Antinuclear

Is Australia ready for the financial impacts of this warming world?

Can Australia prosper in a 2°C finance world? REneweconmy, By Giles Parkinson on 11 September 2014 “……HSBC: The path to a low-carbon economy means increasing energy efficiency, scaling up low-carbon energy provision and embedding resilience to the consequences of warmer temperatures. The idea is to lower the chances of the most catastrophic climate system effects (through reducing emissions) as well as prepare for some of the impacts.

RE: Australia lags the world on energy efficiency measures, particularly in relation to vehicles and transport. Coalition governments have dismantled basic housing requirements, and the federal government is yet to act on the national energy efficiency plan. Despite all this, consumption per household has fallen more than 10 per cent in the last few years, mostly because people have installed rooftop solar and have bought more efficient appliances.

HSBC: In a 2°C world, the development of energy would take into consideration both the benefits of energy access (e.g. education, economy, time saved and spent doing other things etc.) as well as the associated costs with certain types of energy (e.g. health, climate change, pollution).

RE: Australia is not doing too well on that. It has deliberately ignored climate change and health impacts in its consideration of the renewable energy target, and sought to dismantle the Climate Change Authority (which thinks about these things) and has already abolished the Climate Commission and cut funding to the CSIRO, the leading scientific body. The only criteria for the RET Review was the cost to coal generators.

HSBC: The concept of co-benefits has gained momentum in recent years. For example, tackling the sources of pollution in China helps tackle climate change at the same time. Alternatively, tackling climate change through policy and innovation could bring other co-benefits such as reduced health costs (since the sources of pollution and climate change are similar).

A recent study by MIT, published in Nature Climate Change, finds that the “co-benefits…. May offset some or all of the near-term costs of GHG mitigation.” For instance, the study finds that a cap-and-trade system might cost $US14 billion, but the associated air pollution health benefits from implementing this system could be of the order of $US139 billion. For reference, $US6.5 trillion was spent globally on health in 2010 (WHO).

RE: Co-benefits have not entered the vocabulary of the Coalition government, with climate change deniers advising it in four key industry areas – banking and finance, renewable energy, business, and budget measures.

HSBC: The three main reasons why capital has not been channeled in the right direction for a low-carbon economy, historically, are: unfavourable economics for low-carbon, weak policy signals and the uncertain timing of high CO22 impacts.

RE: Australia exemplifies this. Having attracted billions of dollars in low-carbon investments in recent years, thanks to the short-lived carbon price and the renewables target, that capital is now drying up, with major international companies leaving, or warning they will direct capital elsewhere. Only households, keen to offset rising electricity bills, are keeping up momentum, although this is largely confined to rooftop solar and LED lighting. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/can-australia-prosper-2c-finance-world-35343

September 15, 2014 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming