Archive for April, 2010
It looks like Labor has shelved plans for an emissions trading scheme for the time being.
At the same time Republican Lindsey Graham withdrew his support for a similar bill in the US over immigration politics, effectively scuttling ‘cap and trade’ in the US until at least the next congress.
It’s been a long time since the US passed their Climate Change Bill through Congress but, so far, no progress has been made getting a similar bill through the Senate. There are some parallels with the passage of the CPRS here.
On Monday a new US Climate Change Bill is due to be presented to the Senate, proposed jointly by Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham and independent Joe Leiberman.
This is going to be the last real chance to get a bill passed before the US mid-term elections and the trio have been working hard to get bipartisan and industry support for the Bill. The outcome of the debate on this Bill is important for Australia for two reasons.
Firstly, the prospects for improving on the Copenhagen Accord will be bleak without meaningful US action. While the US has made a reduction commitment under the accord, as has Australia, we still need to see what policy the US will use to achieve the target.
Secondly, both major parties in Australia are keen to be seen to be in-line with US policy. With a Federal election looming, the outcome of debate on this bill in the US could influence policy here — or at least election posturing.
There have been claims in the media here that ‘cap and trade’ is dead and this means the US will move to a direct action model, in line with Coalition policy. On the other hand, we’ve recently had President Obama’s comments on the 7:30 Report that “you have to put a price on carbon of some sort”, in line with Labor policy.
We should know more details on the Bill this week and have a good idea of its prospects soon enough, but no one is suggesting it will pass easily, and most are suggesting it will fail. If the Bill does fail, does that mean the US won’t meet its reduction target? Does it mean ‘cap and trade’ is dead? And what does it mean for Australia?
I recently attended a presentation by from Frank Litz, a Senior Fellow from the World Resources Institute (WRI). He said that research still to be published by WRI has found that the US could still meet their reduction target without a national ‘cap and trade’ system. There are two reasons why. Firstly, there is already a regional emissions trading scheme in the US and there are two more in development. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is underway and covers the electricity sector in 10 mid-Atlantic states. The Western Climate Initiative will cover 11 Pacific states across the US and Canada and the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord will cover 7 more US states. It is clear that even without a national ‘cap and trade’ system, emissions trading will be a major driver of abatement in North America.
Also, the President has significant power to regulate emissions through existing legislation, such as the Clean Air Act. The Environmental Protection Authority has recently issued a finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare with the support of the White House and following a ruling from the Supreme Court. This means they can begin to put in place performance standards on major emission sources such as vehicles, factories, and power plants. Other agencies such as the Department of Energy and the Department of Transport also have powers that could be used by the President to regulate emissions.
It’s important to distinguish this kind of ‘direct action’ from that proposed by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party’s policy is to make direct investments in offsets and some renewable energy production and to provide grants to companies to reduce emissions. The policy placese no limit on emissions and makes no attempt to regulate emission sources.
Some people have gone further and suggested that the US EPA might have the power to implement a national emissions trading scheme under existing laws. But even without using existing laws there are some reasons to think the US will have a national scheme soon and if not during this congress, then probably in the next one. And if the US puts a price on carbon, Australia is pretty sure to follow suit.
One of the reasons there is doubt that the Kerry-Graham-Leiberman Bill will get enough support this time around is the looming mid-term elections, rather than insurmountable opposition to such a scheme. The Bill will need Republican support to pass and there is a view that after Obama’s success with Health reform, the Republicans don’t want to give the Democrats another high-profile win. Also, President Obama has indicated that the Financial Reform Bill is a higher priority and he also has a highly political Supreme Court nomination to deal with before the mid-terms. So climate change might not get the attention it deserves.
Direct regulation by the EPA is very unpopular with industry and is seen as a more expensive way to achieve emissions reductions. So we can expect to see renewed pressure from industry for a national trading scheme if and when they become subject to more stringent regulation of emissions. Again, there are echoes of the situation in Australia, where industry is calling for more certainty.
What does this all mean for Australia and our upcoming Federal election?
Right now neither of the major parties has a strong or popular position on climate change, but both parties will hope to get some political mileage from the outcome of debate on this bill. If the US bill does get up then it will provide strong support for Labor’s policy and may see Rudd want to make even more of climate change as an election issue. Despite his failure to pass the CPRS Bill and the disappointment of Copenhagen, he is back talking about emissions trading now and definitely sees it as an area where he has stronger credentials than the Coalition.
Tony Abbott seems quite happy to make up new policies on the run, so what he will do is anyone’s guess. If the Bill fails it should be good news for him because the media will interpret this as a trend away from emissions trading towards direct action. However, President Obama will still want to show international leadership on climate change and demonstrate to partners that the US is taking action to meet its commitment under the Copenhagen Accord ahead of COP16 in Mexico. He will probably draw to attention to the trading schemes that are already underway in the US and use his executive powers to start regulating emissions with new performance standards.
This kind of action is quite different to what the Coalition is proposing, which lets polluters off the hook entirely. And the US will probably get a national emissions trading scheme, sooner or later.
Barrack Obama was on the 7:30 Report last night and he said a few interesting things.
On the need to move to a low-carbon economy:
“[What] I would say to the world is that if we focus our attention, our ingenuity, our innovative capacity on transforming from a fossil fuel based economy to a clean energy based economy then potentially we can not only solve the problem of climate change but unleash an enormous amount of economic growth for the future.”
On the need for a price on carbon:
“I am absolutely convinced you have to put a price on carbon of some sort, so there are a number of ways of doing that, you could do a carbon tax, you can do a cap and trade system which is what originally I had suggested, very similar to the program that Kevin Rudd has proposed, but the key is to change incentives for the market place, where we are actually pricing these pollutants that are going into our atmosphere, if a price is placed on them, if industry has to take them into account then we can count on the market place responding effectively.”
On April 22nd, Greensense Managing Director Derek Gerrard is participating in Spin to Cure Diabetes, an event that raises money for type 1 diabetes research. If you would like to support financially you can donate here, or come down to Central Park at 1pm and watch him sweat it out.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease that is not caused by diet or lifestyle. Around 140,000 Australian children and adults live with this incurable, chronic disease and five more are diagnosed every day.
An individual with type 1 diabetes needs up to six insulin injections every day, just to stay alive, as well as multiple finger prick blood sugar tests.
While insulin keeps people alive, it is not a cure. Having diabetes can still cause serious health complications such as blindness, heart disease and kidney failure.
So that’s why at Greensense we want to help JDRF fund vital medical research into finding a cure.
Pollytics Election Simulation April 5th 2010 (blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/)
Business planning for emissions trading in Australia has been challenging. The hope now is we’ll get some certainty with the next federal election.
If you’re looking for some insight into the outcome of the next election, the pollytics blog written by poll analyst Scott Steel is worth reading. He runs election simulations from the results of newspaper polling. He’s just published the results of his Q1 2010 simulation, which forecasts that Labour will be returned with a larger majority.
He also analyses the probabilities from the betting market. As of Friday the 9th, the implied probability of Labour winning the election is 74%.
What does this mean for the prospects of the emissions trading scheme starting on schedule? Labour is in power now but hasn’t been able to pass their CPRS legislation. Even with a larger majority in the Lower House, they will probably still need minor party support in the Senate. That is, unless they can call a joint-sitting of parliament.
Election guru Antony Green has recently published an article on the prospects of a double-dissolution election. The whole article is worth a read, but I’ll quote his conclusion:
“Political logic points to a double dissolution after July 1, most probably in August or early September. The Government has constitutional justification for a double dissolution, and is building up its political justification based on Senate obstructionism. It has the timing opportunity of holding a double dissolution without losing a year from its term and polls that gives it a chance to remake the Senate. All the logic points to the Rudd government taking its chance.”
There is still a lot of uncertainty and your business plans should consider a number of possible scenarios. However, there is a very real chance that emissions trading will be introduced on schedule, so if you are liable you should be well on your way to getting ready to go.
Most people in Perth are aware that Fremantle was selected to host the 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships. This is exciting news for Perth, with it set to be the biggest sailing event to hit our shores since the 1987 America’s Cup Defence.
Just as exciting for Greensense, is that fact that we will be involved in helping to make this event as environmentally responsible as possible through a partnership announced this month (read the press release here). We will be assisting with the development and monitoring of their Environmental and Sustainability Programme and will report on various aspects of the event such as energy use, waste management and recycling and carbon emissions.
With over 18 months still to go before the event, it’s great to see that the event organisers have recognised the value of the environment to the community early in the planning process to enable robust plans to be put in place and meaningful relationships to be developed, ensuring the best possible outcomes between now and December 2011.
Here’s to sustainable sport and a sustainable world championships in Perth!
‘The Skeptics Handbook’ by Jo Nova
Greenpeace’s new report Dealing in doubt leads with a great quote from John Cook of Skeptical Science (a fantastic resource for those who are curious about climate change). He says:
“Scepticism is not believing what someone tells you, investigating all the information before
coming to a conclusion. Scepticism is a good thing. Global warming scepticism is not that.
It’s the complete opposite of that. It’s coming to a preconceived conclusion and cherry–
picking the information that backs up your opinion. Global warming scepticism isn’t
scepticism at all.”
This is certainly how I feel when acquaintances forward me the latest missive from ‘skeptical’ web sites like Watts Up With That or, closer to home, Jo Nova’s blog, and more depressingly the latest oped’s from The Australian newspaper. These commentators aren’t skeptics, they are just peddling doubt and attacking science. These attacks are the subject of Greenpeace’s report, which draws the parallel with with tobacco industry’s misinformation campaign that began just as government began to regulate smoking.
Professor Phil Jones, who heads the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University is one of the subjects of the kinds of attacks Greenpeace discusses in their report. He is now infamous because of the so-called climategate affair when his personal e-mails were hacked and released on the Internet. The climate change denial community gleefully concluded that the e-mails ‘proved’ that anthropogenic climate change was a fraud and a scientific conspiracy. This was always nonsense, but it is pleasing that Phil Jones has just been exonerated by a British house of commons inquiry.
The report also briefly discusses the situation in Australia. It mentions the ousting of Malcolm Turnbull because of a “backbench climate denier revolt” and his replacement by Tony Abott, “a confirmed climate sceptic”. It also specifically mentions the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing political think-tank in Australia. Here is the IPA’s commentary on climategate. Many of the prominent climate change ‘skeptics’ in Australia have some association with the IPA, including Alan Moran, David Evans, Ian Pilmer, Tom Switzer, Bob Carter and Jo Nova.
Here is another great example of the kind of attacks on climate change the Greenpeace report is talking about and a great read: Esquire magazine on Marc Moranco. He is the same Marc Moranco who ran the the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign that stalled John Kerry’s presidential run.
Number of record hot day maximums (CSIRO and BOM)
While the attacks continue, Australia’s two lead climate science agencies – the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology – have just issued another state of the climate snapshot, providing observations and analysis of changes in Australia’s climate. They conclude that Australia will be hotter and dryer in coming decades, that climate change is real, and, that it is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950.
But there is some good news. As of March 31st, the number of nations backing the Copenhagen Accord has risen to 110, representing over 80% of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions.
Globally, the building sector contributes to about 40% of the world’s energy consumption and 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. Within Australia the building sector accounts for 19% of energy consumption and 23% of greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly we need to start making our buildings “healthy” by finding innovative ways to reduce the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions they are responsible for.
The National Strategy on Energy Efficiency (NSEE) has been designed to improve the minimum standards of energy efficiency to households and business by accelerating the introduction and take up of new energy efficient technologies. Part of this involves the creation of an outcomes based National Building Energy Standard-Setting, Assessment and rating Framework. The DCC has just released a discussion paper relating to this with comments closing on the 7th May.
At Greensense, we recognise the need to have “healthy” buildings which is why we have just released Greensense View: our real time, wireless energy sensing and interactive dashboard tool designed to assist in behavioural change of building users to drive energy efficiency. While we support the NSEE we are keen to work with companies who want to start making practical changes now — if that is you then we would love to hear from you.
