Header image

Warning: Australia’s Greenhouse Emissions are on the rise!

Posted by Barney Mezey in CPRS | Climate Change | Electricity Supply | Emissions Trading Scheme - (0 Comments)

It has been a turbulent time during the last few weeks regarding the climate change issue. There have been a number of natural disasters all around Australia all linked to weather pattern changes. Although, some may argue that these would have happened anyway –saying that these have nothing to do with global warming- it is unlikely. There has been an increase of floods all around the world in the last few years as well as extreme temperatures resulting in bush fires or heavy snow falls in countries where they don’t normally have these. And the list goes on. But I won’t go on about this as it is a huge issue in itself, just look at Bruce’s previous blog with the weather map of Australia; it sums it up succinctly.

What is a concern is that the first reaction of the Australian federal government is to cut back on the environment budget in order to rebuild flood-affected areas. Fair enough some of those policies were real duds anyway but weren’t some of these catastrophes caused by the fact that we have been putting too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? So it would make more sense to try to reduce these to minimise the occurrence of more natural disasters. However, this is not the case. According to an article in The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/greenhouse-emissions-to-double-unless-action-taken-20110211-1aqnb.html) quoting Ross Garnaut the way we are going at the moment Australia’s greenhouse emissions will increase by 24% by 2020 (based on 2000 levels). Hang on; weren’t we supposed to reduce our emissions by an incredible 5% by then? Oh, yes but we still haven’t got any decent policies in place such as a carbon tax after years of debating it. Instead the current and the previous federal governments have spent around $5.5 billion on mediocre and piece meal abatement programs some of which were very poorly-managed indeed.

Overall all these approaches will not make hell of a lot of difference to Australia’s greenhouse emissions and we paid a very high price for the minuscule CO2 that we did manage to curtail, which is estimated to be about one-tenth of that famous 5% target. See: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-cash-goes-up-in-smoke-20110214-1atnh.html). On a state government level (referring to our home state Victoria) the recently-elected government doesn’t seem to have much to say about Climate Change –so far. They are not too concerned to the extent that some of them don’t even believe in it and suggest the commissioning of more brown coal power stations to keep up with the ever increasing electricity demand.

The only ones that are actually rolling their sleeves up and are really doing something about reducing greenhouse emissions are our local governments with the support of their constituents. There are many passionate people in these organisations that are constantly doing the right thing. In many cases they are ignoring the financial cost of implementing strategies in order to improve their environmental impact. Those higher up should learn from them.

It is paramount that we as a country start doing something about Climate Change. The longer we wait the more it will cost the economy to retool and the longer we wait the worse it will get when it comes to natural disasters.

Emissions trading scheme or direct action – What’s the best choice?

Posted by Graham Davies in CPRS | Climate Change | Emissions Trading Scheme | Leadership - (0 Comments)

In Australia I see essentially two political choices for taking action on climate change. Vote for a party committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and implementing an emissions trading scheme (ETS) or vote for a party not committed to an ETS and relying on ‘direct action’ to reduce carbon emissions. The major political parties are in essence providing these two choices to the Australian public – Labor for an ETS and the Coalition against an ETS. The two key minor, but still influential parties offer the same choice – Greens for an ETS and the Nationals against.

But what is an ETS and what is direct action? If people don’t understand the choices how are they to make an informed decision?

Direct Action

Direct action is essentially funding measures and initiatives through tax payer’s money that will reduce carbon emissions. Sounds simple enough, and of course voters can be led to believe that the government is taking control and doing something immediate to tackle Australia rising greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberal party is promoting direct action and refers to an ETS as a ‘great big tax’, but surely direct action could be termed the same – after all, direct action is still using tax payers’ money!

Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)

What is an ETS and what advantage does it offer over direct action? The Department of Climate Change refers to its ETS policy as a Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme (CPRS). An ETS is also commonly referred to as a cap and trade system or simply carbon emissions trading. What this means, is that the Government basically sets a cap or limit on the amount of pollution (carbon emissions) that can be emitted. This cap is sold to participants (the big polluters) in the form of carbon emission permits, which each are worth a specific amount of specified pollutant – in the context of tackling climate change, carbon dioxide. Holders of the permits are then allowed to trade the permits within each trading period set by the Government. The total amount of permits cannot exceed the cap, which over time is reduced by the Government, forcing the market to adjust and carbon emissions reductions to be achieved.

Essentially, participants of the trading scheme are allowed to pollute a certain amount within each period. If they exceed this amount (the cap), then they must purchase permits to allow them to pollute. So participants below the cap can choose to sell their permits to participants who require them. This puts a price on carbon pollution and if well designed, provides an incentive for participants to reduce their emissions.
The Labor Government came very close to passing an ETS, however it was blocked in the Senate twice in 2009. The Greens Party played a key part in the failed policy adoption of a ETS as they viewed the scheme as watered down, with a target to reduce Australia’s net carbon emissions by only 5 percent. To some degree I agree that the targets need to be much higher if Australia is to really move towards a low-carbon economy, however being too ambitious too early must have implications for our economy.

Labor is still committed to implementation of an ETS, but has postponed any commencement until 2013, claiming a divide on the issue due to a lack of consensus on climate change. They are offering direct action initiatives in the short-term, and a so called Citizens Assembly to form consensus for a future ETS. I get the feeling the lack of consensus is within the political realm, because I get the feeling most Australian’s want action on climate change, but just aren’t sure what the best action is.

Are you for an ETS or against?

I see the choice as simple – vote for a potential ETS or vote for no ETS. So what’s the advantage of an emissions trading scheme over direct action? An ETS is market-based, which from an economic perspective is more efficient and results in reducing carbon emissions at lowest cost. So the claim by the Liberal Party that an ETS is a ‘great big tax’ is not directly true. The problem lies in Government intervention in the form of subsidies and other exemptions, which are funded through tax payers’ money. Australia is a carbon emissions intensive nation, due to key sectors including the energy sector and aluminium smelter industry. An ETS without government intervention would mean these sectors would be the hardest hit, such that they would need to invest dramatically to improve energy efficiency and where above the cap, pay to pollute. This is argued to impact Australia’s global competiveness and will most likely increase the cost of commodities affected.

So, the argument against an ETS is that participants will have to spend money to reduce their carbon emissions and this expense will partly be passed on to consumers. While this may be true, at the end of the day, someone needs to foot the bill and if climate change is everyone’s problem then we should all be contributing.

Getting the balance right

The question is, do we contribute through direct government expenditure, or indirectly through a market-based scheme? Governments do not exactly have a good reputation for spending tax payers’ money efficiently so I would argue an ETS is the way to go. However, the success of an ETS really comes down to its overall design. Yes, we want to reduce emissions, but we don’t want to endanger Australia’s economic competitiveness. Like anything, it’s a balancing act, but if we get so bogged down in analysis paralysis, we’ll never achieve any real outcomes.

, , , ,

What are you voting for?

Posted by Regina McLeod in CPRS | Carbon Conservation | Climate Change | Emissions Trading Scheme | Leadership - (0 Comments)

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has released its scorecard for the forthcoming federal election, and will update it weekly. With only 3 weeks to go, the three major political parties have clearly put entirely different emphases on the importance of the world in which we live. Which best suits you?

As the ACF states: “Unfortunately, the scorecard shows that to date the ALP and the Coalition are failing on cutting pollution and protecting the environment. Check out how the environmental policies of each of the parties rate, and what work needs to be done…”

These have all been calculated from the publicly stated policies of the political parties. Some of the criterion for the results above included:

Question 1 – Pollution and a Clean Economy:

  • Deliver science based greenhouse gas pollution reduction targets with the urgency required?
  • Reduce fossil fuel subsidies and re-invest the proceeds into the clean energy economy?
  • Embed environmental sustainability into decision making processes of government?

Question 2 – Clean Energy:

  • Boost renewable energy at the scale needed by 2020?
  • Put Australia on track to be a leader in energy efficiency in the developed world by 2020?

Question 3 – Sustainable Cities:

  • Result in world leading, better planned, resource efficient and sustainable cities by 2020?
  • Boost federal transport spending to achieve world class public and active transport systems for Australian cities and regional centers?

Question 4 – Healthy Environment:

  • Build resilience of ecosystems to climate change, protect carbon stores and significantly reduce land use emissions?
  • Bans the importation of illegally logged timber products and helps achieve effective forest protection in the Asia pacific?
  • Protect the cultural and natural values of the Kimberley with Traditional Owner consent?

For more detail on how the four scores were assessed, go to http://www.acfonline.org.au/default.asp?section_id=374 .

As you decide what you’re going to use your vote for, consider the consequences of voting for each of these parties. Some cultures plan for sustainability many generations ahead – the Iroquoi up to seven generations. Can enough Australians see beyond the next election?

Forecast energy use in Australia to 2030 indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels will continue to increase.

Posted by Bruce Rowse in CPRS | Climate Change | Energy Efficiency - (0 Comments)

Last month ABARE, the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics released its Australian energy projections to 2029-30.

The blow dried picture of a wind turbine on the front page is unfortunately very misleading.

The projections take into account the likely effects of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (if it ever comes in), the Renewable Energy Target, and other measures designed to reduce Australia’s carbon footprint.

ABARE predicts that the amount of electricity generated in Australia will increase by nearly 50% on 2007-08 values, or a growth rate of 1.8 percent per year. That’s only just below our projected population growth rate of 2.1%.

Total energy consumption is projected to grow 35% (1.4% a year). Its expected that in 2029-30 coal and oil will still be supplying the bulk of Australia’s energy needs. Renewable energy is expected to supply just 8% of total energy in 2029-30.

Assuming that the emissions factors for coal, oil and natural gas are similar to what they are today (for example that 1 GJ of black coal still produces around 88.43 kg of GHG when combusted), a quick calculation shows that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuels are likely to be 21% higher in 2029-30 than they were in 2007-08.

The table below shows the maths, using the data in the ABARE report and emissions factors from the Department of Climate Change website.

Fossil fuel 2007-08 Consumption (PJ) 2029-30 Consumption (PJ) Emissions factor (kg CO2-e/GJ) 2007-08 GHG (Mt CO2-e) 2029-30 GHG (Mt CO2-e)
Blackcoal

1514

1311

88.43

134

116
Browncoal

610

452

93.11

57

42
Oil (assumed to be crude oil)

2083

2787

69.16

144

193
Gas (assumed to be unprocessed natural gas)

1240

2575

51.33

64

132
TOTAL       398 483

I find this data deeply disturbing – it appears as though emissions from fossil fuels will increase from 398 million tonnes to 483 million tonnes. Climate change scientists say we need to reduce emissions. Yet Australia’s emissions from the use of fossil fuels appear to be set to increase, with measures such as the CPRS appearing tokenistic.

Which begs the questions, if the CPRS is supposed to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020, how come my calculations show that our emissions from the use of fossil fuels will be higher in 2030? Or is it expected that the emissions factors will lower for coal (for example via “clean coal” technologies)? Or will the emissions reduction come from international carbon trading? As a developed country with one of the highest per capita emissions in the world is this really the best we can do?

Energy conservation (choosing to waste less energy) and energy efficiency (using less energy to achieve the same outcome) have the potential to decrease our energy use if widely uptaken. The climate change science demands a step change in our ability to save energy if we are to avoid ABARE’s disturbing projections.

, , , ,

Walmart plans to save more carbon than Australia

Posted by Bruce Rowse in CPRS | Carbon Conservation | Climate Change | Energy Efficiency | Leadership - (0 Comments)

American retailer Walmart has announced it will cut its supply chain emissions by 20 million tonnes by 2015.

If Walmart can do this why can’t the Australian government get our country to do the same?

My understanding is that if the government’s proposed CPRS goes ahead Australia’s emissions will be cut by around 20 million tonnes by 2015. The Australian government’s target is a 5% reduction by 2020.

According to the Environmental Leader, Walmart’s target “translates into 150 percent of the giant retailer’s estimated global carbon footprint growth over the next five years.”

On a percentage basis Walmart’s targets eclipse Australia’s by a massive amount.

Australia has over 1.2 million people employed by state governments. I’m not sure how many public servants are employed federally, on top of this number.

Walmart has around 1.9 million employees.

From a staffing perspective the number of people whom Walmart and the Australian government have “operational control” over are not that dissimilar in magnitude. Obviously as a retailer Walmart has a much bigger supply chain over which it has influene than the Australian government. So in this regard a direct comparison between Walmart and the Australian government is not really fair. But on the other hand the Australian government in theory can influence all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint, either through regulation or incentives.

What is striking about the Walmart announcement is the seriousness of their commitment. If all businesses were this serious about reducing their carbon footprint our government’s incapacity to cut Australia’s carbon emissions would be less of a worry.

If Walmart, an organisation famous for keeping costs low and operating leanly, can significant cut its emissions, can’t yours do the same? I need to be clear here, Walmart is a for-profit business. Its margins aren’t huge – in 2006 its profit margin was 3.2%. Yet it can clearly see that the environmental benefit of cutting its emissions is not a bad business decision. 

Most of Walmart’s savings are likely to come from energy efficiency. Energy efficiency provides a positive return on investment. It makes economic and business sense, as well as environmental sense.
If Walmart can commit to significantly cutting their emissions, can’t your organisation do the same? Our government can’t, but you can. Are all Australian’s with worries about climate change going to be shamed by a business from across the Pacific, or are we all going to step up personally and in our workplaces and get serious about reducing greenhouse gas pollution?

,