12 November 2015, Australian fossil fuel subsidies put at $5.6bn a year in new report. As Malcolm Turnbull heads to Turkey to attend this weekend’s G20 Summit in Antalya, a new international report has revealed that Australia is still subsidising fossil fuel production to the tune of a massive $A5.6 billion a year. The report, ‘Empty promises: G20 subsidies to oil, gas and coal production’, also highlights how Australian companies have received billions of dollars from other G20 governments to develop liquefied natural gas sites. And it notes that Australia also funds the industry with a further $A292 million ($US262 million) a year in public finance, as it expands fossil fuel production on multiple fronts. The findings come during a week where the Turnbull is coming under increasing pressure – domestically and internationally – to agree to a OECD proposal that would rein in export credit agency financing for new coal plant. Although the Turnbull government is being cagey about its response to the proposal, it has been widely reported that Canberra has joined with South Korea to propose a much-watered down version of the US-Japan deal. Considering the modesty of the OECD proposal – which has been years in the making and needs unanimous support to be adopted – it’s not a good start to global climate negotiations. And it’s not a good look for Australia as it heads to Turkey, and then Paris. But of course, Australia is not the only offender. According to the new report – put together by the UK-based Overseas Development Institute and USA-based Oil Change International – governments from the Group of 20 nations are propping up fossil fuel production with $US452 billion a year. This is almost four times the entire global subsidies for renewable energy ($US121 billion). And it is despite pledges to phase out fossil fuels – and subsidies to the industry – as one of the key measures to prevent catastrophic climate change. Read More here
Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle
11 November 2015, Other Words, Who Can Follow This Climate Leader? President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline while backing increased oil, gas, and coal production. Remember that scene in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy hits a fork in the Yellow Brick Road? As she stands there stumped, a friendly character who will accompany her to the Emerald Palace pipes up. “Pardon me, that way is a very nice way,” the Scarecrow advises as he points in one direction. “It’s pleasant down that way too,” he adds, now pointing in the other. Then the Scarecrow crosses his straw-stuffed arms and unhelpfully declares, “Of course people do go both ways.” President Barack Obama’s climate leadership is as hard to follow as the Scarecrow’s directions. After seven years of waffling, Obama finally rejected the Keystone XL pipeline. If completed, this conduit would have moved more than 800,000 barrels a day of filthy oil mined from the Canadian tar sands through Nebraska and five other states to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Rejecting the $8 billion pipeline early in his first term would have been bold. But Obama dallied. He only stopped it once the thing made no financial sense because of low oil prices and similar infrastructure that rendered the project unnecessary. Making this move now, on the eve of global climate talks in Paris, was merely expedient. He made his choice sound like a bigger deal than it was anyway. “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” he asserted. “And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.” So, what’s the state of that leadership? On the one hand, the Obama administration has taken steps to reduce the nation’s reliance on oil, gas, and coal. Its Clean Power Plan will step up the ongoing retirement of coal-fired power plants as it cuts carbon pollution. The federal government is also phasing in higher fuel-efficiency standards while throwing some weight behind renewable-energy initiatives. All the while, this White House has also leased a growing amount of federal land to coal-mining companies and encouraged the nation’s spiking oil and natural gas production. Obama’s inherently contradictory “all-of-the-above” energy policy supports the dangerous practice of hydraulic fracturing — commonly known as fracking — that pumps vast amounts of toxic chemicals underground, imperiling drinking water. Read More here
7 November 2015, The Guardian, Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline and hails US as leader on climate change. Barack Obama ended seven years of high-wire political drama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline on Friday, saying the decision reflected America’s determination to be a global leader in the fight against climate change. The move, less than four weeks before more than 190 countries gather in Paris to try to reach a global deal to reduce carbon pollution, reinforces Obama’s commitment to making climate change the domestic and international legacy of his second term in the White House – even in the face of Republican hostility. “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action on climate change,” Obama said from the White House on Friday, flanked by both secretary of state John Kerry and vice-president Joe Biden. “Frankly, approving that project would have undercut that global leadership, and that is the biggest risk we face: not acting.” The president went on: “Today, the United States is leading on climate change.” Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL was the biggest victory in years for grassroots campaigners, who chained themselves to the gates of the White House and built unlikely alliances with landowners and ranchers in heartland states like Nebraska and Texas, to mobilise opposition to what had once been seen as a routine project. As secretary of state, “I feel like the boots have beaten the big oil suits for the first time in our country’s history,” said Jane Fleming Kleeb, leader of Bold Nebraska, which had fought the pipeline’s route across the state. TransCanada, the Canadian firm behind the pipeline, said it was disappointed with Obama’s decision. “Today, misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and science – rhetoric won out over reason,” Russ Girling, the chief executive of TransCanada, said in a statement. Read More here
5 November 2015, Arena, Making the case for energy-independent suburbs. A new investigation by Brookfield Energy Australia (Brookfield) could pave the way for the new Huntlee residential development in the NSW Hunter Valley to be built off-the-grid and powered by renewable energy. The $1.1 million initial study is receiving $442,000 from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). Huntlee, developed by LWP Property Group, will be the first new town in the Hunter Valley in 50 years and will house 20,000 new residents in 7,500 homes. ARENA CEO Ivor Frischknecht said substantial connection costs and the falling cost of renewable energy made it a good time to explore the option of forgoing grid connection. “If this latest work shows renewables, battery storage and enabling technologies can reliably and cost effectively power new suburbs, it could set a precedent for residential developments and potentially accelerate the uptake of renewables in Australia,” Mr Frischknecht said. “There are a number of regulatory challenges and constraints and technical risks facing microgrids. Brookfield will share key insights about overcoming these barriers with the energy industry.” Brookfield Energy CEO Richie Sheather welcomed today’s announcement. “We are excited to be exploring sustainable alternative solutions for energy and water infrastructure solutions and see an emerging competitive market for large-scale local microgrids leveraging high penetration renewable,” Mr Sheather said. Flow Systems, a Brookfield company, is spearheading Brookfield’s sustainable multi-utility initiative across Australia. Read More here