18 September 2015, The Guardian, Is new Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull already a climate change turncoat? Malcolm Turnbull once endorsed common sense positions on climate change. Then he became prime minister. During the first few days of being prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull seems to be doing his best to argue about climate change with a former version of himself. I know I might have already given the game away here, but who do you think said this only five years ago? “We are as humans conducting a massive science experiment with this planet. It’s the only planet we’ve got…. We know that the consequences of unchecked global warming would be catastrophic. We know that extreme weather events are occurring with greater and greater frequency and while it is never possible to point to one drought or one storm or one flood and say that particular incident is caused by global warming, we know that these trends are entirely consistent with the climate change forecasts with the climate models that the scientists are relying on…. We as a human species have a deep and abiding obligation to this planet and to the generations that will come after us.” Stirring stuff eh? That was Turnbull in August 2010, speaking at the launch of a report demonstrating the technical feasibility of moving Australia to a 100% renewable energy nation. During his first question time as PM earlier this week, Turnbull was asked if he would join Labor in its aspiration (and that’s about the extent of Labor’s policy on this right now) that Australia should be generating 50% of its electricity from renewables by 2030. Turnbull’s response? “[Opposition leader Bill Shorten] is highlighting one of the most reckless proposals the Labor party has made. Fancy proposing, without any idea of the cost of the abatement, the cost of proposing that 50% of energy had to come from renewables! What if that reduction in emissions you needed could come more cost-effectively from carbon storage, by planting trees, by soil carbon, by using gas, by using clean coal, by energy efficiency?” What did the Turnbull of 2010 make of a plan to move away from fossil fuels that was twice as ambitious as Labor’s, that actually explained how it could be done and that proposed doing it faster? Read More here
Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle
17 September 2015, Renew Economy, Broken Hill solar plant achieves first generation. The 53MW Broken Hill Solar Plant in New South Wales has begun generating into the grid, with half of the 53MW solar plant completed. Four months after the first PV modules were installed on the site near Broken Hill in the state’s west, the $150 million AGL Energy-owned project began generating, with the first 26MW of renewable energy feeding into the National Electricity Market. AGL executive general manager of group operations, Doug Jackson, described the event as a major milestone for the project that, once completed, would be Australia’s second largest utility-scale solar installation, behind the 102MW Nyngan plant, also in NSW. AGL has developed the Broken Hill and newly completed 102MW Nyngan solar plants in partnership with First Solar, and with $166.7 million funding support from ARENA and $64.9 million from the NSW government. Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) CEO Ivor Frischknecht has welcomed the achievement of first generation at Broken Hill, hailing the big solar project as a first of many. Read More here
17 September 2015, Renew Economy, Turnbull channels Abbott as he attacks Labor’s renewables target, ETS. Plus ça change. The more it changes, the more it stays the same. Despite Malcolm Turnbull’s tantalising sales pitch ahead of the leadership spill earlier this week, there wasno real expectation for quick policy change. But there was hope that at least the rhetoric might change once Turnbull dislodged Tony Abbott as head of the Liberal Party and as prime minister of Australia. It hasn’t happened. It is pretty much business as usual. Nothing has changed. On Wednesday, Turnbull attacked Labor’s 50 per cent renewable energy target as reckless, environment minister Greg Hunt trotted out his usual nonsense about the cost of Labor’s as yet unstated emissions reductions target, while Queensland Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald resumed his long-running campaign to describe climate change science as a hoax and a fraud. If that wasn’t enough, the federal Nationals rejected a motion put forward by progressive members from their Western Australia division to declare support for renewable energy. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the independent Senator John Madigan, head of a Coalition-supported wind inquiry, continued to wage war on the industry. Turnbull’s comments were particularly alarming, given his presumed support for renewable energy. He has yet to pronounce himself on the future of the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, three institutions that Abbott tried unsuccessfully to destroy, but Turnbull was already dismissive of Labor’s proposed 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. Read More here
16 September 2015, The Guardian, Stopping fracking won’t stop climate change. I am neither pro nor anti-fracking, but green campaigners must look beyond future threats and tackle the present impacts of fossil fuels if we are to combat climate change…. My concern with the current debate about fracking stems not from any love of the technology but from the fact that it is currently absorbing people’s time and energy fighting potential future impacts, when all around us are far worse existing activities, such as burning Russian coal in 1960s’ power stations. It seems some in the green movement work on the basis that their best chances of making a difference lie in stopping threats that have yet to happen, rather than the impacts that are already with us. Anti new road protests, anti GM, anti incinerators, anti biofuel, anti new nuclear, even stopping the building of the new Kingsnorth coal fired power station – all are examples of this brand of campaigning. Done well they can penetrate the political discourse and change the debate. The problem, however, with whipping up fear of future threats is that it can also lead to fixed ideological positions being adopted in the absence of any actual evidence of harm, and, unless we start blocking the things that are already happening, we risk locking ourselves into the flawed and damaging system we have today. This is of particular concern because it is not just the green movement that has learned the game of how to stop new things from happening. Stoking nimbyism can carry risks for all who seek action on global issues. Read More here