Archive for November, 2009
Next week will see the closing days of debate on the CPRS legislation for this year and our last chance to secure an emissions trading scheme before the COP15 conference in Copenhagen in a weeks time.
However, the media is largely focused on Turnbull’s future as the leader of the Liberal party. He thinks that the Liberal party must have a policy on climate change and that it should support the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. This was their policy going into the last election and they have already endorsed the reduction target commitment of between 5% to 25% that Australia will be taking to Copenhagen. Without an emissions trading scheme in place, Australia will have no mechanism to achieve these cuts.
Turnbull’s position has put him on a collision course with the arch-conservatives within the party led by Nick Minchin. This group have taken the in-fighting into the open with a mass resignation late last week and calls for a second leadership spill. Turnbull is not seeking any appeasement with the climate change denialists within his party and is continuing to fight both for leadership and for the passage of the CPRS legislation. Here he is commenting on Nick Minchin in an interview with Laurie Oakes yesterday:
“[T]hey do not believe that climate change is real, they do not believe that humans are causing it and they do not want to do anything about it. Nick Minchin made that very clear in the Four Corners programme as did a number of his acolytes. What he is trying, what he is is a climate change denier. He stands for doing nothing on climate change. He said a majority of our party room do not believe that humans have any impact on climate change. Now that is a view contrary to the opinion of the vast majority of Australians, contrary to the opinion of every government in the world, and every major political party in the world. Now, if Nick Minchin wins, if he wins this battle, he condemns our party to irrelevance, because what he is saying on one of the greatest issues and challenges of our time, one that will affect the future of the planet and the future of our children and their children, Nick Minchin is saying ‘do nothing’. He wants us to be the ‘do nothing on climate change’ party and he has been, he’s on the record about that, and when he talks about a delay or a deferral, what that means is denial.”
Even if Turnbull can retain the support of most of his party and hold-off the attacks from the ‘Minchin-ites’ the chances of the legislation successfully passing through the Senate tomorrow seem slim. Debate on the bill was very slow on Thursday and there are a large number of amendments still to be debated. Both the far-left and the far-right within Parliament are opposed to the legislation. The Greens because they see it as too generous to industry and the Nationals and elements of the Liberals because they don’t believe in climate change. Here is Penny Wong trying to call out the far-right for filibustering on Friday:
“What is perverse is the unacceptable risk that this generation of right wing politicians are seeking to impose on future generations of Australians. What is perverse is the blatant and wilful disregard of the scientific evidence. Perhaps most perverse is the way in which Senator Joyce and others in this chamber will do and say anything to avoid action on climate change and have played procedural games and filibustered over the time that this debate has been on in this Senate, from back in June until now—simply demonstrating yet again that they are so extreme that, even when they believe there is a risk that the majority of this chamber will support action on climate change, they will not accept it. They will do anything in order to avoid taking action on climate change. I do believe that is perverse.”
What those seeking to delay the legislation are hoping to achieve is unclear. If you are on the far-right and you doubt the science of climate change — perhaps believing the ridiculous views of some skeptics that there is a vast scientific conspiracy on the subject — then you are missing the point that this is now beyond the science. Every major country in the world — from the US to China — is trying to reduce the carbon-intensity of their economies.
While our dependence on coal — both for export-earnings and domestic electricity generation — will make this transformation difficult for us, delaying the transformation is simply delaying the inevitable and is putting our future long-term prosperity at risk. What’s more, for the far-right of politics and the industry groups they support, the current bill before Parliament may be the most generous offer they get.
The far-left’s opposition to the current bill is more understandable, but probably just as silly. The CPRS does appear to reward polluters and it does lock-in — for the time being — a national reduction target as low as 5%. The Green’s advocacy for action on climate change is welcome. For example here is Christine Milne arguing for a larger reduction target on Friday:
“The fact is that the atmosphere does not really care. We are not talking here about what is politically achievable but about what the science—the chemistry and physics—deliver for us: what the earth can bear.”
However, the Greens, in voting against the CPRS legislation, have taken an idealistic and uncompromising position which provides no politically acceptable alternative. It might be have been the case that with their support the original CPRS legislation — perhaps with some of the amendments they are now seeking such as increased support for developing countries — might have been passed earlier this year. As it is now we have a bill further away from their policy ideal, with more support for the coal industry, and Australia no closer to meeting any reduction targets at all.
In any case, the Greens are mostly irrelevant to the current debate and we should be watching for the position that the majority in the Liberal party take tomorrow morning — and perhaps Joe Hockey in particular — for any insight into how tomorrow’s debate will proceed.
But this is all politics and this will all be a distant memory very soon. Australia will soon have an emissions trading scheme, the economy will soon begin a massive transformation in earnest, climate change will grind inexorably forward, the environment will change, and we will do our best to adapt. Our 20th-century fossil-fuel driven society will one day be a distant memory.
These changes, that the conservatives on the far-right fear so much, will not see complete social or economic collapse, but nor will they bring about an eco-utopia that those on the far-left might wish for. The challenge for our political leaders is to take the long-view and to chart a course that we can start today and that will sustain us in the future.
I have my fingers crossed. I hope that we take a step forward tomorrow with the passage of the CPRS legislation and that we take great strides forward next week in Copenhagen.
In a recent announcement by the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, from the second half of 2010 owners of commerical office buildings will be required to disclose energy efficiency ratings when they lease or sell their property.
Specifically, building owners will need to provide a current Building Energy Efficiency Certificate (BEEC), including a NABERS Energy base building star rating, when selling or leasing. These certificates are valid for 12 months and once the legislation is in place, owners of non-compliant buildings will face a fine or prosecution.
To begin with, the rules will only apply to the sale or lease of office space of more than 2,000 square meters. It is expected that around 2,170 commercial office buildings will be required to provide energy efficiency ratings, from a national total of 3,900 buildings.
The legislation is designed to help prospective buyers and tenants make more informed decisions when they’re looking for office space. Public disclosure of energy efficiency ratings will hopefully create a market that rewards better performing buildings and stimulates greater investment in energy efficiency as buyers and tenants demand buildings that are more efficient.
In early 2010 Greensense will be launching a real-time energy and greenhouse emissions management dashboard for commerical buildings.
If you’re the owner or operator of a commerical office building and would like to understand what this new legislation means for you, you can contact me at peter@greensense.com.au
The government has released the details of proposed changes to the CPRS to obtain Coalition support. The detail includes more transition support for emissions intensive trade exposed industry, electricity generators and coal mines.
The energy minister has just announced the development of a new energy strategy for Western Australia, which is good news. The discussion paper is available now.
One of the goals of the strategy is to increase the level of renewable energy generation in the state to be in line with the Federal Government’s 20% Target by 2020.
Currently it is around 3.8% and lower still in regional areas. Based on the generation figures for 2008, there was 1066MW of new non-renewable generation in development versus only 41MW of renewable generation. It will be very interesting to see what actions the State Government might take to encourage more renewable generation.
One topic that seems to be entirely absent from the discussion paper is energy efficiency. Efficiency measures usually present cheaper and faster ways of reducing greenhouse emissions and use of fossil fuels and this will hopefully get a lot more attention in the final strategy.
Next month I’ll be heading over to Copenhagen for the much-anticipated United Nations Climate Change Conference. I’ll be travelling as part of the MOSS delegation, and with the help of the WA Department of Trade and Industry, who have kindly provided some financial assistance.
The event runs from December 7–18 and will be based at the Bella Centre, located just South of Copenhagen CBD. For those that are interested, the latest schedule can be downloaded here.
One thing that struck me after chatting to friends, colleagues and clients about the trip, is how few people know what Copenhagen is actually about — Why is it being held now? Who are the main players? What are the possible outcomes? With that it mind I’ve attempted to provide a quick overview below.
What is the Copenhagen conference?
The conference is a giant international meeting of delegates from 192 countries. In actual fact it’s the 15th in a series of UN conferences on climate change. The first took place in 1995 in Berlin, the most recent in Bali two years ago.
Who are the main players?
Although 192 countries will participate in the conference, there are really only four blocs of countries that are collectively looking to influence decisions. In one corner we have the G77, the UN’s largest group of developing countries, who are arguing strongly that rich nations should make emissions cuts first, and then compensate developing countries to enable them to industrialise cleanly. In the other corner we have the developed, so called Annex 1, countries including the US, UK, Canada, Russia, Australia, Japan, Turkey, New Zealand, and all the EU countries. Within Annex 1 there are also competing blocs, for example the EU, US and Russia. Broadly speaking Annex 1 countries are arguing that both developed and developing countries should undertake emissions cuts together.
Finally, we have India and China. China pretty much aligns itself with the G77 and India appears to be something of a swinging voter.
What does Copenhagen have to do with Kyoto?
At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the UN set a long-term — but voluntary — goal of reducing the emissions of developed countries to 1990 levels by 2000. Few countries met this target. By 1997, therefore, negotiations progressed towards a binding treaty that would mandate specific emissions reductions for countries that signed up. The pivotal talks were held in the ancient Japanese capital of Kyoto.
Overall, Kyoto promised a 5.2 per cent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2012. There was much argy-bargy during the Kyoto negotiations, with certain countries like Australia bargaining hard for generous emissions targets. Famously, of course, Australia actually managed to negotiate an emissions increase.
Even so, Kyoto’s fine print stated that if at least 55 countries comprising at least 55 per cent of global emissions signed on, the Kyoto protocol would come into legal and binding effect. This happened in 2005 when Russia signed up, formally bringing the treaty into effect on 16 February that year.
The first Kyoto Protocol commitment period expires in 2012, which is why a new agreement is needed.
What’s on the agenda at Copenhagen?
According to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agreement will need to be reached on four key political essentials:
- How much are industrialised countries willing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?
- How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?
- How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?
- How is that money going to be managed?
What are the possible outcomes?
It’s hard to say, but they probably fall into one of four categories:
- A binding commitment by both developed and developing countries to relatively modest near-term, but more ambitious long-term emissions reductions. This is the best case scenario.
- A binding commitment by developed countries, but non-binding and more modest commitments by developing countries
- No broad agreement at all; instead, a patchwork quilt of national policies negotiated on a country-by-country basis.
- A total collapse of the negotiations like the recent Doha and Geneva trade talks, which ended in impasse after developed and developing nations failed to reach agreement on agricultural tariffs.