Climate, technology and chaos Blog

The Australian Labor Party had its national conference yesterday. They are Australia’s only practical hope for action on climate change and energy transition.

However, they seem to have decided to support, and lock-in, gas and drop any targets for 2030.

The Party platform, makes a lot of vague statements, but it does commit to a ‘safely in the future’ target of: “zero net emissions by 2050”

We should note that a recent report from the Australian Academy of Science states:

The total emission reductions currently pledged by the Australian and international governments through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement (UNFCCC), even if implemented on time, will translate as average global surface temperatures of 3°C or more above the pre-industrial period by 2100….

If the international community fails to meet the emission reduction targets under the UNFCCC Paris Agreement, this will result in a global mean surface temperature increase of approximately 3°C or more by mid to late century. This level of warming is well above the targets considered manageable under that agreement….

Given how much Australia stands to  lose if GHG emissions are not reduced, we also recommend that Australia accelerates its transition to net zero GHG emissions over the next 10 to 20 years.

The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world

Labor is not heading that way, but they do say:

as a substantial power we can make a significant contribution to international efforts on climate change, biodiversity and waste management….

Working with First Nations peoples, modern science and traditional knowledge will together be instrumental in solving today’s environmental challenges.

We will develop and implement practical, collaborative policies informed by the best science and consistent with the goals of the Paris Accord to realise Australia’s huge renewable energy opportunities and ensure all Australians benefit not only through stronger economic growth but also access to more affordable energy.

ALP National Platform: p31.

Which is nice, but what does it mean? Is growth compatible with a decline in ecological destruction?

More dangerously they leap into stating, that:

Supported by the advice of experts including the Chief Scientist and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Labor recognises and supports the crucial role that Carbon Capture and Storage will play in abating carbon pollution and ensuring industries like heavy manufacturing and gas production are able to play their role in meeting carbon pollution reduction goals consistent with achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. Labor has a proud history of supporting the development of CCS technologies, including through substantial financial support, which stands in sharp contrast to the record of the Coalition government which has abolished CCS support programs and cut $460 million in CCS financial support.

ALP National Platform: 32

You would have thought they might have learnt from the huge amounts of money they threw at CCS during their last period of government, that the fossil fuel industries are not that interested in CCS other than as an excuse to allow them to keep polluting, on the grounds that they might be able to capture emissions emitted in a distant future.

Companies working in Australia did some research on CCS, but none of it was as successful as promised, and non of it was successful enough to suggest that the dangers and risks of CCS (such as undetectable leakage, long term collapse, or poisoning of water supplies) were counter-balanced by its usefulness.

This policy marks an almost certain complete waste of money and effort. Although maybe government based research might be more productive? if we were lucky.

On the good side.

A federal Labor Government will join Australia with the dozens of countries around the world developing plans consistent with the Paris Agreement which requires a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities.

ALP National Platform: 33

Continuing the good side, if somewhat waffley:

Labor will modernise Australia’s energy system and develop a framework that will ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for families and businesses. Labor will ensure sufficient investment in new generation to replace retiring assets, support the electrification of our transport infrastructure, and grow new industries such as green steel and green aluminum, as well as ensure affordability, reliability and pollution reduction goals….

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

No targets or anything, or suggestions of how they will do this, but good.

This is followed by the lay down and surrender section

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. Labor’s policies will support Australian workers in the gas extraction industry, building on Labor’s legacy of supporting sufficient and affordable gas supply for Australian industry and consumers. This includes support for new gas projects and associated infrastructure, subject to independent approval processes to ensure legitimate community concerns are heard and addressed.

ALP National Platform: 34

So gas can go ahead, and keep going ahead, despite the emissions. We can have lock in to fossil fuels! Not even a mention of phase out, or when it should be phased out by. Together with the up front emphasis on CCS, it appears “modernis[ing] Australia’s energy system” means staying with fossil fuels.

Labor will ensure the industry assesses and manages environmental and other impacts, including on water reserves and co-existence with other agricultural activities, and engages constructively with landholders.

ALP National Platform: 34

This has never worked in the past. Australia’s approval mechanisms tend to favour mining over agriculture – because mining is ideologically important and because mining is wealthy. So without modification of those processes, we can assume destruction of water and agriculture.

I am curious as to what “other agricultural activities” means in these circumstances. Gas drilling is now considered as agriculture?

The Federal government must also institute policies like more rigorous use-it or lose-it conditions for offshore gas resources, a price related export control trigger, and domestic reservation policies to ensure environmentally approved gas projects are developed for the benefit of Australians, including as a feedstock to crucial strategic manufacturing industries including chemical and fertiliser production. Consistent with the advice of energy market agencies such as the Australian Energy Market operator, Labor recognises that gas-power generation has a critical role to play in firming the National Electricity Market (NEM) to ensure reliability and price affordability as it transitions to net zero emissions and as other technologies emerge.

ALP National Platform: 34

“Rigorous use-it or lose-it”, implies offshore drilling must take place, rather than be delayed until it is pointless. That policy appears to be encouraging rush and ecological damage – leaks at sea are really hard to fix or even observe. Domestic reservation policies are largely irrelevant, as where the gas burns does not matter for climate. They restate the importance of gas, just in case you missed it, and cut backs in emissions seem to be phased into the distant future.

Working with industry, workers and states, Labor will ensure access to affordable gas to support Australian households, power generation and industry, including through measures designed to ensure Australia’s energy security.

ALP National Platform: 34

Lock in is clearly good. They assume energy security depends on gas, so consequently it will never ‘go away’.

I don’t think the platform says “Labor will ensure access to affordable renewable energy to support Australian households, power generation and industry.” So gas is special and privileged.

This idea that fossil fuels are a necessary economic backbone, which must be locked in, is further supported by another paragraph.

Australia is one of the only developed countries in the world that does not consistently meet the 90-day requirement for domestic fuel storage. Labor will secure Australia’s fuel security and ensure Australia meets its IEA obligations, including by ensuring a robust domestic fuel refining and storage capability.

ALP National Platform: 35

This is followed by another good point.

Labor recognises the strength and sustainability of our economy depends on the health of the environments in which we work, live and play… The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable…. Labor is committed to addressing the environmental crisis, while also building sustainable jobs and an economy that builds prosperous regions.

ALP National Platform: 35

Environmental protection is elaborated at such length, in comparison to everything else, that it is clear that Labor thinks environmental protection is a winner, in a sense in which climate change, or renewable energy, is not.

SO the conclusion is that the ALP is good on environmental protection, as long as it does not clash with fossil fuels, or maybe the environmental protection is where they hope to get movement on fossil fuels.

However, another light on environmental protection is shed by the Tasmanian Labor Party’s announcement during the conference period that:

Labor commits to legislate to protect workers from radical Greens

The Greens destroy jobs of hardworking Tasmanians

Labor wants to help the resources industry where the Liberals failed

A Labor Government will create the offence of aggravated trespass and put in place timber harvesting safety zones backed up with fines of $10,000 and up to 2 years in jail for individuals and up to $100,000 for entities.

Labor will protect resource industry where the Liberals failed, 30 March

So no more protests about deforestation in Tasmania by people wanting environmental protection. This is excused by preventing “dangerous workplace invasions” as if forests are workplaces alone. The proposed legislation seems to make sure that this just about stopping protests about tree felling or ecological destruction, just so unions don’t feel threatened about their capacity to protest changes in their workplaces. So is Labor’s environmentalism real, or just as shady as its gas policies?

***********

Other recent comments on the ALP here….

Background

The report comes from the Australia Institute (AI) and the the Victorian Energy Policy Centre, who will undoubtedly be dismissed as a bunch of old lefties, or the socialist dictatorship in hiding.

Anyway their Report released Monday 29th March 2021, is in stark contradiction to the attitudes of the major Australian political parties, who seem to be all in favour of tax payer support for fossil fuels.

The Report is being issued ahead of an important meeting scheduled for mid this year in which Australian energy ministers will decide on a new design for the National Electricity Market (NEM), based upon advice from the Energy Security Board (ESB), and which should be implemented in 2025 or thereabouts. The new design is intended to maintain reliability, stability and security. Current politics suggest that the favoured solutions will be new fossil fuel power stations – probably gas, but we cannot predict with certainty. The ESB advice should be published soon, so this report is probably a bit late to have much influence.

The Socio-Technical Problems

Many technological problems turn out to be social problems, in that the technology is designed for particular ends, to intensify power relations, keep challenges to power relations at bay, or to support (or challenge) the established ways of doing things, although these intentions may be undermined by unintended consequences, or by a change in demand (as with the decline of fossil fuel based electricity). The fact that the energy system will be set up, to some degree, by the social intention of some groups of people, makes this claim clear.

Some terminology

However, let us begin with some technical vocabulary, because it is part of the socio-technical imperatives, providing both focus and limitation. For example, the new design for the market could be limited as it apparently does not include emissions reduction as a primary focus.

The ESB’s workstream is focused on inertia and system strength services. Inertia refers to the extent to which the power system resists changes to demand and supply, over microsecond time scales. System strength refers to the extent to which a stable voltage waveform is maintained after disturbances to the system, such as from short circuits.

Cass Volt-face: Changing energy security in the National Electricity Market, Discussion Paper p.2

Security refers to the ability of the power system to stay within safe technical limits…. [and] less synchronous generation does present a system security challenge

Cass Volt-face: Changing energy security in the National Electricity Market, Discussion Paper p.3-4

This research report is entirely about these stability, or security, issues, which were supposed to be the reason for the move to charge people to export solar power to the grid.

Changes in technological use and capacity

In the past coal, gas and hydro were used to produce stability in both frequency (the rate the system oscillates between positive and negative voltage) and voltage. However, that dependency is becoming a problem. Prof Bruce Mountain, Director of Victoria Energy Policy Centre at Victoria University, Founder of BeatyourBill; and Director of Carbon and Energy Markets (Pty Ltd) and part of this research is quoted as saying:

“The business model underpinning coal and gas is collapsing before our eyes…

“Renewables already create the cheapest electricity in the market and the last leg the fossil fuel industry had to stand on was the security services they have historically provided. Now we can see [see below] that even those services are being delivered in a more reliable and affordable way by renewable energy and that trend will only accelerate in the future,”

Batteries and Renewables to Provide Secure Energy Future: New Report

In the summary of the research (Discussion Paper) Dan Cass remarks:

One of the emerging difficulties is that coal generators are starting to lose money and make financial decisions that harm system security. They will reduce maintenance, generate at a lower level and mothball or ‘decommit’ units, which makes them unavailable even when required for system security

Cass Volt-face: Changing energy security in the National Electricity Market, Discussion Paper. P.11

So the system is becoming unstable because fossil fuels are failing financially not directly because of renewables, as is frequently suggested. Fossil fuel generation is starting to lose money primarily because there is less and less demand for electricity during the day, because of rooftop solar, which possibly has something to do with people’s response to climate change. Hence the idea of either letting the system turn off domestic solar, or charge for domestic solar export, which might help bring in extra income and provide a role for fossil fuels.

Renewables may supply stability if the system is configured correctly

As we have seen above, the research claims necessary security and stability services are being increasingly supplied by renewable energy, batteries and demand response, making coal and gas less essential, which probably makes them even less profitable.

Batteries and demand response provided more than a third (38%) of all frequency control markets in Q4 2020, despite comprising just 0.5% of the grid’s generation capacity

Batteries and Renewables to Provide Secure Energy Future: New Report

Now 38% is not that close to 95% or thereabouts…. so we are nowhere near there yet. However, they go onto claim that Energy Australia’s proposed new 350 MW is “likely” to be able to give three times more stability than was given by the discontinuing 1,480 MW Yallourn coal power station. Which suggests that more large batteries would provide even more stability and possibly all the useful stability we might need.

Over the long term the NEM might not need inertia as conventionally defined at all.

Cass Volt-face: Changing energy security in the National Electricity Market, Discussion Paper p.2

‘Might’ is a hypothetical, suggesting we need more work here. Anyway, the research claims that there is:

no technical obstacle to… replacing the system security which has been provided by coal and gas generators. Innovative new inverter-based sources are already proving themselves cheaper and better than legacy technologies.

Cass Volt-face: Changing energy security in the National Electricity Market, Discussion Paper. Executive summary

Solar, wind and batteries use inverters to convert DC to AC and control power output to the networks and this ‘inverter-based’ class of technologies will <likely> provide most inertia and system strength in the future

Cass Volt-face: Changing energy security in the National Electricity Market, Discussion Paper p.4

These inverters could have advantages if set up properly.

Inverter-based systems can resist system frequency change, like a synchronous generator. Software determines the shape of the frequency response. Inverter based systems can also provide fast frequency or active power response, which does not mimic a synchronous generator and may be as fast as 70 milliseconds [which is a lot faster than the present system]….

The settings on grid-following inverters can be tuned so that instead of creating cascading system strength and inertia problems they can support system strength.

Cass Volt-face: Changing energy security in the National Electricity Market, Discussion Paper p.6 Rearranged for clarity.

Batteries also can be ‘grid forming’ – “setting frequency not simply following it” and batteries “have inertia in proportion to energy stored”.

Interestingly, the AI adds that “new or stronger interconnections in a network increase inertia” (Cass p.6). This seems to be a suggestion in favour of more “poles and wires” and making a more distributed grid.

They also estimate that:

the cost of system security represents around 2% of the cost of wholesale energy

Cass Volt-face: Changing energy security in the National Electricity Market, Discussion Paper. Executive summary

Which is surprisingly little in my eyes, and suggests a relatively easy transition.

Regulation

However, transition will probably not occur at the moment, as the existing regulatory structure inhibits that transition. Regulation is part of the social background to technology, and usually results from a competition between various social groups. It is not surprising that regulation tends to enforce the ‘markets’ favoured by established and dominant players, to the extent those players have been able to get away with it.

Rules:

governing the provision of inertia and system strength are not fit for purpose for the Post-2025 market. They are a brake on the clean energy transition and undermine state-based Renewable Energy Zones.

Cass Volt-face: Changing energy security in the National Electricity Market, Discussion Paper. Executive summary

A rather unclear example they give suggests that regulations prevent solar farms from using their inverters to provide system strength – but I’m not entirely sure if that is what they mean (cf Cass: p.5).

For them, the:

critical test is whether [the regulation] encourages investors to fund the innovative energy and system security capacity Australia needs as coal exits the stage.

Cass Volt-face: Changing energy security in the National Electricity Market, Discussion Paper

We may also need to think about whether contemporary capitalism can provide the transition which might have been provided by other forms of capitalism, or other forms of investment, but that is a different problem and we cannot expect such considerations in this kind of report.

The preferred solution of the general public?

Finally, only 26% of people surveyed preferred the idea of paying coal powered energy stations for this stability service. I’m not yet sure if they asked about gas.

It does not matter what people prefer, if they are wrong. Many people seem to think that Donald Trump was working for ordinary Americans, and that Republicans can be said to be the party of the working class. This does not mean those statements and preferences are remotely accurate or plausible.

But it does mean that people would like to progress if possible, just as the Trump results suggest that Americans recognise the need for a party that represents working class interests.

If more, and better regulated, renewables is the preferred solution of the public then the indication provided by the mainstream political parties is that the public will have to agitate for this solution, and not entirely leave it to committees which may still live in a fossil fuel universe in which emissions do not matter.

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

Endnote from a day or two later…

The Clean Energy Council has said that more than 3 gigawatts of new small-scale solar capacity has now pushed the total renewable mix to almost 28 per cent of total supply. The number of individual installations reached 378,451. The average size of installations was 8kW. Renewable generation reached 27.7% of the total production over the whole year for the first time ever.

More Background

The Energy Security Board delivered some public recommendations in January 2021, saying:

The intent of this paper is to set out the direction of work within the Post-2025 work program, rather than elicit stakeholder views at this time. In March 2021, the ESB will consult on potential market designs which are being developed in accordance with the direction in this paper. Various accompanying papers published with this paper are, however, open to consultation

ESB Post-2025 Market Design Directions Paper p.10

The paper has been summarised as having the following aims:

1.     Manage exit of coal stations while providing reliability
2.     Work out how to provide system services when everything is done by power electronics
3.     Work out how to redesign the system so that distributors, communities and household seamlessly integrate with industrial size generators and consumers.
4.     Coordinate REZ introduction process and associated transmission
5.     Try and herd the States back into the NEM framework

As the Energy Security Board (ESB) released its latest Health of the National Electricity Market report.

Chair of the Energy Security Board, Dr Kerry Schott, said “years of insufficient action” and “band-aid solutions” have characterised Australia’s response to growth of renewable energy generation….

“The technology and renewables-driven transformation of our energy market is no longer an if or when proposition. It is here and now,”…

“The current set of systems, tools, market arrangements and regulatory frameworks is no longer entirely fit for purpose.

“This pace of change means there are now just months to finalise the redesign of the electricity marketplace so consumers can reap the benefits of this change.”

Clarke Blistering assessment gives Australia ‘just months’ to fix nation’s energy security. ABC News 5th January 2021

Professor Ken Baldwin of the ANU’s Energy Change Institute said an integrated energy and emissions reduction policy was needed.

“If there was a consistent policy going forward which had targets milestoned at every decade for the amount of emissions reduction we need to achieve in the electricity sector, that would help,”

Clarke Blistering assessment gives Australia ‘just months’ to fix nation’s energy security. ABC News 5th January 2021

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

Another Endnote from April

The Energy Security Board has apparently delivered its recommendations to the Minister Angus Taylor, and is apparently supposed to be distributed to to state and territory energy ministers before being released publicly for feedback.

One of the apparent problems, is that the Energy ministers meet as part of a ‘national cabinet’, subcommittee which means participants are bound by, strict cabinet confidentiality rules and that external viewers, interested parties, experts etc are excluded from the meetings. Some say that Angus Taylor is the only formal member of this subcommittee, and thus effectively controls the agenda and results. It could mean that blatant giving of taxpayer funds to ‘mates’ could proceed without challenge.

Despite the restrictions, it appears that ministers have complained that Taylor will not allow emissions reductions to be discussed. He is the minister for emissions reduction. ACT climate change minister Shane Rattenbury said “If the federal government doesn’t want to talk about it, Angus just doesn’t let it on the agenda.”

RenewEconomy has made several attempts to request information about the proceedings of the federal cabinet energy subcommittee, only to be denied on the basis that all such material is cabinet-in-confidence.

Mazengarb Transparency lost as Taylor seizes control of now “secret” energy minister forums. RenewEconomy 1 DEcember 2020

It is apparently the case that “ministers meet ‘as required’ and that no details of the next meeting are available.” It is also not an unreasonable assumption that the Federal Government will try to design the market so it requires lock-in of coal and gas, and the inhibition of renewables.

Angus Taylor recently wrote:

The record level of renewable investment is in mostly non-dispatchable intermittent energy that works only when the sun shines and the wind blows…. this means there is an urgent need for more investment in dispatchable capacity, and a need to avoid premature and unanticipated closure of thermal generators, which are mainly coal and gas….

The Kurri Kurri gas generator, to be built by Snowy Hydro, will help fill the gap in the market when Liddell closes, if the private sector doesn’t step up. We are working closely with private sector proponents, but with only two years to go, we can’t risk under-supply and the higher electricity prices that would result.

We are strengthening incentives for the private sector to invest in dispatchable generation, whether it is pumped hydro, gas, batteries or just continuing to maintain existing coal and gas generators….

the Energy Security Board is currently working on initiatives that will strengthen dispatchable investment incentives further.

Gas will inevitably provide part of the answer. Opposition to investment in gas generation makes no sense, as generators are now typically [not universally] built to be hydrogen-ready [not much deal if there is no hydrogen] and offer an immediate pathway for decarbonisation <only if gas can be produced without massive leakage>.

Taylor, We need a balance of technologies. Australian Financial Review, 29 March 2021

The whole process of charging for solar export has to be seen in the context of Australian Politics – and the confusion around policies, or the reluctance to move on from fossil fuels.

I will be expanding this….

But let’s start with a quick point about the Coalition Federal Government:

representatives of the Climate Change Authority confirmed to a senate estimates hearing earlier in the week that Angus Taylor [Minister for Emissions Reduction] has never asked the expert authority to provide a pathway to net zero emissions. It follows earlier revelations that Taylor has also never asked his department to prepare such modelling.

Mazengarb Taylor requests yet another review of future grid needs, to deal with “intermittents”. RenewEconomy 25 March 2021

You might expect a Minister for Emissions Reduction to want to model emissions reduction and find the best way to zero emissions, but apparently not. However, Taylor has initiated yet another inquiry into the transition. It does not seem improbable that the aim of the inquiry is to justify more tax payer subsidy of gas and coal, especially given that it mentions in its title: “future need and potential for dispatchable energy generation,” when for the Coalition ‘dispatchable energy’ has nearly always meant fossil fuels (even if coal power takes quite a while to ramp up and down).

When asked whether agriculture would be excluded from the 2050 emissions goal. The Deputy Prime Minister responded:

Well indeed that could well be one of the options. But as I say, it is a long way off. There are huge challenges in 2021 and we’re not worried, I’m certainly not worried about what might happen in 30 years’ time…. there is no way known that we are going to whack regional Australia, hurt regional Australia in any way, shape or form to get a target for climate in 2050. It’s not going to happen. The Prime Minister has said it’s not going to happen. If we get there, we will get there through technology. We’ll get there though our technology roadmap.

Transcript: interview with Kieran Gilbert – SkyNews 7 February 2021

Unfortunately, the main technological roadmap the government seems to support is its “gas-led recovery,” and other ways of supporting fossil fuels. The ABC claims:

The federal government is spending millions of dollars on consultants to advise [it] on how to subsidise the multi-billion-dollar gas industry, despite it employing just 0.2 per cent of the Australian workforce, according to tender documents and ABC sources….

[The Government is] refusing to say what the consultancy fees are for, citing commercially sensitive information.

A request to see the specific terms of the contracts with [the Boston Consulting Group] was denied, despite the AusTender website listing them as “not confidential”….

One of the contracts with BCG, worth more than $2.5 million, was awarded without an open tender

Roberts Federal government paying millions in consulting fees for advice on subsidising gas industry, documents show. ABC News, 9 March 2021

The Boston Consulting group seems to have been commissioned to design the National Gas Infrastructure Plan (NGIP), which will subsidise gas infrastructure with taxpayer funds. It is not clear why the Australian Energy Market Operator could not do the work.

The gas-led recovery means opening gas fields in Narrabri and risking the bore water and local agriculture, and opening massive fields in the Norther Territory, ignoring the protests of those who live on the land. In the October 2020 Budget, the Government budgeted to “unlock five key gas basins. Starting with the one in the Northern Territory and the North Bowen and Galilee Basins in Queensland”. They also promised more money for CCS, which does not work, and for keeping the most polluting coal fired power station in NSW going.

They have tried to use the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) to provide support for the gas fields in the NT and for taxpayer funded infrastructure for the massive Adani mine in Queensland, which has been struggling to raise private funding.

Independent MP Zali Steggall sought to introduce amendments that prohibited the NAIF from investing in fossil fuel projects, but the government and Labor opposition blocked the changes.

If my amendments had been successful, they would have prohibited taxpayer money being used to fund the fossil fuel industry.

Only Helen Haines, Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie supported the amendments. We stared down the rest of the Chamber as both the Government and Labor passed this legislation supporting the fossil fuel industry.

Zali Steggal on Facebook 25 Marsh 2021

See also Hansard Thursday, 25 March 2021, pp:37-8

The resources minister Keith Pitt said later:

It was the height of hypocrisy to see inner-city southern MPs trying to delay the Bill because the NAIF proudly supports resources projects throughout the north….

NAIF supports a wide range of industries and I look forward to the Bill passing through the Senate so we can deliver new projects for the north as soon as possible

Keith Pitt NAIF reforms pass through House of Representatives, 25 March 2021

Objecting to producing more climate change through increasing emissions is not even vaguely hypocritical, and they were not interested in stopping the NAIF from supporting a wide range of industries, only in stopping it from supporting fossil fuels.

On the other hand, the Labor Opposition has already announced its support for fossil fuels, particularly gas, but coal is included. Chris Bowen the Shadow Minister for Climate Change, is reported as saying:

“To be honest, gas is not a low emissions fuel. It is not the answer to climate change. I don’t refer to it as a transition fuel either. But it is a very important part, nevertheless, of the transition, and will be for some time to come…

When there’s long periods of no sun or low wind, a battery is great for hours, not for weeks or months. Pumped hydro and hydrogen is better for longer periods. But we’re going to need gas to assist in that process. If you’re not going to have renewables, you’ve really got a limited number of choices: Nuclear, which I don’t support, or an ongoing role for coal. Well, actually, gas has a better role to play…

Should we have that serious conversation about what role coal has in the future? Yes. Do I think it should be providing alternative jobs in diversifying regional economies? Absolutely.

Mazengarb Bowen pitches Labor’s new gas-friendly climate platform, and an end to “toxic politics”. RenewEconomy 25 March 2021

He also made the usual attacks on the Greens, perhaps because they don’t pretend we can nanny the gas industry and achieve climate aims.

The Greens on our left, and the Liberals and Nationals on our right, have taken every opportunity to play identity politics, and it’s still that toxic politics in this country. And we won’t see real climate change action until that ends…

If you are asking for every coal-fired or gas-fired power station to be turned off tonight. I respectfully disagree. We are being powered by one tonight….

Will Australia stop coal exports tomorrow? No, we won’t. Is the international accounting mechanism, which says where those emissions will be counted written by me or the Labour Party or in Australia? No

Mazengarb Bowen pitches Labor’s new gas-friendly climate platform, and an end to “toxic politics”. RenewEconomy 25 March 2021

If I can find a press release from Bowen I will use that, but at the moment, he has not updated his website since last year.

He gives a great set of reasons not to put Labor first in the Senate or House of Reps, even if you have to put them ahead of the Coalition.

Lack of responsibility: It was not the Greens that mucked up Labor’s policies but the Labor party who refused to talk to the Greens about the first carbon price plan, and Labor attempts to wedge the Coalition and support Tony Abbott, who they thought was unelectable.

Straw-manning: Who precisely is “asking for every coal-fired or gas-fired power station to be turned off tonight”? and who is suggesting we stop coal exports “tomorrow”? No one. Phasing out is precisely not stopping “tonight” or “tomorrow”, but over time.

Support for coal: the knowing nod that coal exports don’t count to our emissions because of an accounting trick so export is ok. Let’s be clear here, climate change does not respect national boundaries. Emissions are emissions, and if we help emissions we are helping to make climate unstable. Not too hard to understand.

Then we have the line that implies that coal “should be providing alternative jobs in diversifying regional economies.” Maybe they have a truly clever plan to provide jobs in coal, without mining it and burning it, but that seems unlikely, given they are not mentioning it. The implication is that coal mining could be expanded, no doubt threatening water yet again, and being burnt and raising emissions.

Two way bets, or speaking with forked tongue: “To be honest, gas is not a low emissions fuel. It is not the answer to climate change. I don’t refer to it as a transition fuel either. But it is a very important part, nevertheless, of the transition, and will be for some time to come.” So gas is not a transition fuel but we have to use it to fuel transition.

I guess we hope there is a difference between the ALP and the Coalition, but its only a hope. When it comes to policy, there’s not much difference to see – especially given that there is evidence to suggest we may not hit our inadequate 2030 targets.

The Governmental Regime in Australia seems to be devoted to postponing transition or making it difficult.

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

Added 20 March. I can’t find a transcript for Mr Bowen, so have to rely on other back sources….

In an interview dated 5 March 2021 Mr Bowen said

If you’re voting on the morality of climate change, you’re almost certainly voting left of centre. If you’re a climate-change denier, you’re almost certainly voting right of centre. But there’s a chunk of people in the middle who accept that climate change is an existential threat to the world, but losing their job is an existential threat to them. As a former treasurer and long-standing shadow treasurer, trained with an economics degree, I can bring a sensible economic case.

Law, Chris Bowen: ‘I could live my entire political career, never be leader and retire satisfied’. Sydney Morning Herald, 5 March 2021

The only problem here is that the Left of centre voter is probably talking about a “just transition” which means precisely, that workers are looked after, that new well-paying and secure jobs are provided, and that the transition does not disadvantage ordinary people. There are many on the right who claim to accept that climate change is a threat, but it is a lesser threat than the economic one. So this is all a bit of a strawman, a making a false centre, to try and sound reasonable. What we don’t know, is what a “sensible economic case” means to contemporary Labor. Does it mean more mines, tax payer support for emissions producing industries and so on? The excerpts from the later talk, imply that it does. “Sensible economics”, may well be a code word for not challenging powerful players invested in climate destruction.

Asked if 2050 is too late, which it might well be for restrained climate change. Bowen replies:

More than 120 countries around the world have adopted [the 2050 target]; you can’t turn it around overnight. The best time to start dealing with climate change was 25 years ago. The second best time is today.

Law, Chris Bowen: ‘I could live my entire political career, never be leader and retire satisfied’. Sydney Morning Herald, 5 March 2021

The idea being that we should not do more than other people. While it is true that it was better to have started 25 years ago, this does not make doing less now, somehow ok.

gas is an important provider of grid reliability as we transition to renewables, so we’re going to need some gas in the system. There are extremes to the argument: the government’s gas-led recovery at one end and the “Let’s get rid of all gas the day after tomorrow” position at the other. I don’t think either end of the spectrum is realistic.

Law, Chris Bowen: ‘I could live my entire political career, never be leader and retire satisfied’. Sydney Morning Herald, 5 March 2021

Again this is trying to make a false centre to make himself sound reasonable, and it is avoiding the questioner’s reference to Labor’s $1.5 billion plan to unlock more gas that will create more carbon emissions than Adani’s mine. Looking at the policy is not saying that much. And his comments at the talk imply he is ok with those emissions, just as he is ok with the emissions from burning the coal from the Adani mine. He is certainly not staking a position in opposition to making more emissions, or against doing more damage to country.

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

Added, 4 April 2021

Richard Marles of the Labor Party, who is essentially the shadow minister for Recovery from Covid, or as he says “focusing on two priorities: jobs, and the future,” gave a talk at the National Press Club, which almost confirms the worries here. His talk on the recovery, although filled with talk about science, did not mention climate change or climate, temperature, weather, energy, renewables, emissions, pollution, ecology or environmental concerns. Not once.

This has to be thought a somewhat deficient view of the future, or a suppressed view of the future, and does not bode well for an ALP government that they cannot talk about any of these subjects.

Since that time the ALP has released its platform, some comments on that here.