Australia’s climate denialist government meets the reality of climate change
Australia’s extreme budget meets extreme climate, Guardian, Alex White 22 May 14, The Abbott government’s first budget was the least popular and most extreme in forty years, and was handed down during an almost unprecedented May heatwave.……On the climate and environment front, it is genuinely difficult to narrow down the most extreme elements of this deeply and widely disliked budget.
Firstly, the fact is that this is a deeply unpopular budget, and it has been presented to the Australian people by a government that is neither liked nor trusted……..
A particularly egregious cut is the abolition of ARENA, the renewable energy agency. This action is a loud declaration that the Abbott government is addicted to carbon-intensive energy.
Tied to this, although not a budget initiative, is the review of the previously bi-partisan Renewable Energy Target, with climate denier Dick Warburton appointed as review head. Before the election, there were clear statements made that an Abbott government would continue to support the renewable energy target. Greg Hunt, the environment minister, said before the election that the Coalition “does agree on the renewable energy target” and “support the RET, the 20 per cent”.
The cut to ARENA and the review of Australia’s renewable energy target is a breathtaking assault on the $18 billion renewable energy sector, and introduces substantial elements of sovereign risk for companies and people considering investing in this area in Australia. Before last year’s election, the Coalition repeatedly promised to keep ARENA. In opposition, the Coalition supported ARENA.
The Clean Energy Council has also expressed major concerns, a rare event for a body that has to keep governments on side. In a statement, the CEC deputy CEO said: “A global race for renewable energy is on, and the removal of ARENA will see potential Australian and international investors now look to countries with much stronger support for renewable energy innovation, meaning we may well miss out on billions of dollars of investment and highly-skilled jobs.”
(The Coalition had previously promised to remove funding for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, an ideologically motivated decision based on Abbott’s view that it was “socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.)
Other renewable and clean energy programs have also been scrapped, such as the One Million Solar Roofs program, research into carbon capture and storage technology, the Clean Technology Program, the Cleaner Fuels grant scheme, and more.
There is a real risk that the result of the RET review will see the end of the renewable energy target, once a bi-partisan policy. Removing or reducing the renewable energy target, currently 20 percent by 2020, would effectively lock Australia to a carbon-intensive, fossil fuel addicted future.
Climate change remains a serious and present threat to Australia’s society and economy. Major global economic forces are moving to clean energy and low carbon technologies. China for example is planning to triple its solar capacity by 2017, and other major economies including US states and nations in the EU are heading in that direction also.
To do nothing about climate change, as the Australian government now appears committed to, is immoral and amounts to abandoning both current and future generations……..http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/may/21/may-heatwave-budget-2014-abbott-renewable-energy-cuts
Tony Abbott selling out the next generation on climate change, says Senator Christine Milne
‘Selling out future generations’: Christine Milne rounds on Tony Abbott over climate change The Age, Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald 19 May 14, Tony Abbott is the true “inter-generational thief” for boosting fossil fuels at the expense of renewable energy, increasing the likelihood of Australians paying a big price from climate change, Greens leader Christine Milne said.
Both the Prime Minister and Treasurer Joe Hockey have based their budget sales pitch on the need to raise taxes and slash spending to rein-in future debt that had been projected to balloon above $600 billion without policy changes.
“We could not go on running up massive debts for our children and grandchildren to pay,” Mr Abbott told ABC’s Insiders on Sunday. “That would be a form of inter-generational theft.”
Senator Milne, though, said the increases in subsidies for big miners – which rise by $720 million to almost $14 billion over the forward estimates – and efforts to promote more coal seam gas, coal mines and coal ports were the real form of “future theft”.
“Not only is it bad for the environment but these will be stranded assets which the next generation will have to pay for,” Senator Milne told media in Sydney. “Tony Abbott is the one selling-out future generations.”
The Greens will use their votes in the Senate to try to block cuts to health and education as well as plans to scrap the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which promotes emerging clean energy such as concentrated solar power…….
The Greens would welcome a double dissolution election, if the Coalition called one.
“I say bring that on,” Senator Milne said. “The Australian community has been betrayed by the Prime Minister. Nobody signed up for this budget. Nobody knew who the PM was before the election.
“People are well and truly ready to show him what a trust deficit looks like.”
Senator Milne predicted voters would take a more favourable approach to climate-change related policies, including the carbon price, in light of the budget. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/selling-out-future-generations-christine-milne-rounds-on-tony-abbott-over-climate-change-20140519-38jax.html#ixzz32KIblOef
Western Australian MP ‘s first speech in Parliament makes a strong call for renewable energy
Hughes: future in renewable energy http://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/2290965/hughes-future-in-renewable-energy/?cs=12 By KAYLEIGH BRUCE May 19, 2014, Member for Giles Eddie Hughes made his maiden speech before state parliament recently in which he called for greater federal investment into developing renewable energy in South Australia.
During his parliamentary debut, Mr Hughes focussed on the role renewable energy and mining could have in creating employment and economic growth in the region.
“BELOW THE GROUND WE HAVE MINERAL RESOURCES, BUT ABOVE THE GROUND WE HAVE AN ENERGY SOURCE THAT DWARFS ALL OTHER ENERGY RESOURCES: THE DIRECT SOLAR RESOURCE AND INDIRECT SOLAR RESOURCE THAT IS WIND, CAN TURN SOUTH AUSTRALIA INTO A RENEWABLE ENERGY POWER HOUSE AND, IN THE PROCESS, GIVE US A FAR GREENER MINING INDUSTRY WHILE ALSO GREENING ALL OTHER SECTORS OF OUR ECONOMY.”- MEMBER FOR GILES EDDIE HUGHES
Mr Hughes said the electorate of Giles was already playing a role in wind energy production and noted Whyalla’s role in the manufacturing of wind tower parts by E & A Contractors.
However Mr Hughes said the city was also well-positioned to harness solar energy.
“What we are looking at now – and the process has started, but we have further to go – is developing and applying technology to capture the sun’s energy,” Mr Hughes said.
Mr Hughes took the opportunity to voice his passions to see the region’s role in producing renewable energy further developed.
“Manufacturing communities like Whyalla could increase tower production,” Mr Hughes said.
“Hubs, nacelles and blades are all imported; with investor certainty, local manufacturing facilities could be developed.
“If we captured the wind resource on the Eyre Peninsula and captured the manufacturing opportunities, it would be a big boost to employment.
“Rounding the numbers off, the stage development of 2000 megawatts on the Eyre Peninsula would mean the fabrication of 800 towers, 800 hubs, 800 nacelles and 2400 blades in addition to a wide range of job-generating ancillary services.”
Mr Hughes called on the Abbott government to realise the future of renewable energy in Australia and back the research and development needed to shape the industry. “Companies in the past have expressed their willingness to invest in Australian manufacturing, but each time that desire has been undermined at a federal level, initially when the Howard government failed to increase the two per cent mandatory renewable energy target, and now with the Abbott government’s review headed up by a man who rejects the science behind global warming,” Mr Hughes said.
“A review held just 18 months after the last review found that the mandatory renewable energy target was working to deliver cost-effective clean energy.”
Mr Hughes said with the right support, South Australia could easily achieve outstanding renewable energy production results and be a model example of renewable energy supporting the mining industry.
“The target to reach 33 per cent of the state’s electricity from renewables by 2020 is likely to be met within a year,” Mr Hughes said.
“WHY NOT SET A TARGET TO BECOME THE GREENEST MINING PROVINCE IN THE WORLD, AND WHY NOT MARRY OUR RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCE TO OUR MINERAL WEALTH, OR AT LEAST ANNOUNCE THE ENGAGEMENT SO THAT DOWN THE TRACK THEY CAN TIE THE KNOT?”- MEMBER FOR GILES EDDIE HUGHES
Victoria’s Premier Napthine pledges support fo wind energy: I wish I could believe him,
Napthine pledges continued push for renewable energy investment http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-19/napthine-pledges-continued-push-for-renewable/5461022 19 May 2014, Premier Denis Napthine says he will work with renewable energy companies in south-west Victoria, amid concerns about their future.
The Federal Government axed the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and Clean Energy Finance Corporation in last week’s budget.
It is also reviewing the Renewable Energy Target.
Portland-based company Keppel Prince makes towers for wind turbines and says 150 jobs are at risk.
Dr Napthine says he hopes planned projects go ahead.
“We’ll continue to work with the Federal Government, work with the alternative energy industry, whether it’s wind energy, geothermal energy and wave energy, to see what prospects there are to continue investment in alternative energy under the new frameworks,” he said.
Clean energy industries will require compensation as Australian govt slashes renewable energy funding
Budget 2014: Clean energy bodies call for compensation as Government cuts green funding ABC Radio Australia, 16 May 2014, Clean energy industry representatives have slammed federal budget cuts in the sector, calling for compensation if legislation is changed. By environment and science reporter Jake Sturmer, Alex McDonald – The Federal Government has taken the sword to renewable energy, cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from various green programs.
“I think it’s a very depressing message for the industry and for the investors in it,” said Miles George, head of the 
country’s largest renewable energy provider, Infigen.
Among the changes is a decision to spread the Government’s $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund (direct action policy) over 10 years rather than four.
-……………………“If we actually throw away options, a fear for me is that the energy mix that we currently have just gets ossified,” said ARENA chairman Greg Bourne.
“Infrastructure is hospitals, infrastructure is schools, but infrastructure is also the energy system that you have within a country and without the energy system, your overall system begins to grind to a halt.” Mr Bourne says the current reliance on traditional energy sources is “not fit for purpose in this century”.
The last significant piece of green energy legislation, the Renewable Energy Target (RET), is currently under review. After investing billions in the sector, Mr George warns any changes would be a breach of faith. “If the legislation is now to be changed we would expect to be fully compensated,” he said.
“If [they] took the RET away tomorrow … we would lose 40 per cent of our revenue and our Australian business would fail … along with nearly all wind farms and wind farm businesses in Australia.” Mr George says Infigen has made investments over the past 10 years on the basis of legislation that had “bi-partisan support”.
“If the legislation is now to be changed retrospectively and that has a negative effect on our business, we would expect to be fully compensated,” he said. “This is the way Australia does it. Australia does not wreck existing legislation without compensation.”
The Environment Minister declined an interview but maintains that tough decisions needed to be made in the current economic climate.
Giles Parkinson muses on the Australian government’s fierce antipathy to renewable energy
Five things we learned about … the Far Right and renewables REneweconomy, By Giles Parkinson on 16 May 2014
Prime Minister Tony Abbott doesn’t like wind turbines, and neither does Treasurer Joe Hockey, but it seems like their antipathy towards green energy runs deeper than anyone had suspected – it must be a tool of the Left, and so must be eradicated. It’s hard to find any justification, other than ideology, for the latest broken promises from the Abbott government, the proposed repeal of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and the disappearance of the million solar roofs program.
The decision to close ARENA – which means an end to new funding for Australia’s world leading solar research, future support for home-grown technologies in wave energy, battery storage, concentrated solar power and geothermal production – adds to a litany of actions that Abbott has taken since his election victory. The carbon price is going, the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation is going, the renewable energy target is certain to be either removed or diluted, and now ARENA and a host of energy efficiency and other schemes have been dumped. Indeed, anything that might provide a market signal that we should be making a transformation towards a clean energy economy.
Why Coalition MPs find the thought of melting glaciers amusing
There are two explanations for this – either, in the words of Climate Change Authority chairman Bernie Fraser, it is the result of the government’s “sickening and disappointing” pandering to vested interests, or it is merely continuing the Abbott “climate change is crap” ideological mantra. If you don’t have to address climate issues, then you don’t need to clean up the power supply. Or perhaps it is the result of both.
Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald appeared to speak for the majority of the Coalition MPs and ministers when he took another dig at the climate science in the Senate this week, insisting that the climate is changing, but only “as it has done for literally millions of years”. He noted that one of the reasons the south of Australia is becoming drier is apparently because of “the record amount of sea ice” in Antarctica, which he read about in that august scientific journal, The Australian newspaper.
“That always makes me smile when people talk about global warming,” Macdonald told the Senate. Less amusing, perhaps, were the scientific reports released that same day which showed that the melting of the West Atlantic Ice Cap is now considered irreversible and unstoppable, and could lead to massive rises in sea levels. Probably, however, beyond the Senator’s current parliamentary term, which is about as far as this government is willing to look.
Boganaire, unbowed by “green terrorists”, buys back into coal
That same disregard for climate policy appears to be driving not just conservative policies, but Australian coal barons – both major and minor. One of the lesser barons, Nathan Tinkler, the Newcastle “Boganaire” – as Paddy Manning’s book described him – has dusted himself off from the collapse of his first coal empire and re-entered the market with the proposed $150 million of a thermal coal mine in Queensland – vowing not to be derailed by “terrorist acts by green parties”, or even environmental considerations. He was sure, Tinkler told The Australian, that Australian coal was of such high quality that digging up hundreds of millions of tonnes of it would help the world reduce emissions.
Tinkler may be disappointed to find that it is not green terrorists and “extremists” that threaten coal projects the most, so much as the world’s financial markets and a long term structural decline in the coal industry. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis this week noted that thermal coal prices are at a record low. Tinkler thinks that is a great time to buy, unless of course you recognise – as Citigroup suggested this week – that a combination of regulatory and technology changes will force an unstoppable transformation in energy markets. Good luck with the financing.
Conservatives continue grants to “clean” brown coal projects
Despite the death of ARENA and other incentives for renewable, one fund the federal government is continuing to support is the $90 million Advanced Lignite Demonstration Program which it shares with Victoria. The desire to export vast quantities of lignite goes against history, the financial risks identified by the Citigroup reports, and warnings from the International Energy Agency, which this week reminded everyone that coal fired generation must be phased out quickly, and gas-fired generation too from 2025, if the world is to meet climate goals. Standard & Poor’s also issued a new report highlighting increasing “sovereign risk” from climate change.
But, unbowed by what official news outlet The Australian blithely dismissed as “green alarm”, and unabashed by the aforementioned dumping of support for renewables, and its vow to remove “corporate welfare”, the Federal and conservative Victorian governments have decided to chuck $50 million into projects to turn brown coal into diesel and synthetic oils, and to try and create “vast scales” exports of a “higher grade” coal. The Victorian brown coal reserves were of national significance, said Industry minister Ian “we must extract every molecule of gas” Macfarlane.
What do camels and wind farms have in common?…..http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/five-things-we-learned-about-the-far-right-and-renewables-18949
Australian government keeps nuclear ‘foot in the door’ with spending on Lucas Heights reactor etc
Nuclear spending to top $99m http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budget-2014/nuclear-spending-to-top-99m/story-fnmgnk9v-1226918049789# ANTHONY KLAN THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 15, 2014 THE federal government will spend $22.5 million over the next three years developing plans for a national radioactive waste dump and will ramp-up Sydney’s Lucas Heights nuclear research reactor, at a cost of $31.6m over four years.To handle the excess nuclear waste from Lucas Heights the government will spend another $45m to send the materials to the US for “processing and permanent storage”, the budget papers say.
“The government will provide $45m over five years to send two shipments of spent nuclear fuel assemblies from the Open Pool Australian Lightwater (Lucas Heights) nuclear research reactor to the United States for processing and permanent storage,” the government said.
“Disposal of the spent fuel assemblies will create additional capacity for the temporary storage of spent fuel … which is essentially for the continued operation of the reactor.”
Over the four years from June the government will spend $22.5m to develop “detailed design options” for a national facility to “address Australia’s future radioactive waste management requirements”.
The Lucas Heights, or OPAL reactor, uses low-level enriched uranium fuel to produce neutrons for nuclear medicine production and for “environmental and material research”, the government said.
Money to fund the ramped-up operations at Lucas Heights included funding to meet the increased costs of “nuclear fuel and electricity”.
Now the Abbott government is wavering about its OWN “climate policy”
Doubt over emissions reduction fund , The Age, Lisa Cox 15 May 14, National political reporter The opposition says the government is preparing to slash its flagship Direct Action climate policy, the emissions reduction fund, after Tuesday’s budget showed proposed spending on the scheme would be $1.4 billion less than expected in the first four years.
But Environment Minister Greg Hunt says there has been no change to the policy and the budget still allows the government to issue contracts for the promised $2.55 billion from July 1.
Doubt over the government’s plans for its replacement for Labor’s carbon tax emerged after Tuesday’s budget papers showed $1.1 billion in projected spending on the fund, which will pay polluters to reduce their emissions, in its first four years.
The government said the figure was not a cut because the bulk of the $2.5 billion would be budgeted for in years beyond the forward estimates as polluters completed long-term projects.
But Labor environment spokesman Mark Butler said businesses could rely only on the spending outlined in the budget papers and ”the budget papers show this policy has been slashed by more than half”.
”While it barely seemed possible, last night saw Tony Abbott backslide even further on Australia’s fight against climate change,” Mr Butler said.
”This fig leaf of a climate policy now lies in tatters.”
Proposed expenditure sets out $75.5 million for the fund in 2014-15, $300 million in 2015-16 and $354.5 million in 2016-17……..http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/doubt-over-emissions-reduction-fund-20140514-zrcpr.html
Tony Abbott more intent on punishing Greens than in practical climate policy
Environment: green policies casualties of Abbott’s vengeance mission, Crikey, GILES PARKINSON | MAY 14, 2014 10:47AM| TONY ABBOTT SEEMS TO HAVE TAKEN PERSONAL UMBRAGE AS A RESULT OF GREENS AND GREEN-MINDED MPS DENYING HIM POWER IN 2010. NOW HE’S IN CHARGE, AND OUR SUSTAINABLE PROGRAMS ARE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK. FOR PRIME MINISTER TONY ABBOTT, HIS WAS NOT SO MUCH A BUDGET AS A SETTLING OF OLD SCORES.Cast your mind back to 2010, when Abbott was denied power in a hung Parliament by Labor, the Greens and two country independents who wished to advance policy on climate change and renewable energy. Ever since, Abbott and the right-wing faction that put him there — the people Paul Keating famously described as “right-wing nutcases” — have vowed revenge.
The proposed trashing of the $3.1 billion Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which under various guises has for years backed Australia’s world-leading solar research and demonstration projects for the energy technologies of the future, was the coup de grace.
The budget has provided Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey the opportunity to implement many of the 75-point wish list drawn up by the influential Institute of Public Affairs, which the government attempted to disguise by asking the Commission of Audit to prepare its 86 recommendations in its ham-fisted documents. Hence the attack on education, health funding and welfare payments that will affect the least advantaged, and the tax cuts for corporates.
But it is “green policy” and anything that resembles it that riles this government the most. Consider Hockey’s comments about wind farms being “utterly offensive”. With proposals to repeal the carbon price, dismantle the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the dilution of the Renewable Energy Target already in train, the budget measures, which include the closure of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the dumping of the million solar roofs program (both contrary to election promises) and the research funding cuts at the CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology and elsewhere, means that the obliteration of the Clean Energy Future package will be complete — if it can get past the Senate. The closure of ARENA, which still had $3.1 billion of funds to be invested over the next 10 years, appears the most vindictive, and like the move to pull the CEFC, a case of economic and environmental vandalism. The budget document talks endlessly about the need for “innovation”, for new investment and infrastructure. ARENA, like the CEFC, was able to leverage billions of dollars in private finance — a rate of $2.50 of private funds for every $1 invested.
Chief executive Ivor Frischknecht says that until the Senate decides otherwise, the agency will continue to work through its applications. It has more than 190 proposals worth $7.7 billion (two-thirds private money) on the table. He says that reflects not just the level of disappointment, but the “scale of investment that is unlikely to go ahead because of the proposed closure”.
ARENA has been branded as one of many examples of “corporate welfare”, but in reality more than 150 of its 180 projects already allocated are in support of research and development, a core competency of any advanced economy. Future funding of that research will be lost. Corporate welfare will continue to be doled out to manufacturers in other sectors.
ARENA was not the only victim of the budget axe. The million solar roofs program, once a $1 billion centrepiece of Direct Action to bring solar to lower-income earners and renters, has sunk without trace — replaced by a derisory $2.1 million program to install solar on RSLs and bowling clubs in seven marginal electorates (yes, really)………
The centrepiece of the government’s Direct Action policy, which replaces the carbon price, also seems to be in a state of utter confusion. The budget papers mention $2.55 billion set aside “over 10 years” rather than the four set aside by the government previously……. Welcome to the asphalt economy. http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/05/14/environment-green-policies-casualties-of-abbotts-vengeance-mission/
reactions to Australia’s Anti Renewable Energy Budget
The Anti-Renewable Energy Budget – Reactions http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4303 As feared, the first Budget delivered by the new Government has seen the axe swung upon the Australian Reneweable Energy Agency (ARENA).
According to the Budget papers:
“The Government will achieve savings of $1.3 billion over five years from 2017-18 (including $223.3 million in 2018-19, $455.9 million in 2019-20, $125.4 million in 2020-21 and $131.1 million in 2021-22) by abolishing the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and repealing the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011. Funding of $1.0 billion over eight years will remain available to support existing priority projects.” The Government says the savings will be redirected to repairing the Budget and to fund policy priorities.
The Clean Energy Council expressed its disappointment in the announcement.
“A global race for renewable energy is on, and the removal of ARENA will see potential Australian and international investors now look to countries with much stronger support for renewable energy innovation, meaning we may well miss out on billions of dollars of investment and highly-skilled jobs,” said Deputy Chief Executive Kane Thornton.
“Abolishing ARENA is a backwards step for the ‘clever country’ at a time when job losses in traditional industries like the automotive and manufacturing sectors mean we need new, innovative industries to take their place and fill this void.”
The Australian Solar Council also reacted strongly, calling the budget a “boulevard of broken dreams” for the solar industry.
“The Budget has delivered a trifecta of broken promises to the solar industry,” said John Grimes, Chief Executive of the Australian Solar Council. “The Government promised the Australian people an additional million solar roofs by 2020. The Budget contains no funding to make this happen. A Million Solar Roofs is a mirage.”
“The Government promised to maintain the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) but, instead, the Budget has delivered a death warrant for ARENA. Unless the Senate stands up to the Government, ARENA will be abolished.”
“The Government promised to maintain the Renewable Energy Target but every indication is this key policy will also be thrown on the scrapheap.”
The Sustainable Energy Association of Australia called the axing of ARENA a regressive step.
“ARENA was designed to increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia and to make it more affordable. It has been welcomed by both the industry and by investors, who were looking at Australia as a growing market for clean technologies,” said SEA Chief Executive Kirsten Rose.
“Unfortunately, the proposed scrapping of ARENA means it’s likely that investment in a cleaner energy sector won’t happen in Australia, but will go to other countries with stronger, more stable policy environments for renewable energy,” said Ms Rose.
Greens leader Senator Christine Milne said the Budget was “just a tunnel vision for motorways and stranded fossil fuel assets that will be worthless to our economy within decades.”
The sorry tale of the Abbott government’s dismantling of Australia’s Climate Change Action
Australia’s Abbott Government Dismantles Climate Safeguards by News Editor in Air/Climate, Gov/Politics, Latest News, RSS on May 12, 2014 CANBERRA, Australia, (ENS) – Step by step, the Australian Coalition Government, headed by Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, is tearing down the climate change mitigation and adaption measures put in place by the previous two Labor governments.
The carbon price established through a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme that took effect in July 2012 under the Gillard Government is on its way out.
Called a “carbon tax” by opponents, it is to be replaced by an extension of the Emissions Reduction Fund introduced as draft legislation Friday by Environment Minister Greg Hunt.
Hunt said, “Australians voted for the removal of the carbon tax and for the implementation of a climate change policy that actually reduces emissions. Through the ERF, we will achieve our emissions reduction target without a tax on families and small business.” But the vast majority of Australia’s carbon price has been paid by a small number of larger companies, including 25 electricity generators.
Australia is a major coal-producing nation, and burning coal generates about 85 percent of Australia’s electricity. Coal-burning power plants emit carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, and the coal industry is a vigorous opponent of the carbon price.
The Emissions Reduction Fund is the centerpiece of the Coalition Government’s Direct Action Plan to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by five percent below 2000 levels by 2020, the same target as adopted by the previous governments.
An extension of the existing Carbon Farming Initiative, the ERF allows farmers and land managers to earn carbon credits by storing carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the land. These credits can be sold to people and businesses wishing to offset their emissions.
The latest step in the Abbott Government’s policy of scrapping all support of climate-related or renewable energy action was revealed this morning. The budget due out Tuesday is likely to eliminate the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA.
ARENA Chairman Greg Bourne warned that the agency’s remaining unallocated funds of about A$1 billion could be returned to the general revenue pool.
ARENA was established in 2012 to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies and increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia. The agency has a $2.5 billion budget to fund renewable energy projects, support research, development and activities to capture and share knowledge.
The Abbott Government has also moved to eliminate the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation and may also weaken or delay the country’s Renewable Energy Target.
Australian Greens Leader Christine Milne said, “Axing the Australian Renewable Energy Agency is a damning reflection on the backward thinking of the Abbott government. The Abbott government has no vision for the future, or indeed, the present day.”
The country’s largest environmental group, the Australian Conservation Foundation, is outraged.
“If the government chooses to scrap ARENA, it is yet another instance of prioritising the profits of big polluters over Australians’ desire for a safe climate and clean energy,” said Victoria McKenzie-McHarg, the Foundation’s climate change program manager.
“The government could choose to scrap the $13 billion in planned handouts for big polluters to get discount diesel and other subsidies to miners, but instead, it seems it is choosing to scrap an agency that is helping strengthen the major growth industry of the 21st century,” said McKenzie-McHarg.
“With ARENA possibly gone, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Climate Change Authority and price on pollution all on the chopping block, Australian jobs and investment in solar and other clean technology across the country will come to a stand still,” she said.
“It’s ripping the heart and soul out of Australia’s clean energy future,” said McKenzie-McHarg……..http://ens-newswire.com/2014/05/12/australias-abbott-government-dismantles-climate-safeguards/
Science cuts in Australian budget
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation gets $31m over four years towards the costs of operating the Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) nuclear research reactor…..
$111m was cut from the CSIRO over the forward estimates.
Funding cuts were also slated for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation ($27.5m) and the Australian Institute for Marine Science ($7.8m). The Australian Research Council, which funds much basic research, particularly outside the biomedical sphere, receives a $75m cut over the forward estimates.
Unfortunately, the long-feared cuts to the Cooperative Research Centres did eventuate. Funding for CRCs will be frozen from current funding levels of $148m, and by 2017-18 will decline to $138m, a considerable cut in real terms. The government says that it will save about $124m over the forward estimates by crimping funding for the CRCs and axing the Clean Technology Innovation Program. Still, given the recommendations of the Commission of Audit, many in the sector may be pleased that the program escaped abolition altogether……..
Also being abolished, as foreshadowed, is the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. The government will save $1.3bn by killing off the clean tech innovation fund, which has acted to support renewable energy projects in their start-up and early stages.
Overall, the science budget represents a clear change in the government’s priorities. Biomedical research is a big winner. Anything that isn’t medical research has suffered.
Environmental programs in particular have been targeted. It’s almost as though the government went looking for programs that featured the words “clean”, “green” or “renewable”. http://www.theguardian.com/world/australia-news-blog/2014/may/13/mixed-bag-for-science-in-joe-hockeys-first-budget
Matthias Corman, Australia’s Finance Minister – Abbott’s mouthpiece for killing renewable energy
Axing of renewable energy agency would add to broken promises, clean energy industry says, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/axing-of-renewable-energy-agency-would-add-to-broken-promises-clean-energy-industry-says-20140512-zr9v1.html#ixzz31XjkyEzz May 12, 2014 – The Abbott government is planning to abolish the primary agency supporting clean energy in Australia. The planned axing of the primary agency supporting clean energy in Australia by the Abbott government would break pre-election commitments and send investment in emerging technologies off-shore, an industry group says.
Fairfax Media is among outlets reporting on Monday that the federal government will axe the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) in Tuesday’s budget as part of efforts to curb spending.
ARENA, whose budget had been previously cut to $2.5 billion to 2022, would reportedly be left with about $1 billion to complete projects already backed. The agency, established through the combination of other bodies in July 2012, aims to increase the supply and competitiveness of renewable energy such as large-scale solar photovoltaic plants and other emerging technologies.
What’s disappointing here is that the Coalition really went out of its way prior to the election to restate their commitment to ARENA,” said Kane Thornton, deputy chief executive of the Clean Energy Council.
The Abbott government also backed the Renewable Energy Target (RET) before the September election, saying it would support the existing goal of supplying 41,000 gigawatt-hours of clean energy, such as from wind farms and hydropower, by 2020. It has since set up a review of the target led by businessman and climate change sceptic, Dick Warburton, which the renewable energy industry fears will dilute or delay the RET goal.
Axing the agency “would send concerning signals to the renewable energy sector broadly but also to investors around the world who are making investments under ARENA, and are watching closely the outcome of the RET review”, Mr Thornton said.
On ABC’s Radio National on Monday, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said “too many agencies” were responsible for similar functions and needed to be cut back.
“This is about making government as efficient and effective as possible,” Senator Cormann said.
Support for emerging renewable energy technologies, which include geo-thermal and marine power, should be seen in the context that all other major forms of energy had got their start with backing from governments, Mr Thornton said.
“The very first coal-fired power stations, the first gas and the first nuclear power stations were all supported by the government, and wouldn’t have happened without government help,” he said.
Among the projects getting ARENA support was AGL’s 155 megawatt-capacity solar photovoltaic power plants at Nyngan and near Broken Hill in NSW. ARENA and the NSW government supplied $166.7 million and $64.9 million, respectively, with AGL supplying the remainder of about $208 million, according to the agency.
“That wouldn’t have happened without the support of ARENA,” Mr Thornton said.
“A lot of large-scale solar companies will really question why they are still operating in Australia, and will really focus their efforts on other parts of the world,” he said.
Uranium long-term market forecast is as bad as its short term – from Nuclear Energy Institute
www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionthe-future-of-uranium-higher-prices-to-come-4259437/ Predictions of the rise in price of uranium are unjustified; they do not fully appreciate the segmented nature of the market. Steve Kidd 6 May 14
The world uranium market has fallen back substantially from the highs it sustained in the period around 2005-2010, when the spot price peaked at over $130 per pound in summer 2007. After the Fukushima accident in 2011, the price drifted down further and has been stable at the $35 per pound level since last summer. Although this is well above the $10 per pound that prevailed for the long period from the late 1980s up until 2003, it is universally agreed that very few (if any) new mines can be developed at today’s price level. The suggestion is therefore made (particularly by uranium producers and their financial sector backers) that with rising demand, there will be shortages of supply in future unless we soon have much higher prices to encourage new production. On the demand side, a lot of attention is currently being to the upcoming Japanese reactor restart programme, in terms of timing and number of reactors.
A recent report from my company (East Cliff Consulting, ‘The Fifth Age of Uranium’) shows why the case made by the uranium bulls is in reality full of holes. We are now more likely to see a long period of relatively low prices, in which uranium producers will find it hard to make a living.
Substantial oversupply in the Fourth Age
The starting point is to understand the full history of uranium supply and demand. This is covered in the WNA’s biennial fuel market report, which identifies four distinct ages running from 1945 until today. The fourth of these began in 2003, when prices started rising sharply to mark the end of the third age, which was the long period of inventory rundown and constrained production lasting from the late 1980s. Talk in 2003 was of a “renaissance” of nuclear power and lots of new mines were apparently needed to meet their fuel requirements, while previously abundant secondary supplies would gradually wither away. Not so different from what the optimists are saying about uranium today.
World production certainly responded strongly to the obvious price signal back then and it had risen by half by 2010. One curious feature, however, was that the increase was almost entirely concentrated in only one country, namely Kazakhstan. Apart from this, hundreds of “junior” uranium companies suddenly appeared but the only company successful in establishing new large-scale production facilities was Paladin, with Langer Heinrich in Namibia and Kayelekera in Malawi. The others succeeded in mining only the financial markets.
Another remarkable fact was that despite all the hype about nuclear growth plans, the level of underlying uranium demand did not rise at all during this period. This is even without the adverse impact of the accident at Fukushima in 2011. Shutdowns of ageing reactors in various countries were just balanced by the commissioning of new units (increasingly in China). Another crucial factor has been a fundamental realignment in the relationship between uranium and enrichment requirements. The closure of the inefficient gaseous diffusion enrichment plants removed the high marginal cost production which had propped up prices, while notably higher uranium prices in themselves encouraged the use of higher enrichment (through reducing the optimum “tails assay”). Enrichment is now expected to remain cheap and abundant as centrifuge plants are modular and capacity can be expanded relatively easily to meet demand, so this substitution of enrichment for uranium will continue to be important.
The impact of much higher production combined with static demand during this fourth uranium age is substantial over-supply in the world uranium market, with prices naturally falling back to lower levels. The other obvious corollary of this period has been a renewed upsurge in uranium inventory levels in the United States, Europe and (with the shutdown of reactors since Fukushima) Japan. Some of this has been entirely voluntary on the part of the fuel buyers, who want more security of supply. The biggest increase has been in China, which has been building huge inventory balances to provide security for the anticipated fuel requirements of its rapid reactor building programme. On the other hand, some of the accumulation (such as in Japan) has been involuntary and this material can be used to balance the market over the next period, effectively at the expense of fresh production.
In fact China can be seen as the mirror image of the production growth in Kazakhstan, as the majority of Chinese imports have been sourced from there. The rest of the world has continued much as before, with no overall nuclear growth and not much of any real substance happening in the development of new uranium mines, except a few key projects such as Cigar Lake in Canada.
Uranium demand to increase in China and Russia
The uranium bulls continue to point to the prospects for nuclear growth to 2030. The problem is that most of this will be concentrated in China and Russia. Over half will likely be in China and the Chinese may also become important in supplying reactors to other countries in the 2020s. The Russian domestic nuclear programme is now progressing quite well, and they too will be a key supplier of reactors to other countries in the period to 2030. When the Russians supply a reactor, they invariably include long-term fuel contracts. What is important is that uranium demand will almost certainly fall in the key markets in Western Europe and North America, which are satisfied by the established uranium producers. Many Japanese reactors will undoubtedly restart but it will take a long time to unwind the inventory accumulation there.
Those who believe in higher uranium prices take an over-optimistic demand scenario. It can now be argued that the range of possibilities has actually narrowed considerably and it is appropriate to centre discussion on just one main case to 2030. Upper scenarios showing rapid nuclear growth in many countries including plants starting up in new countries now look very unlikely, certainly before the late 2020s. If there is to be a nuclear renaissance, it is now much more likely to happen later, and with a new generation of reactors. On the other hand, predictions that another major accident would shut down nuclear in lots of countries have been negated by the experience of Fukushima. Although there remain some uncertainties, the outlying upper and lower cases are much less credible than before.
Uranium market split into three
So we are entering a fifth era of uranium, where the market is split into three.
The Chinese will favour investing directly in mines to satisfy their requirements. These (like Husab in Namibia) will not necessarily be at the low end of the cost curve: there are important geopolitical considerations too and the Chinese are keen to get involved directly in the economic development of many countries, particularly in Africa. They are also not going to “play ball” with the established uranium market. Although they will maintain a presence in the spot market and sign further long-term supply contracts with producers, they have learned their lesson from the iron ore market. In that sector their heavy dependence on imports from BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Vale has given these producers fantastic profits.
The Russians will continue to be significant nuclear fuel exporters but their own market will remain essentially closed to outsiders. They still have secondary supplies to tap into (plenty of surplus HEU remains to be down-blended) and they will follow the Chinese and invest directly in uranium assets if their own domestic production remains constrained. Their recent acquisition of the producer Uranium One can be seen very much in this vein.
The established uranium producers will have the remainder of the market to satisfy and that will likely be declining in magnitude. There are bright spots are South Korea and the Middle East (where Saudi Arabia may join the UAE in having a nuclear programme) but the prospects in North America and Europe are not so good. In the United States, the number of operating reactors will fall by 2030, with a small number of new units not sufficient to compensate for closures due to cheap shale gas and the incursion of subsidised renewable energy into power markets. Although reactors may well be licensed for up to 80 years, they will not operate unless the economic fundamentals are right. In Canada too, it seems unlikely that all three nuclear stations in Ontario will be refurbished, and there is a strong possibility that Pickering will close. InEurope, even in France the future of the currently operating units is now in question. It is likely that there will be a gradual reduction in the nuclear share of electricity in France towards 50% and so older units (beyond Fessenheim) will likely close by 2030. New-build in the United Kingdom will only compensate for units shutting down, while further new units will only happen in a few countries such as Finland and (possibly) the Czech Republic. So with countries like Belgium and Switzerland following Germany into a nuclear phase-out, the overall European situation is one of gentle decline.
This market segmentation and the way the Chinese and Russians will operate means that the two prime analytical devices utilised in the uranium market are both now useless. First, calculated annual world supply-demand balances (miraculously often showing a shortage after 3-5 years) are irrelevant in a segmented market, where key actors with expanding demand choose to go it alone. For a time in the early 2000s, it looked as if a globalised world nuclear fuel market could emerge, but this has not happened and it is arguably now going into reverse. Secondly, uranium supply curves (based on mine cost data), demonstrating the need for higher prices as demand expands, are also invalidated. China and Russia (and probably India too, if it eventually gets its nuclear act together) will develop uranium assets wherever it best suits them. They have the confidence to bypass the conventional market, which could increasingly become merely a sideshow.
Another issue to watch is the persistence of secondary supplies beyond Russia. Only part of the 2.5 million tonnes of uranium mined since 1945 has been utilised. Almost 2 million tonnes of depleted uranium is an attractive resource while there is overcapacity in enrichment and cheaper prices. In the very long term, China, Russia and India are committed to reprocessing their used fuel and will probably eventually succeed in tempering their uranium use by building large reprocessing plants. Any substantial replacement of uranium, however, will have to await the next generation of reactors, which will be fuelled very differently from today’s large light water designs.
Fifth Age price predictions
In this fifth age of uranium, prices will essentially be determined by the cash costs of production of operating mines (and not by the full costs of future mines). This means a reversion to the long period of low (but relatively stable) uranium prices of the late 1980s and 1990s (the third age), but at a higher level to reflect the greater level of production now, the escalation of mining costs and the movements in currency exchange rates. The shortages predicted by many analysts (leading to rapid price increases to provide good rates of return on their favourite projects) are purely a mirage.
The outlook is therefore not favourable for either current or prospective uranium producers. Only those with low-cost operations will prosper. Others will struggle to stay in business and further mine closures (beyond Paladin’s Kayelekera which is now on “care and maintenance”) are definitely on the horizon. A high-profile mine closure is one factor that could cause the price to spike, but historical experience is actually rather different: once mines get into operation, owners will usually withstand short-term financial losses so long as they are convinced that there are better times around the corner. And they tend to be incurable optimists.
Steve Kidd is an independent nuclear consultant and economist with 17 years of work in senior positions at the World Nuclear Association and its predecessor organization, the Uranium Institute.
Coalition government utterly dependent on funding from mining industry
The fossil fuel industry and who really runs Australia Independent Australia Sandi Keane 6 May 2014,The age of entitlement is over in Australia — except for the dominant fossil fuel industry and those rich enough to be able to buy political patronage.“……..Last month, at global talks in Nairobi, energy experts at were calling on subsidies to oil, gas and coal prices to be cut:
‘According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies will be the single most effective measure for climate change mitigation and would be one of the most effective measures for keeping the temperature rise beneath two degrees, which has been agreed upon in the international climate negotiations.’
The talks were organized by Germany’s development agency GIZ, the UN’s Environment Program and the International Monetary Fund. It was noted that most European countries have already cut their fossil fuel subsidies.
There’s little chance of the Abbott Government following suit while its policy outcomes continue to favour Australia’s richest corporate elites in return for hefty political donations. (See below – graph explains donations from mining industries)
At this point, donations – other than certain donations, such as from developers as in NSW – are not illegal.
Until such time as there is a national ICAC and an appetite to clean up the corrupt practice of political donations being tied to favourable decisions, we know who really governs Australia — the miners and the moguls. http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/who-really-runs-australia-the-miners-and-the-moguls,6450
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 