Brumby better than Feds, but lags behind climate science

Today The Age published my letter responding to yesterday's page one article, "Brumby plan exposes Gillard", and the paper's editorial, "State reclaims leadership role on climate". It seems the Premier has turned greener in the lead-up to the Victorian State election in November, but at the moment he's mainly looking good compared to dismal federal climate proposals by Labor and the Coalition, not in terms of the true benchmark of the climate science. The risk of his new policy is that International Power will be paid far too much to close Hazelwood, if that eventuates.

As usual, here's the letter as published, followed by the submitted version.

JOHN Brumby's 2020 emissions target (The Age, 27/7) looks good relative to the appalling federal proposals but not compared with what the science demands to achieve a safe climate. In the meantime, the danger lies in caving in to International Power on compensation for a staged closure of Hazelwood, Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power station. We should not pay a massive corporation hundreds of millions of dollars not to pollute when there is the capacity identified in Brumby's policy to regulate emissions from Hazelwood to render it unprofitable if a reasonable deal to close is not achieved.

Money spent paying off International Power would not be available to invest in renewable energy, cushion the economically disadvantaged in the transition to a green economy or shield workers affected by the phasing out of fossil fuels. International Power stranded itself through an unwise investment when the threat of climate change was already well known.

Now, as submitted.

John Brumby's 2020 emissions target looks good mainly relative to appalling federal proposals, not when compared to what the science demands to achieve a safe climate. His new climate policy, while an overdue step in the right direction, will ultimately need to match the science to be truly effective and credible - an outcome that cannot be judged by a citizens' assembly convened by his federal Labor colleagues.

In the meantime, the danger lies in caving in to International Power regarding the level of compensation for any staged closure of Hazelwood, Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power station. We should not be paying a massive corporation hundreds of millions of dollars not to pollute when there is the capacity identified in the Brumby policy to strictly regulate emissions from the power station to render it unprofitable if a reasonable deal to close it cannot be achieved.

Money spent paying off International Power would be money not available to invest in renewable energy, cushion the economically disadvantaged in the transition to a green economy, or shield workers affected by the necessary phasing out of fossil fuels. International Power deserves no such treatment. It stranded itself through an unwise investment in doomed emissions-intensive power generation when the threat of climate change was already well known.

Comments welcome!

Zero emissions challenge to Australia's coal minister

Update: There's a great wrap-up of the event at Independent Media Centre Australia.

Tonight saw the launch of the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Energy Plan before a packed house at the University of Melbourne. As the Australian Government sets itself to unveil a pre-election climate policy, the plan presents a realistic path to powering Australia with 100 per cent renewable energy by 2020.

Australia's energy and resources minister, Martin Ferguson, was absent, but in the audience was Labor Senator for Victoria, Jacinta Collins, who should be able to deliver some powerful messages to the minister - if he is prepared to listen.

The plan presented viable costings for delivering solar and wind power using proven technologies at an average additional household cost of just eight dollars a week.

Dispelling popular myth, Grattan Institute CEO John Daley pointed out that the cost of doing nothing will not only continue to grow our carbon emissions, but will lead to energy price rises anyway, as finance becomes more difficult with the increasing risk of investment in carbon-intensive generation - especially coal-fired power stations. Fewer plants with increasing demand would push prices up, so why not cut emissions for a modest weekly increase by switching to renewables?
 
Daley also pointed out that policy support should be offered to help deliver the plan. This should include a strong price on carbon that sets a high minimum price in terms of a base carbon tax that could be topped up with a variable permit price. Without a floor in the price, Daley said that increasing renewables could lead to an excess in available permits that would then fall in price and let emissions-intensive coal-fired generators back in the game.

He also said that efficiency measures and renewable energy targets would not by themselves deliver even the modest targets so far proposed by the Australian Government.

However, a far more obvious take-home message for Martin Ferguson is that proven solutions are available that can deliver baseload power to secure our energy future without destroying the global climate. Wind power and solar thermal with storage do not require "proving up", as the minister is so fond of suggesting.

Nor is it true, as he also likes to suggest, that so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS) is anywhere near the renewable technologies presented in the plan in terms of the maturity and workability of the technology.

As well as providing some clear answers about renewable technologies, the Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan therefore poses a serious additional challenge to the minister: where is the comparable work that shows the viability of CCS in delivering zero emissions?

If the minister, with all the resources of government, can't put that on the table, we will be justified in thinking that CCS is only a stalling tactic to justify the continued gouging of coal from the ground while doing nothing to curb emissions, or the health and environmental impacts of exploiting fossil fuels.

If you'd like to ask the minister for his response, why not send him an email, or give him a call on (+613) 9416 8690.

Comments welcome

Gillard's "sanctuary" no defence against climate inaction

Today's edition of The Age carries my letter responding to Ross Gittin's piece in yesterday's paper, "It's time to raise the bar" (The Age, Comment & Debate, 7 July 2010, p.8; online in a slightly different version).

Gittins questions the role of the deliberate creation of green jobs in emissions reduction. He thinks the jobs will flow as we move away from fossil fuels. He's right, of course, but direct action measures, including the specific creation of green jobs, are a useful complement for a strong price on carbon.

With Labor set to frame its pre-election climate policy, the risk is that so-called direct action will be used as an excuse for a failure to implement a strong price. If that happens, Julia Gillard's "sanctuary" Australia will be no defence against climate inaction.

Here's the letter, or scroll down to "Low-carbon jobs" on The Age letters page. As usual, the published version is followed by the version submitted.

Ross Gittins (Comment, 7/7) is right that jobs will arise from the shift to a low-carbon economy as we replace fossil fuels with renewables.

While he is understandably wary of the ''direct action'' approaches to climate change pushed by Tony Abbott, and now likely Julia Gillard, it would be better to acknowledge the need for a range of approaches to tackle climate change.

A strong price on carbon - one likely to achieve the emissions reductions indicated by science - can indeed be complemented by green jobs assessed as such by their total contribution to reducing our emissions. The problem comes when so-called direct action is substituted for urgent action by governments.

We may now be swinging from a position where a weak emissions trading scheme was seen as ''the'' climate solution to one where ''direct action'' may be used in an attempt to justify inaction at a higher level.

With the world heading for double the ''safe'' warming of two degrees above pre-industrial levels, any proposed solution needs to actually do the job. The challenge for all parties is therefore to show how their proposals will help Australia and the world return to an emissions path that will achieve a truly safe climate. Anything else is political game-playing. In particular, Gillard needs to acknowledge that Australia will be no ''sanctuary'' from climate change should we fail to act.

Now for the submitted version, which has had only a slight trim by the editor.

Ross Gittins (Comment & Debate, 7/7) is right that jobs will arise from the shift to a low-carbon economy as we replace fossil fuels with renewables as our source of energy. While he is understandably wary of the "direct action" approaches to climate change pushed by Abbott and now likely Gillard, it would be better to acknowledge the need for a range of approaches to tackle climate change. A strong price on carbon - one likely to achieve the emissions reductions indicated by science - can indeed be complemented by green jobs assessed as such by their total contribution to reducing our emissions.

The problem comes when so-called direct action is substituted for the urgent action that needs to be taken by governments. We may now be swinging from a position where a weak emissions trading scheme was seen as "the" climate solution, to one where "direct action" may be used in an attempt to justify inaction at a higher level. I commend to Ross the recent Deakin lecture by British green economist, Tim Jackson, who has also written about the economics of climate change and how these approaches might be combined.

With the world heading for double the "safe" warming of two degrees above pre-industrial levels (News, p.8), any proposed solution needs to actually do the job. The challenge for all parties is therefore to show how their proposals will help Australia and the world return to an emissions path that will achieve a truly safe climate. Anything else is political game-playing. In particular, Julia Gillard needs to acknowledge that Australia will be no "sanctuary" from climate change should we fail to act.

Comments welcome!