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!

Batchelor uses ETS failure to defend Hazelwood

In responding to Environment Victoria's plan to replace Hazelwood with a combination of gas-fired power, renewables and energy efficiency, energy minister Peter Batchelor has said that jobs from "cleaner energy industries" will only flow when an emissions trading scheme becomes law.

In effect, the minister is using the federal government's ETS failure to defend Australia's heaviest emitting power station. Instead that failure places an urgent obligation on Victoria to implement its own strong climate measures, as individual states have done in the absence of federal action in the United States.

Predictably, management of International Power Hazelwood has questioned the feasibility of the Environment Victoria plan, but the real question is how feasible it is to continue the massive emissions of Hazelwood as the world approaches climate tipping points that loom closer with emerging science.

James Hansen, the world's leading climate scientist, considers it essential to leave remaining coal reserves in the ground unless emissions from burning coal are captured as of now. With carbon capture and storage a distant and unproven prospect at best, and with realistic renewable strategies at hand that will save emissions and yield thousands of jobs, the choice is clear.

Victorians must reject the coal lobby's notion that a switch to renewables means they will not be able to switch on their lights - a realistic transition period is possible in a timeframe that will contribute strongly to a safe climate.