Should Australia follow Canada – let the states lead on climate?
Canada lets the states lead on climate, should Australia do the same? The Conversation,October 11, 2016 Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau showed Australia a thing or two when he announced a new climate change plan last week – and not just because it was delivered impeccably in two languages. Trudeau has decided to leave climate policy to the provinces, while forcing them to act.Is this state-based approach a model for Australia? Continue reading
‘reckless’ and ‘indefensible’ Carmichael coal mine approved by Queensland govt
Queensland fast tracks ‘reckless’ and ‘indefensible’ Carmichael coal mine, Independent Australia Renew Economy 11 October 2016 Minus financial backing, reneging on the Paris Agreement and even ignoring Adani’s own loss of interest in the project, the Queensland Government is fast tracking the Carmichael coal mine, writesRenewEconomy‘s Sophie Vorrath.
IN A MOVE that has been labelled “indefensible” and “reckless” by green groups, the Queensland Government has declared the massive Carmichael coal mine and port proposed for the State’s Galilee Basin as “critical infrastructure”, in an effort to fast-track its development.
State development minister Anthony Lynhamsaid on Monday that the Labor PalaszczukGovernment had invoked special powers to help progress Adani’s $21 billion project, reinstating and expanding its “prescribed project” status to include its water infrastructure…….
while governments of all colours appear to be rolling out the red carpet for the coal project, there are other hurdles it has yet to clear – not least of all economic ones – as coal looks more and more like a high-risk investment.
As John Quiggan wrote last month, a long list of banks and other funding sources have announced they won’t touch the project, or have pulled out of existing finance arrangements.
The list includes the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (formerly a big lender to Adani), NAB, the Queensland Treasury and global banks including Standard Chartered (another former big lender), Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Barclays, as well as BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole and Societe Generale. The U.S. and Korean Export-Import banks and the State Bank of India have been touted as possible sources, but appear to have backed away.
Even Adani Group, the Indian conglomerate behind the project, has appeared to lose interest in its coal plans. And just this week, the energy minister for India – the main market for the coal that would be dug up at Carmichael – called on the country’s power generators to cease coal imports if the nation was to come good on its “One Nation, One Grid, One Price” energy goal…..https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/queensland-fast-tracks-reckless-and-indefensible-carmichael-coal-mine,9578
South Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Findings of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission
Wednesday 12 October, Constitution Room, Parliament House Members of the public wishing to attend should report to reception in Centre Hall of Parliament House and they will be escorted to the meeting room.
9am – 10am
Dr Carl-Magnus Larsson – Chief Executive Officer, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)
10am-11am
Kerry Colbong – Chief Executive, Aboriginal Lands Trust
TERMS OF REFERENCE
A Joint Committee of the South Australian Parliament has been established to consider the findings of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, focusing on the issues associated with the establishment of a nuclear waste storage facility, and to provide advice, and report on, any South Australian Government legislative, regulatory or institutional arrangements, and any other matter that the Committee sees fit. Submissions and expressions of interest to give oral evidence were invited before 1 July 2016.
Turnbull government has misused clean energy funds
Unlawful reallocation of clean energy investment by the Coalition, Independent Australia, 8 October 2016, John Ward discusses the Turnbull Government’s misuse of Clean Energy Finance Corporation funds.
THERE IS NOW clear evidence of misleading and deceptive conduct by members of the Coalition Government.
This crookedness needs to be exposed.
The sectional interests of our government ministers’ corporate donors are taking precedence over the national interest and the sustainability of financing for the renewable energy industry.
In 2015, then treasurer Joe Hockey and finance minister Mathias Cormann directed theClean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to exclude investments in household and small-scale solar from the $10 billion fund in the future. The draft investment mandate called for ‘mature and established clean energy technologies … including wind technology and household small-scale solar’ to be excluded from the Corporation’s activities.
Interestingly, the authority to make such changes can only come from the Parliament, not the executive. The Executive Council cannot change an act of parliament. The Parliament also authorises the government to spend public money — not the other way around.
Any change, such as the revocation of a part and/or a new investment mandate to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012, may only be modified by amendments made, requested or agreed to by the senate. Stephen Keim SC has provided advice to environmental groups about the government’s ability to direct the CEFC. He said the government had the power to put in place an investment mandate but it had to “tread a fairly thin line”.
During 1998, American Petroleum Institute (API), the USA’s largest oil trade association (member companies include BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon-Mobil and Shell) planned a “roadmap” for a climate of deception, including a plan to have “average citizens” believe that the realities of climate science were vague and uncertain.
Australians have been subject to fraudulent and misleading representations regarding climate change over the past ten years by the people we elected.
The direct effect of the CEFC responsible ministers acting as de facto or shadow directors of the CEFC has been to create the perception that Australian policy support for clean energy is uncertain or diminished.
These are the same negative outcomes envisaged by the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) 1998 campaign.
A third entity involved in this deception is lobby group the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). The IPA was founded by a conglomerate of like-minded groups at the same time as the Liberal Party formed in 1943-44, after the break-up of the United Australia Party. The policy agenda of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has been linked directly to Coalition policy ever since…….
Prime Minister Turnbull, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, Former Prime Minister Abbott, Ministers Pyne, Hockey, Cormann and Hunt are attempting to falsely convince the public that the Cabinet can re-purpose and re-direct legislation without going back through the Parliament. These changes to the CEFC Act 2012 are still to be legislated. ……..
Let’s consider the limits the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 imposes on the responsible ministers’ mandate.
Section 65 states:
The responsible Ministers must not give a direction under subsection 64(1):
(a) that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly requiring the Board to, or not to, make a particular investment; or
(b) that is inconsistent with this Act (including the object of this Act).
The object of Act is to facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector.
Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann attempted to skirt around the law. If this gross ideological interference had not happened, the growth and jobs in the clean energy industry might have delivered some real balance to the downturns in other parts of the economy.
The Coalition Government is in contempt of Parliament. Its ministers have betrayed our trust. The Caolition and the IPA are still using the same script and still following the API’s line of climate deception.
There are strong connections between the API and the IPA’s disinformation and the Coalition’s campaign aims.
The links are there. The wrongs have been done. Let’s promote public debate on this matter. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/unlawful-reallocation-of-clean-energy-investment-by-the-coalition,9567#.V_loHsmJvtk.twitter
Aboriginal Treaty movement gets boost from Yolngu man Yingiya Mark Guyula’s elecion victory
We Need To Talk Much Less About Andrew Bolt And Much More About Treaty Liam McLoughlin @situtheatre
https://newmatilda.com/2016/10/08/we-need-to-talk-much-less-about-andrew-bolt-and-much-more-about-treaty/
“A Yolngu man’s extraordinary win at the Northern Territory election is a significant milestone for the Treaty movement.
Yet all the media can talk about is the ‘Indigenous’ Andrew Bolt.
“In recent weeks it was declared that Yolngu man Yingiya Mark Guyula had won a stunning victory
over Labor’s Lynne Walker at the Northern Territory election, running proudly on a Treaty platform. …
“Held by the ALP since 1980, the seat was categorised as “Very Safe Labor” with a margin of 13.7 per cent.
While Labor’s Lynne Walker won the majority non-Indigenous mining town of Nhulunbuy,
Guyula won the vote in every single Yolngu community and was declared the overall winner by eight votes. … “
Citizens’ Jury members not allowed to change the wording of their set question.
9 Oct 16 Tim Bickmore Some of the Jury Members requested that the form of the question be changed to adjust the term ‘circumstances’ into better context ie the question should be along the lines of …. whether or not to pursue the HLW dump, & if so, under what circumstances…..
They were informed that there would be no change to the question. This calls into question any claims that the Jury is in Charge of the process.
The set question is “Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?”
Monitoring South Australia’s Nuclear Citizens’ Jury
I have not been watching today’s Citizens’ Jury Two Livestreaming and Video. However, these sessions are available for viewing. I saw at the agenda – See the agenda here – that the gathering was to be opened by Premier Jay Weatherill, and Kevin Scarce, former chief of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission.
Unlike may other critics of the nuclear industry, I have some faith in the process. I did think that DemocracyCo ran the first Citizens’ Jury meetings well, and the jury members asked intelligent questions. The problems were:
- The whole premise was not really a jury situation in any sense. The jury were told that they were not to make a decision (the essential brief of any real jury). They were told to produce a ‘Summary of the Nuclear Fuel cycle Royal Commission’s Report.
- The witnesses were not always well informed, and some were both ignorant and biased. They were chosen at an early stage by the jury members, who clearly did not then have access to impartial and well informed experts.
- Members of the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission were far too prominently present and vocal. Greg War and Chad Jacobi made sure to dazzle all with their pro nuclear knowledge, whenever it looked as if criticism of the nuclear industry was coming up.
This new Citizens’ Jury has been given a loaded question to consider:
“Under what circumstances, if any, could South Australia pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries?”
So – much as I admire DemocracyCo’s the group management efforts, and real attempts at fairness, I am not optimistic about the outcome of this Citizens’ Jury 2. I think it will boil down to another delaying tactic by the Weatherill government, to keep the State guessing – while behind the scenes, the nuclear lobby gets on with its preparations for nuclear waste importing to south Australia.
Liberal Senator Eric Abetz’s remarkable faith in nuclear power
South Australian blackout: Eric Abetz says door should remain open on nuclear power, ABC AM By Richard Baines , 8 Oct 16 Australia should revisit the possibility of more nuclear power after South Australia’s blackout, senior Liberal Eric Abetz says…….Senator Abetz said one potential power source was being overlooked.
“We should be opening the door to considering nuclear power,” he said…….
Storage no longer an issue: Abetz A major problem has always been public concerns about storing nuclear waste. Senator Abetz said global technology had evolved, and it was safe to store the waste.
“The waste product would be at a minimum, and what’s more we’ve got the stability of a land mass which is geologically stable, is secure, and would enable us to secure it quite safely,” he said……..
Senator Abetz said the recent problems in South Australia proved a different approach to energy supply was needed.
“With great respect to solar power and wind power, they cannot and will not provide secure base load and that has now been shown in South Australia in a manner that is devastating,” he said……..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-08/eric-abetz-wants-door-open-on-nuclear-power-after-blackout/7914624
Renewable energy transition is the future, whether Turnbull likes it or not
The electricity storage revolution now underway is charcterised by increasing storage capacity and continuously falling battery prices. Two outcomes of this storage revolution are that it will:
- have the effect of making renewable energy available 24/7 and cheaper than electricity produced by coal fired power stations. The latter will cease to operate as they are replaced at an accelerating rate by solar and wind generation, and
- enable improved grid management, permitting electricity generators to buy and sell energy at optimum prices with price determined by demand, rather than supply.
Whether the Turnbull government likes it or not, these developments are already underway. They are bringing about change in the cost of and way in which electricity is produced, stored and used. These developments make it possible for the government to solve the budget problem it faces – by progressively withdrawing the subsidies it currently pays fossil fuel producers and applying them to budget deficit reduction.
Coal is on a one-way trip to oblivion as an energy source, whether subsidized or not.
The need for renewable electricity http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18569 By Mike Pope –, 7 October 2016 In response to the September State-wide loss of electricity in South Australia (SA), the Australian Prime Minister (Malcolm Turnbull) and Environment Minister (Josh Frydenberg) both blamed that event on a severe climate event. Both attempted to conflate the loss of power with the rate SA had adopted renewable energy (40%), particularly generated by wind, resulting in closure of all coal-fired power stations in that State.
They asserted this left SA with inadequate back-up for its overly rapid adoption of renewable energy and that the outage should be seen as a salutary wake up call for retention of fossil fuelled electricity generation. Mr. Turnbull went further, declaring that the SA power failure demonstrated the need to retain use of coal as an energy source, pointing to the importance of coal mining, employing 10,000 people and earning the country important income.
He went on to criticize the renewable energy targets of Queensland (50% by 2030) and Victoria (40% by 2025), describing both as ideologically driven and incapable of being achieved without risking the loss of energy experienced by SA. He described State targets as grossly in excess of Commonwealth emissions targets of 26-28% by 2030. He had asked his Environment Minister to negotiate with all States to ensure that their targets were consistent with achieving the Commonwealth Renewable Energy Target (RET) of 23% by 2020.
For the Turnbull Government there are 3 problems: (1) Unless Queensland and Victoria meet their targets, the Commonwealth RET is unlikely to be achieved. (2) Climate conditions in Australia, particularly the southern half, are likely to become more extreme, more often. (3) Commonwealth emissions target (26%-28% below 2005 emissions by 2030) may not be achieved or provide a fair, effective, contribution to achieving an average global temperature of no more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average by 2100. These things matter. Continue reading
Inconvenient truths the nuclear “citizens’ jury” needs to hear
7 Oct 16 As the South Australian Government’s second nuclear “citizens’ jury” gets underway this weekend, it’s essential that participants aren’t denied important facts about global nuclear waste, says Mark Parnell MLC, Parliamentary Leader of the SA Greens.
Here are eight inconvenient truths that the citizens’ jury needs to hear:
1. The much-heralded Finnish underground nuclear waste facility (visited by the Premier recently) does NOT yet have a licence to accept nuclear waste, will not open for at least six years and has been three decades in planning. It is also 20 times SMALLER than the facility proposed for SA by the Royal Commission.
2. The nuclear industry is without peer in terms of cost blow-outs and time over-runs. This is likely to eliminate any anticipated profit for South Australia – which is the sole rationale for the proposed SA dump.
3. According to the Royal Commission’s own consultants, it could cost South Australia more than $600 million before we even know whether the project is viable.
4. The main client countries anticipated to send nuclear waste to South Australia, including South Korea and Japan, are already exploring domestic solutions to their nuclear waste problem and are not considering overseas solutions.
5. The world’s only operating underground nuclear waste facility, in New Mexico, USA, closed in 2015 following a chemical explosion brought about by human error. It is still contaminated and yet to re-open.
6. The most advanced nuclear nation on Earth, the USA, is yet to come up with a permanent solution for waste from its nuclear power plants. The proposed underground nuclear dump in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has been stalled by community opposition and may never go ahead.
7. Whilst it may be the best idea so far, nobody knows if deep geological disposal of nuclear waste will work in the long term, because it has never been done before.
8. South Australia is not unique in its geology and has regular earthquakes of magnitude 4 and above.
Without all the facts, the citizens’ jury can’t possibly make an informed decision.
NOTE: Mark Parnell MLC is a member of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee that is investigating the Royal Commission’s findings. Mark and other Committee members recently returned from inspecting nuclear waste facilities under construction in Finland and France, as well as failed facilities in the United States.
Australia still an international leper on climate change
“A key reason why countries have moved so fast after Paris is that they now recognise the great attractiveness of the growth and development paths for both rich and poor countries that will result from the transition to a low-carbon economy,”
Australia, however, is showing no such ambition. The Coalition is rejecting any talk of increasing its targets in next year’s policy review, and is looking at trying to force states that have higher renewable energy targets to bring them back to the less ambitious national target.
On green finance, Australia is also moving in the opposite direction……..“The race has begun: September has been an extraordinary month for green finance globally”……But, not in Australia.
Australia on the outer again as Paris climate treaty comes into force http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/australia-on-the-outer-again-as-paris-climate-treaty-comes-into-force-32276 By Giles Parkinson on 5 October 2016
The speed of the ratification – less than a year after the Paris treaty was voted to general acclimation last year – compares with the eight years it took to get its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, into force after it was adopted in 1997.
The move will impact Australia in two ways. Firstly, under current arrangements only those countries who have ratified the treaty can vote in negotiations for the next step in the treaty’s implementation. That means Australia would be excluded from these processes, although it may have observer status.
It also means that Australia will reinforce its status as a climate outlier, a reputation it earned when former prime minister Tony Abbott and former Canadian prime minister Steven Harper were branded “climate villains” because of their opposition to action on climate change.
Malcolm Turnbull was expected to change this. but has instead entrenched the policies of his predecessor. Continue reading
Simple explanation of why the Australian government hates renewable energy
Wonder why the Coalition dislikes renewables so much? https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/10/03/wonder-coalition-dislikes-renewables-much/ Malcolm Turnbull says he has lots of solar panels. But the Coalition’s hatred of renewable energy isn’t so much about personal views as about the cash.Bernard Keane Politics Editor
The lights were still out in South Australia while Coalition politicians, right up to and including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, were either directly blaming renewable energy for the blackout or attacking “aggressive” renewable energy targets for the infrastructure that collapsed. Turnbull was quick to point out he’s a personal fan of renewable energy given he has solar panels on the roof of his luxury Point Piper mansion. But as Michael says in The Godfather, “it’s not personal, Sonny, it’s strictly business”. This is where donations from energy and coal companies have gone in the last five years to the federal branches of the major parties.
South Australia: Electranet’s privately owned and run electricity transmission system is in a mess.
Dennis Matthews , 3rd October 2016
Electranet now wants the public to pay for new infrastructure. Electranet’s proposed investment will be rewarded with a handsome guaranteed return on the amount invested, which will be funded by all South Australian electricity users in the form of increased tariffs.
Why do we need such a high capacity transmission network? It is to service big electricity users to the north of Port Wakefield, like BHP. Getting everyone to pay for the new infrastructure is a huge publicly funded cross-subsidy to the mining industry. It is a publicly-funded disincentive for more efficient and reliable distributed generation. It is anti-competitive.
The windfall profits reaped by Electranet will then go offshore.
This is a win for Electranet and the big energy guzzling mining companies but, as usual, a huge kick in the guts for small businesses and the average South Australian.
New South Wales govt push for electricity interconnector with South Australia
NSW push for electricity interconnector with South Australia, SMH, Kirsty Needham , 2 Oct 16 The Baird government will push for a high-voltage interconnector to be built between NSW and South Australia following South Australia’s blackout, convinced the incident has highlighted the need for national energy security.
NSW Minister for Energy Anthony Roberts will attend an emergency meeting of COAG’s Energy Council on Friday, where the South Australian government is expected to seek to speed up a proposal to build the new interconnector between South Australia and the east coast.
The $500 million proposal would involve South Australia’s ElectraNet and NSW’s Transgrid constructing a 300-kilometre transmission route, potentially between Buronga in NSW and Robertson in South Australia, that could supply surplus electricity from NSW.
NSW can already exchange power with Queensland and Victoria.
The project must first be approved by the Australian Energy Regulator because the construction cost will ultimately be passed on to electricity consumers.
But the Baird government argues the interconnector would not only ensure the lights stay on but also boost the growth of the NSW renewable energy sector, particularly solar farms in regional NSW, which would be able to access South Australian customers…….
The NSW Greens energy spokesman Jeremy Buckingham said: “NSW should adopt a state-based renewable energy target, otherwise all the investment and jobs in the clean energy sector will be attracted to other states that do have state-based targets and NSW will miss out.
“Mike Baird can either dance with the coal-loving dinosaurs or he can embrace the booming clean energy future.”
ElectraNet is expected to lodge an application for approval for the interconnector project by the end of the year. An analysis by PWC for Transgrid has estimated the cost to NSW households at $8 a year. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-push-for-electricity-interconnector-with-south-australia-20160930-grspxa.html
Australia’s conservative government renews its attacks on renewable energy
Coalition launches rubbish attack on wind and solar after SA blackout, Independent Australia Giles Parkinson 30 September 2016 Coalition claptrap back on agenda: coal-fired power causes global warming which causes extreme weather. When record storm destroys transmission towers causing a blackout, BLAME RENEWABLES!
THE COALITION GOVERNMENT launched a ferocious attack against wind and solar energy after the major South Australian blackout, even though energy minister Josh Frydenberg and the grid operators admit that the source of energy had nothing to do with catastrophic outage.
Frydenberg, however, lined up with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts, Independent Senator Nick Xenophon and a host of conservative commentators, including Andrew Bolt, Alan Moran, the ABC’s Chris Ullmann, and Fairfax’s Brian Robins to exploit the blackout to question the use of renewable energy.
Frydenberg used the blackout to continue his persistent campaign against the renewable energy targets of state Labor governments in South Australia, Victoria and Queensland, saying that the blackout was proof that these targets were “unrealistic.”
He made clear that he wanted the states – South Australia and Queensland which are pushing for 50% renewable energy, and Victoria 40% – to abandon their schemes and conform to the Federal target, which has target of about 23.5% renewables.
The Federal scheme effectively ends in 2020, while the state based schemes provide longer term investment signals by providing a 2025 and 2030 timeframes…….
Electranet – which runs the grid in South Australia – and other grid authorities, have made clear that the blackout – which is unprecedented in Australia and led to its first ever “black start” – would have happened whatever the fuel source at the time.
Power lost after 3 of the 4 transmission lines were brought down by the storm
Bruce Mountain goes into detail about what was happening in this analysis here. But it is now clear that at least 23 high voltage power poles were lost in five different locations, bringing down three of the big four transmission lines that carry electricity to and from the north of the state, sparking a State-wide outage and its isolation from Victoria…….
His views were echoed by the likes of Roberts, Xenophon, the fossil fuel lobby, the South Australian Opposition, and even ABC commentator Chris Uhlmann, who agreed with Joyce that the wind farms were not working because the wind was blowing too hard…..https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/coalition-launches-rubbish-attack-on-wind-and-solar-after-sa-blackout,9532
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 