Posts Tagged ‘politics’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

How can ‘Conservatives’ own Environmentalists?

July 12, 2021

Believe it or not, this is a real question from someone.

“Owning” is a weird term. I gather, from the way it is generally used, it means completely destroying the arguments and existence of the people you are opposing. It seems a violently anti-civic position and hence an anti-real-conservative position.

But let us assume it can mean winning over the other side…. in which case it is easy.

Conservatives could show they are more concerned about conserving the environment than they are concerned about conserving corporate profits.

They could openly wonder whether environmental and climate science might be correct enough for us to accept it in general.

They could ask whether humans can keep destroying the global ecology (or God’s creation, if you prefer) forever with no consequences.

They could wonder whether burning fossil fuels at the rate we are doing is necessary or helpful to conservation.

They could think about opposing new drilling sites for oil, new mines for coal, new gas fields, especially new extreme sites like coal tar, deep ocean drilling etc, and ask people to make do with what we already have. This would mean that some companies might have to change, which could make it awkward, but sometimes you have to stand up for what its right.

They could wonder if leaving environmentalism to the market has worked well enough over the last 30 years, and wonder whether, if it works in some cases, which are those cases and why.

They could wonder if markets better at producing upheaval than they are at producing conservation?

They could propose constructive solutions that they know are likely to be acceptable to the population in general and plausible. Not, for example, massive upgrades of nuclear power, or carbon capture and storage, which sadly are enormously expensive, seem to take a long time to set up, and if they have disasters have maximal disasters.

They could wonder why the environmental solutions my conservative government is promoting include: tree clearance; koala destruction; removing more water from almost dead rivers; more coal power and more methane power; more money for carbon capture; while opposing emissions targets and renewable energy targets and pretending the Great Barrier Reef is not in decline. This does not seem like environmentalism of any sort whatsoever.

Conservatives could decide that while it is difficult to be virtuous and go first, the developed world, including the US, the UK and Australia, should go first, because it is the right thing to do, and sets an example. If a group of countries won’t do it, then you have to stand up for the right thing anyway, rather than mutter about losing advantage, or it being unfair.

So all Conservatives have to do, is to take environmentalism seriously as a conservative task, engage in dialogue with other people, and there you are… We might even get something done.

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

Populism and Nationalism

June 5, 2021

What is ‘Populism’?

Populism has nothing to do with popularity. You can have popular movements which are not populist.

Populism differs across the world, but as far as I can see it starts as a movement which pretends to be for the people, but ends up being for the bosses; either established bosses or for an authoritarian party and its leader.

While populist leaders promise the people power and wealth, they act to increase the power and wealth of the established, or themselves, quite ruthlessly. For example, Donald Trump recognised the crisis of the American Wage earner, and gave tax cuts to the wealthy (including himself), cut back services to the wage earners and subsidised large corporations.

In order to distract the people from this sleight of hand, populists conduct culture wars.

  • They pretend minor philosophies are inherently corrupting will lead to social collapse (especially if they identify the believers in these minor philosophies as being opposed to them);
  • They pretend there is some kind of devious and evil infiltration from outside, which is allied with a relatively powerless minority;
  • They pretend social minorities are subversive criminals who are incredibly powerful;
  • They pretend that the nation’s ‘race,’ biology or ‘blood’ is particularly significant, and sets one group of people with the right race against others with the wrong race;
  • The pretend the country is being overrun by immigrants or refugees;
  • They pretend to support tradition, while ripping tradition down – especially any tradition which hinders their power;
  • They pretend to support real Religion against terrible or Satanic enemies, or against heresies and behaviour which will draw down the wrath of God;
  • Real religion is religion which supports them;
  • They misdirect claiming that only they are standing against the forces of oppression while boosting those forces of oppression;
  • They can pretend to be for free markets, because that means that they can support the victors in the existing markets and stop people interfering with the freedom of those bosses who have succeeded;
  • They lie repeatedly because they think that whatever gives them more power is true;
  • Lying allows them to be flexible and always generate a persuasive answer. Falsity is quicker than truth which takes research, and this leaves their opposition stumbling;
  • Because they are wedded to lies, they try to suppress all those who disagree, no matter how little;
  • Obedience and virtue is shown by how much rubbish the follower can swallow;
  • The leader of a populist party is often the face of the party, the point of the party and the party autocrat. The leader is the one who sees the party’s Truth through his (or more rarely her) special insight;
  • Populists purge the party of those who openly disagree with the leader to show the consequences of thinking for yourself or attempting to follow the truth;
  • Populists in power often attempt to purge the media, or suppress hostile coverage as being biased; and
  • Populists never have to listen to anyone else, because those who are not aligned with them are inferior.

Populists apparently need to manufacture enemies out of nothing, so that they can look to be good, and they can use the fury they whip up in their followers – angry people don’t always think well, and are more likely to go along with them.

The secret of populism is that its leaders think that the people are fools, or sheep, who need to be led to the paradise of total obedience and uniformity.

Populists eventually fail, because

  • No one tells the leader, or the upper echelons of the party, the truth because they know what will happen to them;
  • You can only ignore the truth for a relatively short period of time, before it bites back fiercely; especially if there is a real crisis you wish to ignore – such as the ecological crisis.

Nationalism

Nationalism is not about love of one’s home, or homeland – it appears most people feel love for their home, to some extent.

Nationalism has historically been used to produce conformity or a sense of belonging “as long as you are like us”. In the US, nationalism seems to be used to support capitalist exploitation as representing American values and American supremacy. Nationalism is used to obliterate recognition of class difference (as the recognition that classes do not always have the same interests is a usual part of the left orientation) and by obliterating that recognition aims to help the triumph of the capitalist class by reducing opposition to the power of that class. It tries to tell the inside-people they are more important than everyone else in the world, simply because of the place of their birth. People are told they can ignore oppression by their bosses and masters, because they are ‘American’ or ‘French’ or ‘Chinese’ and special – they are part of a crowd. Nationalism often makes one ‘race’ dominant and suppresses all others because, even if they have lived there for hundreds of years, those others are not ‘really’ part of the Nation – they are considered natural victims, primitives, or enemies. Nationalism often leads to war, to demonstrate that the idea of national supremacy is justified, and because of the need of the nation’s leaders to fuse people into one through a hardship they can blame on others.

Nationalism is particularly dangerous when we have to fight global problems such as ecological catastrophe or economic dominance and failure, as it factions the world. You need co-operation between states, as well as state rivalry.

One reason we have probably failed so dismally with respect to climate change, is this sense that States are just rivals, and that they are not going to co-operate but seek their own national benefit alone.

It is probably sensible to recognise that States are rivals who need to work together, more than they need short term victory.

Conclusion

Populism often uses nationalism, because it provides an easily triggered sense of group identity, which can then be set against other identities, and build a sense of us or them, which pushes people to identify with the leader.

Nationalism and populism, often seem to be forces of oppression which, in the modern world attempt, to enforce capitalist domination and destruction.

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

China again: Poetics and practice of nature

May 11, 2021

I just want to quote some of the Remarks by Chinese President Xi Jinping at Leaders Summit on Climate, on the 22nd April 2021, because I doubt many people have seen them.

We must be committed to harmony between man and Nature. “All things that grow live in harmony and benefit from the nourishment of Nature.” Mother Nature is the cradle of all living beings, including humans. It provides everything essential for humanity to survive and thrive. Mother Nature has nourished us, and we must treat Nature as our root, respect it, protect it, and follow its laws. Failure to respect Nature or follow its laws will only invite its revenge. Systemic spoil of Nature will take away the foundation of human survival and development, and will leave us human beings like a river without a source and a tree without its roots. We should protect Nature and preserve the environment like we protect our eyes, and endeavor to foster a new relationship where man and Nature can both prosper and live in harmony.

That seems fairly straightforward and praiseworthy. It is certainly hard to imagine Australia’s Prime Minister saying anything like this…

We must be committed to green development. Green mountains are gold mountains. To protect the environment is to protect productivity, and to improve the environment is to boost productivity — the truth is as simple as that. We must abandon development models that harm or undermine the environment, and must say no to shortsighted approaches of going after near-term development gains at the expense of the environment. Much to the contrary, we need to ride the trend of technological revolution and industrial transformation, seize the enormous opportunity in green transition, and let the power of innovation drive us to upgrade our economic, energy and industrial structures, and make sure that a sound environment is there to buttress sustainable economic and social development worldwide.

Unfortunately this sounds a bit techno-hype, as if with the right tech we can do anything….. and this suggests a technocratic approach rather than a harmony with natural systems approach. But at least the environment continues to feature.

We must be committed to systemic governance. Mountains, rivers, forests as well as farmlands, lakes, grasslands and deserts all make indivisible parts of the ecosystem. Protecting the ecosystem requires more than a simplistic, palliative approach. We need to follow the innate laws of the ecosystem and properly balance all elements and aspects of Nature. This is a way that may take us where we want to be, an ecosystem in sound circulation and overall balance.

Yes! again. Although we need to recognise we don’t know everything about nature, so attempts to ‘rebalance’ will occasionally fail – and we must be ready to change our behaviour when it generates failure.

We must be committed to a people-centered approach. The environment concerns the well-being of people in all countries. We need to take into full account people’s longing for a better life and a good environment as well as our responsibility for future generations. We need to look for ways to protect the environment, grow the economy, create jobs and remove poverty all at the same time, so as to deliver social equity and justice in the course of green transition and increase people’s sense of benefit, happiness and security.

I’m not sure about this. We must help everyone, yes, but the problem is that ecologies are not people centred. They can survive without people, and possibly survive better? People cannot, as yet, survive without the world. Ultimately I think we have to shift to an eco-centred point of view, while retaining reverence and compassion for all people. We probably have to maintain a tolerance of ambiguity.

We must be committed to multilateralism. We need to work on the basis of international law, follow the principle of equity and justice, and focus on effective actions. We need to uphold the UN-centered international system, comply with the objectives and principles laid out in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Paris Agreement, and strive to deliver the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. We need to each take stronger actions, strengthen partnerships and cooperation, learn from each other and make common progress in the new journey toward global carbon neutrality. In this process, we must join hands, not point fingers at each other; we must maintain continuity, not reverse course easily; and we must honor commitments, not go back on promises.

The problem here is that while this is all accurate, but perhaps what it leads to is not quite so good, as with….

We must be committed to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is the cornerstone of global climate governance. Developing countries now face multiple challenges to combat COVID-19, grow the economy, and address climate change. We need to give full recognition to developing countries’ contribution to climate action and accommodate their particular difficulties and concerns. Developed countries need to increase climate ambition and action. At the same time, they need to make concrete efforts to help developing countries strengthen the capacity and resilience against climate change, support them in financing, technology, and capacity building, and refrain from creating green trade barriers, so as to help developing countries accelerate the transition to green and low-carbon development.

Without care this can lead to a “this is not my responsibility” attitude. Sure developed countries have to take the lead, as they have the most slack, but China is pretty close to being in that category, and certainly wants the respect which goes with that category and which it deserves. This is one of those areas in which Buberian dialogue seems needed. Developed countries also need not to think they know everything, and allow other countries to try experiments…

Last year, I made the official announcement that China will strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. This major strategic decision is made based on our sense of responsibility to build a community with a shared future for mankind and our own need to secure sustainable development. China has committed to move from carbon peak to carbon neutrality in a much shorter time span than what might take many developed countries, and that requires extraordinarily hard efforts from China. The targets of carbon peak and carbon neutrality have been added to China’s overall plan for ecological conservation. We are now making an action plan and are already taking strong nationwide actions toward carbon peak. Support is being given to peaking pioneers from localities, sectors and companies. China will strictly control coal-fired power generation projects, and strictly limit the increase in coal consumption over the 14th Five-Year Plan period and phase it down in the 15th Five-Year Plan period. Moreover, China has decided to accept the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and tighten regulations over non-carbon dioxide emissions. China’s national carbon market will also start trading.

The problem is that these and other promises have not been put into law. That is surprising. Given my government, I don’t trust promises which are not legislated – and even then they can be repealed if inconvenient.

As we say in China, “When people pull together, nothing is too heavy to be lifted.” Climate change poses pressing, formidable and long-term challenges to us all. Yet I am confident that as long as we unite in our purposes and efforts and work together with solidarity and mutual assistance, we will rise above the global climate and environment challenges and leave a clean and beautiful world to future generations.

Again we need more talk like this, but we also need the action, and building more coal fired energy is not the way to go, and does not demonstrate that all is on track.

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Cambridge Sustainability Commission Report – some comments

April 23, 2021

This is a summary of a report that already has a summary website, but hopefully this summary might get some more recognition for the report. The ‘Executive Summary’ and the Report itself, are both linked on that site.

The initial point is similar to ones that have been made repeatedly:

Over the period 1990–2015, nearly half of the growth in absolute global emissions was due to the richest 10%, with the wealthiest 5% alone contributing over a third (37%).

Action targeted to change the behaviour of these people will be more effective, than action that targets poorer parts of society, even if as many people as possible need to be engaged.

To come anywhere near meeting the target of peaking at 1.5 degrees C.:

the richest 1% of the global population needs to reduce their emissions by a factor of at least 30 by 2030, while the poorest 50% of humanity could increase their emissions by three-times their current level.

An Oxfam report says something similar:

From 1990 to 2015, a critical period in which annual emissions grew 60% and cumulative emissions doubled, <despite knowledge of the dangers> we estimate that:

The richest 10% of the world’s population (c.630 million people) were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions – depleting the global carbon budget by nearly a third (31%) in those 25 years alone

The poorest 50% (c.3.1 billion people) were responsible for just 7% of cumulative emissions, and used just 4% of the available carbon budget

The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone were responsible for 15% of cumulative emissions, and 9% of the carbon budget – twice as much as the poorest half of the world’s population

The richest 5% (c.315 million people) were responsible for over a third (37%) of the total growth in emissions, while the total growth in emissions of the richest 1% was three times that of the poorest 50%.

Oxfam. Confronting Carbon Inequality. 21 September 2020

In terms of global wealth, most (but not all) middle class people in the West, and often elsewhere, probably count as in that wealthiest 10-20% of the world population. In other words, almost anyone who is living a comfortable material lifestyle could help reduce emissions directly by cutting their own emissions, and teaming up with others to reduce emissions and eco-destruction in their local areas. The more that wealthier people end excess carbon emissions, then the more the transition is likely to be welcomed by those who are poorer and help boost their sense of agency and participation. The process could become a circular, with one group of people encouraging another and this coming back to encourage the original people. This is part of “just transitions” theory, in which everyone participates, people who loose livelihoods are compensated and few suffer, as opposed to neoliberal transitions theory in which sacrifice is extracted from poorer people.

This means “sustainable behaviour change” is an essential element of any attempt to reach useful climate targets. Social and cultural involvement is vital for success, and we may need to help cultivate a real and accurate sense that this movement is a collective effort to deal with an urgent existential threat. There is a risk that with massively divergent carbon emissions, people might think that their emissions are unimportant, that those at the top are doing nothing, or that it should be someone else who is doing the work.

If poorer people want to emulate the producers of massive pollution then everyone is sunk. If poorer people start to find new (or old ways) ways of organising and looking after the world without destructive lock-in, and assert their authority in the world, then that will absolutely help. While the movement does not have to be led by richer people, and indeed it may be more successful if it is not, wealthier people do have to change as well. We need climate generosity. We need people to start reducing their own emissions without waiting for others, and without waiting for fairness. We need people to organise themselves with others to reduce their emissions, as much as we may need to help wealthier people lower their emissions and eco-destruction.

It is even possible that with leadership from the poor, the wealthier may start to come along. Through the interlinks of complexity, even small local changes to reduce emissions and eco-destruction can be emulated and spread, and have large effects.

[W]e need both individual and systemic change, and the key challenge is to ensure that they reinforce one another”

Executive Summary

Wider social action means dealing with the causes of over-consumption of carbon. Which they say includes:

excessive working,…. [and] the bombardment of advertising glamourising frequent air travel, large cars and large houses.

Which really comes down to changing consumerist capitalism, and the pursuit of happiness, contentment, wisdom, love and so on, through earning money and purchasing largely pointless items on a market. We may need to change the economic system, so as to enhance survival, rather than simply carry on defending a system which is not delivering, and not helping that survival. This could involve “embracing ideas of wellbeing and sufficiency” instead of attempts to produce wellbeing through over-consumption. But it can also involve simple measures such as buying less, changing buying patterns, and using any shareholdings to support those who are arguing for an end to corporate destruction of ecologies.

As Ban-Ki Moon says elsewhere:

…our current economic model has been an enabler of catastrophic climate change and equally catastrophic inequality. The COVID-19 pandemic provides an incontestable imperative to rebuild better and place the global economy on a more sustainable, resilient and fairer footing. Addressing the disproportionate carbon emissions from the wealthiest in society must be a key priority as part of this collective commitment.’

Oxfam. Confronting Carbon Inequality. 21 September 2020

The Cambridge report adds the possibility of restricting the availability of high carbon products and services, but recognises that undoing unsustainable behaviours is much harder than preventing unsustainable products from coming to market in the first place (Executive Summary). But if we don’t manage to change our attitudes at the same time, then people are likely to think that they are being restricted, rather than freed, and companies will object because they (and their shareholders) may see themselves as coming to a dreadful end.

This is why there needs to be research into “key points of leverage and traction that bring about shifts of the scale (as well as speed) now required to tackle the climate emergency” (Executive Summary).

On the positive side the report recognises that this movement involves developing new infrastructure to make low-carbon choices easier for poor households, particularly through measures around travel, energy, housing and food.

They further suggest:

Attitude Change:

  • embracing ideas of wellbeing and sufficiency, rather than consumption as an end in itself
  • recognising that what works in one place may not work in another, without being caught in the trap of thinking everyone else has to change but not us.
  • Help people to participate in creative problem solving.

Restrictions:

  • frequent flyer levies – flying frequently should not be encouraged
  • bans on selling and promoting SUVs and other high polluting vehicles
  • dietary shifts away from destructive foods to more sustainable foods
  • abolishing tax credits for those who pollute and destroy ecologies

Support:

  • increasing green grants for homes and electric cars
  • electric public transport and other forms of low-cost electric transport,
  • community energy schemes,
  • insulating homes to address energy poverty and reduce emissions.
  • rewiring the economy [although they don’t mean this, we also need to change and extending the grid]
  • lowering working hours (redistributing wealth back to producers)

Political Change:

  • severing ties between polluting and destructive industries and the political system. Perhaps finding a way to prevent politicians from lobbying for big companies after they have finished their political careers
  • control the process through Citizen Assemblies and democratic engagement – protecting and expanding spaces of social and citizen innovation

I would add we probably need to:

  • Stop non-local biofuels,
  • End fantasies about Carbon Capture and Storage, although greenhouse gas drawdown is worth pursuing.
  • Stop subsidies (tax and environmental) for fossil fuels.
  • Phase out fossil fuel drilling and mining.
  • Lower ecological damage and pollution of all types.
  • Support regenerative agriculture.
  • Restore the oceans, by ceasing over-fishing, bottom trawling, and enforcing world national parks in oceans so fish can come to flourish again.
  • Help people to recognise complexity, the primacy of functional ecologies and the existence of planetary boundaries.
  • Be careful with changes in land use, and reduce rates of dispossession of people from their land or traditional land.
  • Increase the input of citizens into corporate governance.
  • Revoke neoliberalism.
  • Recognise the problems of using corporately owned, and corporately sponsored, media to try and promulgate the solutions, and find other ways of communicating, as well.

They conclude:

We need an account of the role of behaviour change that is more political and social, that brings questions of power and social justice to the fore in order to appreciate how questions of responsibility and agency are unevenly distributed within and between societies….

social mobilisation is crucial to pressuring governments and businesses to show leadership and accountability for major decisions that lock-in carbon-intensive behaviours. Examples include the divestment movement and community energy programmes, as well as pressure for pedestrianisation and car-free cities, and against airport <and highway> expansion….

Harnessing… social innovation and mobilisation towards the goal of scaling behaviour change is vital to the success of collective efforts.

The goals of the Paris Agreement… cannot be achieved without radical changes to lifestyles and shifts in behaviour, especially among the wealthiest members of society, and on the part not just of individuals, but all actors in society.

(Executive Summary)

We don’t have to wait for governments and others to act. We can act now, we can act with others, we can try and do local research as to what involves other people, and we can support the change that is happening.

Change is difficult but it is not impossible.

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

More on Australian Labor and Climate Change

April 19, 2021

I’ve complained a bit that Labor’s climate policy seems an incoherent mess. We now have some clarification points from Chris Bowen, on the 14th April? as described in an article in Renew Economy and described on his own website, which seems to be this talk/interview on youtube.

He starts saying “good climate policy is good jobs policy” and that the Government’s policy, driven by a fear of what they call “Negative globalism,” is “a sell out of our national interest.”

Australia is now operating and trading in a mid-century net zero environment. With over 120 countries, and 70% of our trading partners committed, that is just a fact.
 
Australia is the only developed country not committed to reaching net zero by 2050

This lack of framework will cost Australians jobs <especially if Mathias Corman cannot stop carbon tarifs>. But if we take the rest of the world seriously, then “Deloitte estimates over 250, 000 Australian jobs can be created.”

There are three ways to generate jobs “Energy generation, resources and manufacturing”. Climate change is not, as the government wants to portray it, and austerity measure. <We might note that the Coalition are often keen on austerity, when it affects the lowest income earners>

We don’t need less economic growth. 
 
What we do need to do is cut the cord between economic growth and emissions….

we are going to need to generate a lot more electricity, not less. 

We need to electrify our passenger transport, and basically anything else capable of sensibly being transferred to electric power.   

He then suggests that the areas which provided Australia with fossil fuels and electricity are the very areas which can take advantage of this situation and export clean energy. We can also export the minerals used in solar generation and battery storage.

To do this they propose $15 billion for a National Reconstruction Fund, and Rewiring the Nation (in partnership with the private sector).

And we’ve just announced a $200 million investment in 400 community batteries around the country, as well as providing tax cuts to incentivise electric vehicles and a commitment to develop Australia’s first electric vehicle strategy.

<So that problem is solved, it exists>

^^^

According to RenewEconomy he also said of the gas led recovery that: “It’s a slogan, it’s not a policy. It’s simply a fraud,… There’s not been one job created, and there won’t be a job created of this alleged gas fired recovery.” He also tried to reassure the gas industry:

Gas will continue to play a role in firming and peeking our grid as we transition to renewable energy. We need to massively increase the storage in our grid through batteries, pumped hydro and hydrogen, which have various levels of development… But that’s going to take time. And there’s varying views are around about how long that will take or indeed what role gas will play as we do that, but that is the role of gas

While Labor saw a continued role for gas, he said he would need to be “very convinced” on the need for taxpayer subsidies for new gas infrastructure.

I think you’ll see a much stronger emphasis from the Labor Party on the economic opportunities of climate change. I refuse to accept this false trade-off that the conservatives peddle at every election that somehow ambitious action on climate change comes at a cost to the economy… We don’t win that argument during an election campaign. We’ve got to win that argument now and every day between the election and including the election campaign

The only targets discussed were 2050 targets.

I could announce wonderful targets for 2030. But unless we have outlined policies underneath it to get there, it’s going to be pretty meaningless. So we need to be doing the roadmap, the strong roadmap, and I am committed to providing that to Australian people before the next election, as well as the policy levers which underpin that roadmap

I don’t know if he said anything about continuing coal exports and opening new mines, which seems so important to their electoral ambitions in the Upper Hunter….

This talk was to people attending an Australia Institute forum. So may be he was tempted to be a bit more explicit than normal, or perhaps he was just speaking to his audience.

In an article predicting a speech by Labor leader Anthony Albanese, The Guardian reports that Albanese ‘will say’:

For more than 20 years, the Liberals and Nationals have rejected scientific advice and chosen to portray the rise of clean energy as a threat to jobs and exports… At their worst, they have deliberately misled Australians, pretending we can ignore change, even as it happens right before our eyes….

Murphy Australia must stop wasting time and shift to renewable energy to spark job creation, Albanese says. The Guardian 14 April 2021

He will argue that Australia cannot afford to keep delaying a transition with “huge potential” to create hundreds of thousands of secure, well-paid jobs for “today’s Australians and for future generations.” ““Low-cost renewable electricity looms as the key to unlocking jobs growth for decades to come,” and this will require new grids.

“We have the technology. We have the best natural resources in the world. We have an opportunity to act now to secure a better future for ourselves and our children. We must seize the day.”

Murphy Australia must stop wasting time and shift to renewable energy to spark job creation, Albanese says. The Guardian 14 April 2021

However,

The Labor leader will say Australia will continue to export carbon-intensive commodities such as coal “based on global demand” and that the opposition “respects” traditional industries for the jobs they create.

Murphy Australia must stop wasting time and shift to renewable energy to spark job creation, Albanese says. The Guardian 14 April 2021

This is better than saying they will expand coal and gas…. but it seems clear that they will help satisfy global demand, rather than get out of the market.

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 »

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 »

Ember Global Electricity Review: Australia

April 5, 2021

This continues the rather heavy policy, figures posts I’ve been making recently, to try and make sense of what is happening with the confusions in Australia over energy transition.

General Remarks

This is a quick account of the Ember Global Electricity Review: Australia. (EGER-A)

I sometimes wonder why people report on electricity supply alone when its total energy use and total greenhouse gas emissions that count for climate change. Focusing on electricity supply may give a false optimism, as it ignores other massive sources of emissions, such as petrol burning for transport, concrete manufacture, bad agriculture and so on. We have a lot more emissions problems to solve than electricity supply – and that is before we get to the ecological destruction produced by deforestation, mining, over-fishing and so on.….

However, while Australia is doing fairly well in this account, it is not on track to do as well as it needs to; and when we factor in the other sources of Greenhouse gases, the likelihood is high we will not lower emissions by anything like what we need – especially given the vague and conflicting policies.

Australian Figures

Let’s look at the figures.

Firstly,

Australia’s electricity demand per capita (9.9 MWh, in 2020)… is still three times the world average (3.3 MWh, in 2020) and well ahead of many other G20 countries, such as China (5.3 MWh), Germany (6.6 MWh), and the United Kingdom (4.8 MWh).

(EGER-A: 9)

So Australia has a culture of high electricity usage, which may well make it hard to phase out emissions.

Despite these high levels of consumption, wind and solar have increased from 7% of total electricity supply in 2015 (33TWh) to 17% of total supply in 2020 (63 TWh) (EGER-A: 1, 3).

Renewables were at 2% in 2010 (EGER-A: 5), which makes the growth appear even higher, but it needs to continue at the same rate to be useful.

Coal’s market share has declined by 10%. It is now 54% (135TWh) of total E generation. For the world as a whole, coal now makes up 34% of E generation (EGER-A: 1, 3), so Australia is particularly coal intensive. In the G20 Australia is ranked 5th in terms of its dependence on fossil fuel electricity.

Gas and oil burning accounts for about 20% of Australian electricity generation. This has been more or less steady over the last 5 years (EGER-A: 1).

Renewables make up 25% of total generation in Australia (this figure may include hydro), while renewables and nuclear add up to 39% for the world (EGER-A: 1). Again Australia is high on GHG emitting electricity – Australia has no nuclear power, and is unlikely to get any, any time soon.

This usage points to problems for emissions levels:

Coal generation needs to be completely phased out in Australia by around 2030, in order to put the world on track for 1.5 degrees, according to Climate Analytics.

This is much ahead of the announced coal retirement schedule, which will still leave over 15 GW of coal capacity in the generation-mix by 2030, representing more than 70% of the current capacity.

EGER-A: 3

The Australian department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources estimates coal will remain “the single largest source of electricity by 2030, responsible for over 30% of electricity generation” (EGER-A: 7). These figures are somewhat confusing, but let’s assume coal will generate 30% of electricity as opposed to 54% as now. So while ghg emissions will decline, they will still be significant, by 2030.

[T]here still remains significant uncertainty about whether [State and Territory] targets can incentivise wind and solar uptake to the extent considered essential for putting the world on track for 1.5 degrees.

EGER-A: 5.

Again we face the problem that people either through their own expenditure, Council expenditure, or corporate expenditure, are doing a reasonable job in lowering the emissions of Australia’s electricity generation, but government policy is possibly not helping enough, and is hindering progress by enforcing fossil fuel use, and by subsidising fossil fuel exports through low royalty and low tax regimes.

World Figures

The same Source states that across the world

  • Wind and solar generation rose by 15% (+314 TWh) to produce a tenth of global electricity. So Australia is slightly ahead of average
  • Coal fell by a record 4% (-346 TWh)
  • The only place coal generation increased was in China, rising by 2% in 2020, and falling elsewhere.
  • Coal generation has only fallen 0.8% since 2015, while methane burning (gas) rose 11%.
  • World GHG emissions rose -despite Covid. I’m not sure if this is emissions from electricity or in general, or both.

Dave Jones, the Global Programme Lead of Ember, states:

Progress is nowhere near fast enough. Despite coal’s record drop during the pandemic, it still fell short of what is needed. Coal power needs to collapse by 80% by 2030 to avoid dangerous levels of warming above 1.5 degrees. We need to build enough clean electricity to simultaneously replace coal and electrify the global economy. World leaders have yet to wake up to the enormity of the challenge.

Ember Global Electricity Review 2021

It may, of course, be the case that global leaders do know of the enormity of the challenge, and don’t want to face it, or don’t want to face the possible political fallout, from those who oppose action.

Concluding Remarks

To go back to the original point: electricity supply is just the first step to reducing emissions and repairing ecologies. If we are going to electrify cars for example, we need to generate even more electricity, and that requires even more renewables in a short space of time, if we are going to reduce emissions. The sector needs political help to meet real targets, and that requires action from ordinary citizens…

If you think this is a problem, please do not just trust to business to do it right, but think about telling your local representatives they are not doing enough, and join in protests, or support protestors, whenever possible.

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

The inevitable endnote….

An email from the International Renewable Energy Agency, tells us more about the state of the world, and but uses different measures, so they are hard to convert for comparison. It states:

the world added more than 260 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity last year [2020], exceeding expansion in 2019 by close to 50 per cent….

More than 80 per cent of all new electricity capacity added last year was renewable, with solar and wind accounting for 91 per cent of new renewables. 

This means that 20% of new electricity capacity was not renewable, I need to check whether that was a significant decline, although it does not seem that much of a decline:

Total fossil fuel additions fell to 60 GW in 2020 from 64 GW the previous year.

Most renewables are still hydro, which is vulnerable to changing rainfall, or ice formation…

At the end of 2020, global renewable generation capacity amounted to 2,799 GW with hydropower still accounting for the largest share (1,211 GW) although solar and wind are catching up fast.

The two variable sources of renewables dominated capacity expansion in 2020 with 127 GW and 111 GW of new installations for solar and wind, respectively….

Wind expansion almost doubled in 2020 compared to 2019 (111 GW compared to 58 GW last year). China added 72 GW of new capacity, followed by the United States (14 GW). Ten other countries increased wind capacity by more than 1 GW in 2020. Offshore wind increased to reach around 5% of total wind capacity in 2020….

Total solar capacity has now reached about the same level as wind capacity thanks largely to expansion in Asia (78 GW) in 2020. Major capacity increases in China (49 GW) and Viet Nam (11 GW). Japan also added over 5 GW and India and Republic of Korea both expanded solar capacity by more than 4 GW. The United States added 15 GW

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Labor and Community Batteries: Information mess or reality?

April 4, 2021

One of the recurrent themes of this blog is that climate policies all over the world, seem spur of the moment, confused contradictory, and hard to trace. I’ve argued that this partly derives from the existential crisis posed by climate change. Climate change is psychologically and sociologically disorienting at the same time.

Anyway, whether the theory is correct or not, this is the story of the confusions around the Australian Labor Party’s community battery ‘policy’ and whether it exists or not.

There are numerous stories indicating that Labor supports community batteries which have appeared in the last six days. For example:

Should it win the election, Labor says it will spend over $200m to install 400 community batteries across the country to service 100,000 households. Labor says this will help encourage households to invest in solar panels.

Kurmelovs Community batteries: what are they, and how could they help Australian energy consumers? The Guardian 5 April 2021

Federal Labor has unveiled some of its first new policies designed to slash greenhouse gas emissions, promising to slash federal taxes for electric vehicles and committing to build hundreds of community batteries.

A proposed $200 million ‘Power to the People’ initiative would see a federal Labor government fund the installation of up to 400 medium-scale batteries distributed across the grid, allowing households to enjoy the benefits of battery storage through a community shared battery.

Labor estimates that around 100,000 households could benefit from the deployment of community batteries.

Mazengarb Federal Labor promises to slash taxes for electric vehicles, build community batteries. RenewEconomy, 30 March 2021

Anthony Albanese will promise a Labor government would deliver a discount to cut the cost of electric cars and install community batteries, in modest initiatives costing $400 million over several years….

The announcement, to be made Wednesday, comes as Labor debates its platform at a “virtual” national conference involving some 400 participants.

Gratten Labor proposes discounts for electric cars and ‘community batteries’ to store solar power. The Conversation, 30 March 2021

The opposition is also vowing to spend an additional $200 million on 400 medium-sized batteries in suburbs and towns.

The so-called “community batteries”, which are about the size of a large car, are aimed at cutting power prices for up to 100,000 homes and taking better advantage of household solar.

About 20 per cent of households have rooftop solar panels – a figure that’s world leading.

But far fewer homes, closer to one in 60, have battery storage, which means during peak periods in the evening, or when the sun doesn’t shine, they are reliant on the grid.

The “community batteries” would connect somewhere between a few dozen and a few hundred households.

They would charge during the day and be drawn down during the night, saving households the costs of battery installation and maintenance.

Glenday & Doran Labor promises cheaper electric cars and cash for solar powered batteries, if it wins next federal election. ABC 31 March 2021 ??

So we can see that some of this is a reporting of the announcement that an announcement would be made. At the moment, I am not sure if a formal announcement of the policy was made, although there is some hint it might be. It is, for example, not in the National Platform released after the recent conference, which was after the announcement of the announcement. Although that Platform does say:

Community and publicly-owned energy systems will play a critical role in the modernisation of Australia’s energy system, including in regional and remote communities. Labor will support the ongoing development and deployment of community and publicly-owned energy systems, ensuring all Australians can access the economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy.

ALP National Platform: 34

This paragraph is just previous to the announcement that:

Labor recognises and supports the critical role that gas plays in the Australian economy. Labor recognises that gas has an important role to play in achieving Labor’s target of net zero emissions by 2050.

ALP National Platform: 34

Mixed messages?

Anyway, google advanced search reveals no mention of “community batteries” or “community battery” and very little on batteries or battery on the ALP website. The conference blog does not mention this policy. However, an account of the closing speech by Anthony Albanese, the parliamentary leader of the ALP does say:

If you want a world-leading plan to build community batteries for households and reduce electricity costs for families, Labor is on your side.

Albanese Lighting the Road Ahead. 31 March

I then looked at Anthony Albanese’s website. Over the last year Mr. Alabanese was remarkably quiet about batteries other than about manufacture. However, a press conference does have these comments which is the best evidence the reports quoted above are not entirely fantasy.

Albanese: Today, also, we’re announcing our Power to the People Plan. This is a plan for community batteries. We know that Australia has the highest take-up in the world of putting solar panels on roofs. Australians are literally voting with their own roofs when it comes to taking action, which reduces the costs of energy for families, but also is, of course, good for our environment. But we know also that a constraint is being able to afford to put a battery on individual homes. We know also that batteries will make an enormous difference in terms of dealing with the issues that the take-up of renewables have had for reliability of the grid. By having community batteries, that will be a big step to overcoming that and to improving the functionality of the grid, as well as making it affordable for people to participate and to ensure that, at the time that they’re getting their energy through the solar panels, that it’s stored and used when it’s needed. So this is a practical plan. A practical plan for both community batteries and a practical plan for electric vehicles. It’s just our first step when it comes to these strategies. And I’d ask Chris Bowen to make some further comments before Ed Husic and then we’ll hear from someone from the EV sector….

Chris Bowen:…. But one in 60 has a battery because they’re very expensive. Now, that’s bad for the families because they have to draw on the grid at night in particular or when the sun’s not shining, and pay electricity bills for that. And it’s also providing a lot of pressure on the grid as solar feeds in during the day, really pumping the system of electricity, but we need those power stations at night. So those who care about grid reliability know that we have to get many more batteries. Now, there’s a role for batteries of the household, there’s a role for grid-wide batteries like the one in South Australia. But more and more, there’s a role for community batteries. Neighbourhoods coming together to share their power, feeding in from their solar panels to the battery during the day and drawing off it at night. So we will fund 400 batteries around the country where communities can come together, pay a very small fee of a few dollars a week to participate in that community battery, which will lower their energy costs and also reduce their emissions. And importantly, it will also be possible for people who can’t have solar panels for whatever reason. They might be renters and the landlord hasn’t put solar panels on, they might live in apartments and not be able to put solar panels on, they’ll also be able to participate in the scheme. And while they won’t feed in during the day, they’ll be able to draw out at night, providing the opportunity of renewable energy to more Australians. So these are the practical measures that we’re announcing today.

Ed Husic:… And particularly focused at the beginning on battery manufacturing as well, because a lot of people here have been dedicating themselves to that issue about how do we actually bring all of that together, manufacture the batteries and build from that moving forward? So it’s really big in that respect.

Sydney Doorstop Interview 31 March 2021

I suspect most of the journalism is based on this, press conference. At the moment I cannot find any details for this Power to the People plan, and it is surprising that it is not mentioned in the Party Platform. A last minute promise?

In any case without knowing the size of the batteries, the number of houses that would be connected to each battery, and where the stored energy would come from, we know very little about how effective the plan would be.

Previous to the last election, Albanese remarked:

People in the Inner West know that we need a Labor Government to get our nation’s climate change and energy policies back on track.

Through Labor’s plan residents in Grayndler will have assistance to slash their power bills and help in the national effort to reduce emissions, by installing household batteries in their homes.

Our Household Battery Program will provide a $2,000 rebate for 100,000 households on incomes of less than $180,000 per year to purchase and install battery systems, as well as low-cost loans for households.

Our target of 1 million new batteries to be installed by 2025 would triple the number of battery systems in Australian households compared to today.

Albanese Labor’s Renewable Energy Plan To Turbo Charge Inner West Sustainability, 23 November 2018

No idea whether this still stands or not, or whether it has been discarded…

Perhaps of some relevance, Albanese also has a section of his website which states:

Where Anthony Stands

Find out Anthony’s position on what matters to you:

The Economy

Jobs and the Future of Work

Nation Building Infrastructure

Child CareEducation

Nothing about Climate or Energy, although to be fair the nation building infrastructure says:

Labor will invest in our energy grid, bringing the power of renewables to consumers and industry. Rewiring the Nation will enable us to power our manufacturing sector with cleaner energy.

https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/the-issues/nation-building-infrastructure

There is nothing about this in the Platform either. Not of grids nor of “Rewiring the Nation”.

This is information mess in action. Perhaps the real announcement and details have yet to come and this was just a warm up? Or perhaps they got the headlines without making any formal promises…. Perhaps things shift from day to day, and these are aspirations not policies?

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »