade sanctions imposed by China. The problem isn’t a shortage of supply, but an abundance.

Denniss Is Malcolm Turnbull the only Liberal who understands economics and climate science – or the only one who’ll talk about it? The Conversation 7th April

Denniss also makes the obvious point, that coal mine expansions impede and lessen investment in agriculture and tourism. Coal Mining also has the capacity to damage agriculture, and cause farmers to sell up and move out.

New coal is supported by “independent experts” paid for by the coal companies.

It’s amazing [how] companies like Ernst & Young that talk about ‘the need to embrace the climate emergency’ are also prepared to knowingly inflate the economic case for new coal mines.

Ernst & Young’s economists use methods for coal mines that result in valuations hundreds of millions higher than even other coal industry consultants. These methods have been described as ‘inflated’, ‘contrary to economic theory’ and ‘plainly wrong’ by the NSW Land and Environment Court, but EY is happy to keep using them.

Deloitte also goes in to bat for new coal mines while saying climate change is the ‘biggest shared challenge facing humanity’”.

Stacey. Crooked Consulting: EY and Deloitte spruik climate on one hand, the explosion in new coal projects on the other. Michael West Media, 5 April 2021

This is yet another example of the information mess. The problem is not the experts but neoliberalism and depending on commercial information sources and consultation companies which are paid to deliver results for those who pay. They won’t get repeat consultation by delivering the results which are not wanted, even if correct. If they do deliver the required results, then they’ll get recommendations from the firm that hired them to other businesses that also require results, so the money keeps coming, and the information keeps getting worse.

Its probably best to have ‘experts’ funded by the public who are free to give advice as neutrally as possible. Science tends to get corrupted when employed by business – as the demands of business are for profit, not for truth.

Some employment stats:

The Upper Hunter Council, which is part of the electorate, claims that it supports “14,180 people, [with] 5,260 jobs and has an annual economic output of $1.668 billion.”

1,344 of those jobs are in the Agricultural sector and 26!! are mining.

On the other hand Musswellbrook which is also part of the upper Hunter claims it supports “16,377 people, [with] 10,017 jobs and has an annual economic output of $7.290 billion.”

It has 3,120 jobs in mining and 541 in Agriculture, forestry and fishing. see remplan

The 2016 census reports that 14.2% of people, in employment in the Upper Hunter electorate, worked in Coal Mining, while only 0.4% of the Australian population works in that field. Coal mining jobs will have a spill over effect, as does any source of income which reaches the general population, but it is always hard to estimate what other jobs and industry it supports.

A poll

This is added a week or so later…

The Australia Institute, which has featured reasonably prominently in this story, carried out a poll in the Upper Hunter electorate using a sample of 686 residents, on the nights of the 7th and 8th of April 2021. Such a small poll is probably not that accurate, but they found:

The majority of voters (57.4%) in the NSW state seat of Upper Hunter support former PM Malcolm Turnbull’s call for a moratorium on new coal mine approvals and a remediation plan for existing mines for the Hunter Valley.

Polling: Upper Hunter – Moratorium on New Coal Mines in the Hunter. Australia Institute, 13 April 2012

About a third of those who support the moratorium ‘strongly support’ the moratorium, while of those who oppose the moratorium only 16% ‘strongly oppose’. Support for the moratorium on new coal mines was present in most voting groups:

  • Nationals voters 54.1% support,
  • Labor voters 69.8% support,
  • Greens voters 91.3% support,
  • Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party 56.7% support.

The only party offering a moratorium is the Greens, and they will be extremely unlikely to win the by-election as the poll shows they have 9.3% support, so the idea is not being put to the people, only expansion is being allowed. This is one way politics suppresses peoples’ views.

Conclusion

If NSW is to reach real zero emissions, it cannot do this by locking in more coal mines, whether the coal is burnt here or overseas, and so some discussion needs to be had about what will happen in coal intensive areas. What kind of industries can be encouraged?

It is sensible to have that discussion in the Upper Hunter because of the agricultural remnants of the area and the high level of agricultural jobs which exist. Coal expansion will destroy the possibility of those jobs existing in the future. A massive over-production of coal, such as that which seems to be proposed at the moment, would depress the price of coal massively.

The point seems to be, that the NSW government cannot allow such discussion, by anyone associated with the Party, or else they might look disunified. I guess the idea is to encourage lock-in to coal power to keep the industry going and help destroy the Upper Hunter and the climate.

Turnbull was right to bring up the question though unfortunate in his timing – which allowed the fundamentalist coal people to stomp all over him, to get rid of him, and continue settling old scores. It also looks as if any targets, or exploration of green jobs, for NSW are precarious, and likely to be folded away as soon as possible.

Coal and emissions reduction are not compatible, and it appears that, in NSW and the Coalition, emissions reduction must come second to the promotion of coal, and not in any way conflict with the promotion of coal – even if there is apparently no market for the new coal being promoted, the coal poisons local people, and threatens agriculture.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

China, the World and Coal

April 8, 2021

The organisation Global Energy Monitor (About which I know nothing, there are too many sources of information nowadays) working with the Sierra Club, has just released a somewhat depressing report (Boom and Bust 2021) on the world’s coal energy generation. It opens:

A steep increase in coal plant development in China offset a retreat from coal in the rest of the world in 2020, resulting in the first increase in global coal capacity development since 2015. A record-tying 37.8 gigawatts (GW) of coal plants were retired in 2020, led by the U.S. with 11.3 GW and EU27 with 10.1 GW, but these retirements were eclipsed by China’s 38.4 GW of new coal plants. China commissioned 76% of the world’s new coal plants in 2020, up from 64% in 2019, driving a 12.5 GW increase in the global coal fleet in 2020….

Outside China, 11.9 GW [of coal] was commissioned

Boom and Bust: 3, 4.

The Chinese boom began as provinces began using coal plant building to stimulate local economies during Covid.

the boom was enabled by loosened restrictions on new coal plant permits and increased lending for coal mega-projects by the central government.

Boom and Bust: 10

Whether this will continue or not is unclear as China’s Central Environment Inspection Group issued a reprimand to the National Energy Administration for not enforcing the countries official limits on coal development…

They said:

the NEA lowered environmental specifications when revising a coal law and did not focus enough on promoting clean energy and a low-carbon transition.

“New coal power capacity at key areas for air pollution was not strictly controlled, leading to what should be built was not built and what shouldn’t was built….

“The failure to put environmental protection at its due height… is a major reason for long-term extensive development in China’s energy industry,”

Reuters. China accuses energy agency of negligence of environmental protection. 30 January 2021

However, it is not clear what the supposed reprimand means, or whether it has the support of high-ups in the party, and:

China’s 14th Five-Year Plan targets non-fossil energy to grow from 16 to 20% of all energy consumption, a rate of increase that is unlikely to cover the growth in power demand, meaning an expansion of coal power is likely through 2025.

Boom and Bust: 5

There is a level of confusion in Chinese policy. People in the West tend to see China as a ruthless and coherent dictatorship, but it may probably better to see it as a continuous struggle and balancing act. The Central government issues instructions and the local provinces work their ways around them, if they chose. The central government knows that it risks power when it tries to impose its will on insiders (far less problems with ‘outsiders’), and that it could start an uprising, or at least the results could be unpleasant and destabilising, so many things proceed rather haphazardly. Vague instructions, hints, reprimands, protests, screening, misdirection, agreeing the central government is wise but ignoring them as much as possible to satisfy local powers and business, jockeying around factions, doing what you can, occasional overt brutality, and so on.

As another example take this official speech I was referred to as an example of Chinese determination to reduce emissions. It’s translated by google translate, which does not help, but if anything can be said to be vague and woolly it would be this speechifying. No mention of procedures or coal for example, but lots of vague exhortation.

Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, President of the State, Chairman of the Central Military Commission, and Director of the Central Finance and Economics Commission hosted the ninth meeting of the Central Finance and Economics Commission on the afternoon of March 15 to study and promote the healthy development of the platform economy and the realization of carbon

Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the meeting and emphasized that the development of my country’s platform economy is at a critical period. It is necessary to focus on the long-term, take into account the current situation, make up for shortcomings, strengthen weaknesses, create an innovative environment, solve outstanding contradictions and problems, and promote the healthy and sustainable platform economy. Development; the achievement of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality is a broad and profound economic and social systemic change.

[After Xi’s speech] The meeting emphasized that… It is necessary to build a clean, low-carbon, safe and efficient energy system, control the total amount of fossil energy, focus on improving utilization efficiency, implement renewable energy substitution actions, deepen the reform of the power system, and build a new power system with new energy as the mainstay. 

We must implement pollution reduction and carbon reduction actions in key industries, promote green manufacturing in the industrial sector, raise energy-saving standards in the construction sector, and accelerate the formation of green and low-carbon transportation in the transportation sector. 

It is necessary to promote major breakthroughs in green and low-carbon technologies, accelerate the deployment of low-carbon cutting-edge technology research, accelerate the promotion and application of pollution reduction and carbon reduction technologies, and establish and improve green and low-carbon technology evaluation and trading systems and technological innovation service platforms. 

It is necessary to improve the green and low-carbon policy and market system, improve the energy “dual control” system, improve fiscal and taxation, price, finance, land, government procurement and other policies that are conducive to green and low-carbon development, accelerate the promotion of carbon emission rights trading, and actively develop green finance . 

We must advocate green and low-carbon life, oppose luxury and waste, encourage green travel, and create a new fashion for green and low-carbon life. 

It is necessary to enhance the capacity of ecological carbon sinks, strengthen land and space planning and use management and control, effectively play the role of carbon sequestration in forests, grasslands, wetlands, oceans, soils, and frozen soils, and increase the increase in ecosystem carbon sinks. 

It is necessary to strengthen international cooperation in tackling climate change, promote the formulation of international rules and standards, and build a green silk road.

Xi Jinping presided over the ninth meeting of the Central Finance and Economics Committee. People’s Daily, 16 March 2021 Paragraphing altered and introduced.

This increase in coal, despite official public policy, is particularly bemusing as coal in the US collapsed during the Trump years.

retirements rising to 52.4 GW during Trump’s four years compared to 48.9 GW during Obama’s second term. Despite the record pace of retirements President Biden’s pledge to decarbonize the U.S. power sector by 2035 will depend on retiring existing plants even faster, as only one third of the U.S. coal fleet is scheduled to retire by 2035.

Boom and Bust: 4

In the EU:

retirements rose to a record 10.1 GW in 2020 from 6.1 GW in 2019. EU27 retirements were led by Spain, which retired half of its coal fleet (4.8 GW of 9.6 GW).”

Boom and Bust: 4

In most of Asia

South and southeast Asia may be seeing their last new coal plant projects, as government officials in Bangladesh, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia have announced plans to cut up to 62.0 GW of planned coal power. GEM estimates the policies will leave 25.2 GW of coal power capacity remaining in pre-construction planning in the four countries—an 80% decline from the 125.5 GW planned there just five years ago, in 2015.

Boom and Bust: 5

After China, India has the most plants in pre-construction development with 29.2 GW and they commissioned 2 GW of new plants in 2020. Between 2010 to 2017, India increased its coal fleet by an average of 17.3 GW per year.

This is almost the total of the report’s comments on Australia:

Despite the existence of proposals for two new plants totaling 3.0 GW, Australia has not commissioned a new plant since Bluewaters power station in 2009, and that plant was recently declared worthless by one of its part-owners, Sumitomo, which wrote off its US$250 million investment due to the difficulty of obtaining refinancing loans for coal projects.

A proposed 2.0 GW Kurri Kurri coal plant is on shaky ground as the builder China Energy Engineering Group (CEEC) is under sanctions from the World Bank for committing fraud in a power project in Zambia. The proposal has also been made moot by a plan to build a gas-fired plant in Kurri Kurri to replace the Liddel power station, which will be retired in 2023.

Shine Energy’s proposed 1.0 GW Collinsville power station received an A$3.6 million grant for a feasibility study despite the fact that Shine has never developed a power plant.

Boom and Bust: 19 Paragraphing introduced.

The progress is such that:

“no region is close to meeting the required reductions for the 1.5 degree pathway…. [and] the world as a whole is no closer to the 1.5 pathway than it was two and a half years ago.

Globally, the projected coal-fired capacity in 2030, if all proposed projects are realized and retirements are not accelerated further, is almost 2,400 GW, while the amount of capacity consistent with the IPCC 1.5 degree pathways would be 1,100 GW.

Boom and Bust: 15, 17

*************

Footnote:

In the years since the Paris agreement, 13 countries have made a decision to phase out coal by 2030, compared with just two that had such a commitment before. 

CountryPhaseout yearDecision year
Belgium20172010
Portugal20212019
France20222016
United Kingdom20242015
Italy20252017
Ireland20252018
Greece20282019
Netherlands20292018
Finland20292019
Canada20292019
New Zealand20302017
Denmark20302017
Israel20302018
Slovakia20302019
Hungary20302019
Germany20382020

The Powering Past Coal Alliance claims that they have 36 countries and 36 subnational governments (some of which are within the countries they are counting) who have coal phase out measures.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Index – Economics: Climate and other

April 8, 2021

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Index: Climate change – general

April 7, 2021

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »