In his desire to cling to the past, John Howard was often accused of wanting to keep Australia behind the white picket fence of the 1950s. Kevin Rudd, not to be outdone, has taken this approach to new heights, tying Australia to a 19th century industrial economy for the foreseeable future while much of the rest of the world powers ahead into the 21st century.
In the kerfuffle over the Government’s decision to open the door the tiniest crack to the potential for a 25% emissions cut (the barest minimum required by science and the global community from a high polluter like Australia), most people have completely missed the fact that the Government has no intention of meeting those cuts at home in Australia. Australia’s polluting industry is doubly shielded from having to clean up its act — firstly by a direct price shield in the form of free permits and secondly by the option of buying in cheap permits from overseas to cover all of its obligations.
This should come as no surprise, given that the Prime Minister, Penny Wong, Martin Ferguson and, more recently, Greg Combet, have been at great pains to reassure everyone that they would do nothing to jeopardise the supremacy of coal in Australia. But it is worth drawing together the threads to make it clear.
It’s an old story that needs no repeating that, following Howard’s lead, the Rudd Government’s rhetoric and funding priorities lie clearly with coal over renewable energy and energy efficiency. Funding for the pipe dream of “clean coal” outstrips that for renewable energy, even though renewables cover a far broader range of technological options, many of which are far closer to commercial reality than geosequestration. Indeed, many renewable energy technologies are ready to be rolled out now, but have to make do with the scraps from the table while the Government insists that coal will remain Australia’s major power source for the foreseeable future.
Polluting industry has been left off the hook with energy efficiency by both the Howard and Rudd Governments. The Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act, introduced by Howard and supported by the ALP, requires Australia’s largest energy users to audit their energy use. I sought several times to amend the legislation to require them to actually implement the findings of those audits, but the old parties closed ranks again and again to protect the old industry from the sin of becoming more efficient. Recent analysis has shown that companies such as BHP Billiton and Bluescope could be saving many millions by implementing their energy efficiency opportunities, but inexplicably refuse to do so.
This has recently been repeated in the decision at COAG last week to exempt the big polluters from any obligation under the Renewable Energy Target. For some reason, it was decided that we will still meet our 20% target but exclude the biggest energy users from this effort, making the community at large pay for industry’s refusal to move into the future.
The Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme, of course, is carefully designed to ensure that big industry does not have to do anything. The extraordinarily and unjustifiably weak target is the first attempt to reduce the need for change. In addition, the allocation of now up to 95% free permits for the bulk of Australia’s trade exposed polluters — far more than is economically justifiable, as Professor Garnaut has repeatedly explained — means they have little incentive to change. On this week’s changed program, no-one will need to do anything before July 1 2012, as there will be unlimited $10 permits up to that date and beyond it only marginal change out to at least 2020.
Between the Green Paper and the White Paper, the Government realised that the almost complete shielding of the bulk of Australia’s industrial emissions from the price raised the spectre of a huge price impact on the community. Thus, the decision in the White Paper to explicitly scrap any limit on the purchase of permits from overseas. Now, if at any point Australia’s polluters find themselves facing a price impost greater than they think they can simply pay, all they need to do is buy in dirt cheap permits from developing countries.
This neatly avoids any short term need to transform the economy. But it is deeply short-sighted, both environmentally and economically.
It’s no surprise that many of our competitors in Europe and Asia, who have benefited for years from Australian green technologists and entrepreneurs taking their business overseas due to lack of interest at home, are salivating over this! Australia will continue the approach of exporting our green economic future, while locking ourselves into being the dirty quarry of Asia. Once our trading partners and competitors have moved on we will be unceremoniously dumped and left behind.
But of course, the only certainty of a weak approach now is that it will have to be changed down the track. The Australian people won’t stand for seeing the old parties close ranks with the old polluters against the climate and the community. As the green economy booms around the world, the Australian community will get increase loud in its demand for action here at home.
Prime Minister Rudd might think he’s onto an election winner with this political wedge. But, like most of his colleagues, he seems unable to see more than a year or three into the future. The Greens have longer vision. We can see what’s coming and we will not shirk from advocating for it and standing by our calls for moving now on the transformation to a carbon neutral economy.
In time to come Howard’s reputation as a liar will be eclipsed by Kevin Rudd. Having talked its way into power on its green credentials, the government failed to acquaint the community with the economic cost of a reduced carbon footprint ie a lower standard of living. Virtually every economic activity we do is underpinned by carbon-based fossil fuel and without it we be struggling to feed ourselves from our home vegetable gardens.
The environmental happy clappers who facilitated Rudd’s ascendancy in this matter are not prepared to sacrifice their standards of living on the basis of principle. How on earth can we continue to burn carbon-based fuel and expect third world countries to sell their ETS thisentitlements to us so that we can continue to live the high life.
Now that ultimate reality is dawning, the government is backpedalling as hard as it can to look after its union mates and it’s big corporate donors as a would be the first to suffer as a consequence of taxing high carbon use industries including coal, mining, transport, and ultimately food production and every other commodity dependent on fuel for transport.
Only a few in the audience can see that the emperor is naked, and the national preoccupation with sport and sopies will probably cause this situation to go unchecked for some time. Unfortunately there is no ground for the opposition to raise the stakes in this issue because anything done to try to redress this issue will only make them even more unpopular than the government would be if it actually implemented its own policies.
“Recent analysis has shown that companies such as BHP Billiton and Bluescope could be saving many millions by implementing their energy efficiency opportunities, but inexplicably refuse to do so.”
It’s not inexplicable. Big industrial energy consumers are postponing the necessary investments for energy efficiency as long as possible in order to gain the maximum possible windfall from gaming the ETS. If they improve efficiency before their free permit allowances are legislatively “locked in”, they would miss out on a massive handout.
If they had to purchase all their permits, there would be nothing to lose from investing now in more efficient plant technology.
Greg, it is certainly not cheap to shift away from a fossil-fuel based infrastructure, but in the case of electricity it is not particularly expensive: electricity generated by wind turbines, for instance, is no more costly than electricity generated from coal. Other fossil fuels are harder to replace than coal, but there are many ways to skin this cat. The technologies exist and the cost is one we could easily meet as we have met the much greater financial challenge of the recent credit crisis.
Talk of “struggling to feed ourselves” as a consequence of a shift in energy technologies is nonsensical scaremongering. In the long run this shift will make us far richer.
‘Electricity generated by wind turbines.. is no more costly than electricity generated from coal”
Please, give us a break! Can someone point to any developed or developing nation generating base load power in major cities using renewable sources? And can we stop referring to carbon, a fundamental compnent of all organic life forms, as a “pollutant”?
You do the sums. A 2MW wind turbine has a capital cost on the order of $1m, grid connection costs of the same again if it is part of a large remote wind farm (much less if close to suitable existing infrastructure). If well-sited (and there’s no reason it wouldn’t be) it can be expected to have a capacity factor over 30%, producing between 5 and 8 million kilowatt-hours per year.
That’s 20-40c capital cost per kilowatt-hour per year.
A new 1GW coal-fired power station built today would have a capital cost on the order of $2-4 billion dollars and will produce a little over 8 billion kilowatt hours per year.
That’s 16-32c capital cost per kilowatt-hour per year.
Thus far, coal seems slightly cheaper.
But with coal-fired power, you have to buy coal. You have to find something to do with the ash. Coal mines and coal exhaust both have huge environmental impacts which must be addressed.
Wind turbines also benefit from being mass-produced in relatively small units, and there is next to no lead-time from construction start to power production. Big power stations take several years to build before they generate any electricity at all.
There’s a healthy debate about whether the cost of ‘firming’ wind generation brings its cost as a major contributor to the electricity supply as high as that of building new thermal baseload power stations. Estimates vary from a 100% premium (a gross exaggeration) to 1-2% (sheer optimism). The real figures for the marginal cost of adding wind power to an existing grid depend very much on local factors: how much variation the system already copes with, for instance; whether the peak wind times coincide with high or low demand; and whether hydroelectric or gas-turbine peaking power is readily available or installable. Only in places such as Denmark and North Germany where intermittent power already produces over 25% of the electricity in a region (ie. regularly exceeds the total local electric demand) are the costs of wind power becoming tricky to meet; but the challenge *is* being met creatively at a cost those countries consider reasonable. It’s a matter of accounting and cabling (eg. to Norway where hydro-electric backup can easily compensate for excess wind power) more than anything else.
“Base load power in major cities using renewable sources” — Why qualify with “major cities?” Most power from any source is generated some distance from cities these days, close to relevant resources like coal or water, and transmitted many kilometres.
“Base load”? Try Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Brazil, Thailand, Russia, China, all of which generate huge amounts of power with the long-established renewables of near-surface, hydroelectric geothermal and hydroelectric power from dams.
Intermittent renewables don’t qualify for “base load” under most people’s understanding of the term, but that doesn’t make them significantly more expensive if the system is already designed to cope with a large variation in electric demand, as it is in most temperate countries with huge difference (over 50% in some cases) between daytime and nighttime or between summer and winter.
Hot-rock geothermal power will qualify very well for base load, as will solar thermal power with heat storage except in the dead of winter.
These technologies lack development (and therefore can’t yet be accurately costed), but not merit.
Kevin Rudd lacks the courage to make the tough decisions on tackling climate change.