Archive for the ‘Climate Change’ Category
According to a recent report from the Australian Energy Market Commission, residential electricity prices are forecast to go up 37% over the next three years.
The forecast increases are broken down as follows:
- Transmission: 6% contribution
- Distribution: 34% contribution
- Wholesale: 40% contribution (includes impact of carbon price)
- Retail: 12% contribution
- Renewables (RET): 3% contribution (from renewable energy target)
- Renewables (FIT): 2% contribution (from feed in tariffs)
The Clean Energy Future bills passed the lower house last night, and passage through the Senate looks assured, so Australia will have a carbon price by mid 2012.
Late amendments benefit waste sector
One of the most significant late amendments to the bills related to emissions from landfill. This is relevant to a lot of our local government customers. Previously, the threshold for many landfill facilities was going to be 10kt because of proximity rules that only applied to this sector. Now the threshold will be 25kt like every other facility affected by the legislation. Because landfill operators will only be liable for emissions from waste disposed of from the start of the scheme (non-legacy emissions), many operators won’t be affected at all for the first few years of the scheme, and operators that implement good abatement strategies may be able to stay below the threshold indefinitely.
Also, landfill operators will have the opportunity to reduce 100% of landfill emissions using CFI offset-credits. So, for example, a landfill operator cold invest in a forestry project to reduce their liability. While this might help reduce the cost of the liability, the other significant benefit is the potential to provide cost certainty. Landfill facilities continue to produce emissions after the facility is closed because of the time it takes waste to decompose. This means operators have to increase gate prices now to fund the liability when the facility is closed and no longer able to generate revenue.
The carbon price will be driven by the market so anticipating the size of this future liability is difficult. By investing in an offset project that will generate a stream of offset credits over time, they can fix their carbon price in future years, and so more easily manage this future liability.
While most CFI offset projects are associated with the agriculture sector and land management, the waste sector itself can produce offsets from projects that reduce legacy emissions, for example by extracting methane from closed cells at their facility for flaring or power generation. They can then bank these offset-credits to reduce their future liability.
While the waste sector will be heavily impacted by a carbon price, these late amendments provide some new opportunities to reduce the impact.
Last week we started the Perth Solar City Bring It Down Challenge, where seven schools are being challenged to bring down their energy use over seven weeks.
Round one of the competition is over and we’re incredibly pleased that every school has managed to reduce their energy use. Mundaring Christian College and Hillside Christian College are neck and neck at the moment, with Mundaring just pipping Hillside in Round 1 with an awesome 50% reduction in their energy use.
Ballajura Community College is the largest school in the competition, with a huge student population and a baseline energy use of over 24,000kWh per week, which is equivalent to about 220 average homes. While they only scored 10 points this round, I think the 6% reduction, equivalent to over 1,500kWh, is fantastic. To put 1,500kWh in perspective, its equivalent to the energy that Ballajura might get if they installed a 55kW PV array.
If you’d like to check out the complete results from round one, you can download the Western Power Bring It Down Challenge Round 1 Results (PDF).
Every school dashboard can be viewed from the Bring It Down page on the Perth Solar City web site, or you can click on the schools below to see how they are going:
Upper Swan Primary School
Ballajura Community College
Woodbridge Primary School
Mundaring Christian College
Hillside Christian College
Swan View Senior High School
Weld Square Primary School
As part of the Clean Energy Future policy announcement, the Government unveiled plans for a new National Energy Saving Initiative. This kind of scheme is already in place in NSW, Victoria, and South Australia.
The main mechanism driving the Energy Saving Initiative will be similar to that driving Australia’s renewable energy target (20% renewable energy by 2020).
The large-scale renewable energy target (LRET) and small-scale renewable energy scheme (SRES) both place a legal obligation on energy retailers to obtain and surrender a rising number of certificates each year which represent a unit of renewable energy generation. Renewable energy project developers obtain these certificates from the government. The trade in these certificates creates a financial incentive for further investment in renewable energy.
In the case of the Energy Saving Initiative a similar legal obligation will be placed on energy retailers to obtain and surrender certificates which represent a unit of avoided energy consumption. Again, there is likely to be some kind of rising target, which for a retailer will represent an increasing proportion of the electricity they send out each year. For example, in year 1 of the scheme, retailers may be required to obtain certificates equivalent to 1% of the electricity they send out.
As with LRET and SRES, the supply of certificates will come from energy savings projects. For different kinds of energy savings projects there will be different recognised calculation methods, and accredited project participants will by able to apply these methods to obtain certificates from the government.
The next step in the implementation of the Energy Saving Initiative will be a consultation process. You can register to receive more information about the initiative by emailing energyefficiency@climatechange.gov.au.
Yesterday the Government finally released their plan to price carbon through their Clean Energy Future package. This package will see the Government tackle climate change by:
- pricing carbon
- encouraging renewable energy
- encouraging energy efficiency and;
- increasing the amount of carbon stored in the land (through the Carbon Farming Initiative)
Perhaps the most talked about and anticipated announcement was the detail supporting the price on carbon. From July 1, 2012 this new package will see about 500 of Australia’s top polluters pay a fixed price of $23 per tonne of CO2e emitted. This price will rise by 2.5% per annum for three years before becoming a market-driven Emissions Trading Scheme, with linkages to international markets.
For now, the Carbon Price will apply to stationary energy, industrial processes, fugitive emissions and non-legacy waste. Significant compensation has been announced for both households (approximately $4 billion per annum) and industry (approximately $3 billion per annum).
In addition to the carbon price, there is a strong focus on delivering cleaner energy through investment in new technologies and the closure of highly emissions intensive energy generation as well as further investment in renewable energy technologies.
It is expected that this package will deliver on Australia’s commitment to reduce pollution by 5% on 2000 levels by 2020, and 80% by 2050.
This new, long-term, trajectory is one of the most significant aspects of the package, representing a 2% decrease in emissions from today’s levels, while supporting a projected increase in the Australian population of over 13 million.
So what to make of the package?
There are a number of pros and cons of this package, which we will continue to see debated in the public domain in the coming months before it goes to Parliament in November. Whilst no-one would argue this current package is perfect, given the unsuccessful history we have of trying to address climate change (whether it be through an emissions trading scheme, a carbon tax, energy efficiencies or direct action) I think this package represents a compromise that will not only show the world that Australia is willing to do their bit to address climate change, but hopefully will also provide the momentum needed to shift Australia to a low emissions future.
For businesses, the package will mean something different for everyone. To understand its impact and prepare for a July 1 2012 start, businesses who believe they will be impacted should give careful consideration to the package with regards to their own operating environment. Unless you are directly liable, your main focus should be on energy use in your business.
With a planned start less than 12 months away it won’t be too soon to start such a review immediately. If needed, Greensense is able to assist with such a review and to develop any strategies to address any anticipated risks or cost increases.
Is the opposition to the carbon tax justified?
Prime Minister Julie Gillard is currently in Perth and has taken the opportunity to announce the federal government’s intentions to provide compensation to those households that are most likely to feel the brunt of the impending carbon tax.
The Federal Government intends to provide an estimated $5 billion a year in household assistance and it will be directed at low and middle income earners, with compensation likely to phase out for those households with a combined income over $150,000 p.a.
Julia Gillard said that compensation will be offered as a combination of tax cuts, family payment increases, and pension and allowances increases. Household assistance will also take account of different family circumstances, such as whether those affected by the proposed carbon tax are low to mid-income earners, or bringing up kids etc.
Census data indicates that just one in ten Australian households earn more than $150,000 p.a. (the level that the proposed compensation will cut out) and that the average Australian family household has an income of around $85,000 p.a. Therefore, the good news is that the majority of us will receive some form of compensation to help reduce the effects that a price on carbon will have on utility prices such as electricity, gas, and, water, and other everyday products and services.
We should not lose sight of the reasons behind the introduction of a price on carbon, which is to help drive gains in efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a bid to combat climate change. It’s not all about saving the environment, there is an excellent business case for increasing efficiency and decreasing waste. For example, BP recently set a goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 10% over 10-years. They achieved the target in 2-years and saved $750 million in the process! Dupont set themselves a reduction goal of 65% over 10-years. They’re almost there and have saved themselves $3 billion!
One of the criticism of the Carbon Tax is that by providing households with compensation you remove the motivation to change behaviour and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This isn’t the case because the tax will cause the relative costs of more carbon intensive products and services to increase, giving people an economic incentive to choose a greener alternative. The tax also provides a strong incentive for businesses and households to become more energy efficient. For example, for households the carbon tax will reduce the payback time for investments in better insulation, more energy efficient appliances, and roof-top PV systems. These improvements will go straight back into household budgets, saving people money.
Whilst the precise design of the Carbon Tax is still to be confirmed, it will bear a close resemblance to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) that the previous Rudd Government tried to introduce in 2009-10, except with a longer period of fixed-price permits (fixed price in that the price is set by the government, not the market, the cost of permits will still rise each year). Irrespective of the exact timeframes and the exact details, it is now a matter of when, not if, we will see the introduction of a price on carbon here in Australia.
Rather than see it as “tax”, we should use it as an opportunity to strive to increase our sustainability and even save money.
In May this year The Australian published an article with the headline: Summer of disaster ‘not climate change’: Rajendra Pachauri. Of course, it’s just not true to imply that there is no connection between the disasters Australia experienced this Summer and Climate Change.
Just as we cannot attribute any one single weather event to climate change, we can’t rule out a connection for any single event either. Given we are seeing these events taking place at much greater frequency and intensity around the world, as predicted by climate change models, to deny the connection seems foolish.
Like many climate change articles in The Australian, this one made me cross. Whether or not it is intentional, there seems to be a concerted effort in our national newspaper to diminish the significance of climate change and to undermine the case for action.
The Deltoid science blog has a good series of posts on The Australian’s War on Science, if you’re interested in the newspapers ‘form’ on the climate science.
Anyway, I was reminded of this headline when the video below started doing the rounds on the Internet this week. Adapted from Bill McKibbin’s OpEd in the Washington Post a few weeks ago, the video provides quite stirring rhetoric and is a reminder of the implications of climate change for our quality of life. While the focus is very much on natural disasters and politics in the US, our own ‘Summer of disaster’ gets a mention.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has started to unveil the proposed methodologies for the generation of offsets under the Labor governments Carbon Farming Initiative.
The idea behind the CFI is to provide economic incentives to land owners and managers to adopt practices that reduce carbon pollution. Whilst the list of eligible activities is likely to grow, the government has released methodologies for the first two; savanna burning and the capture and combustion of landfill gas.
More details on both can be found on the DCCEE website. For local governments and other landfill operators, the landfill methodology is definitely worth a read. Whilst much has been borrowed from other, more established, methodologies such as NGER, there are also some significant differences, both in the broad rules governing what emissions are “in play” under the scheme, as well as the very technical details of how abated emissions are calculated.
On a different note, just a reminder about our upcoming event looking at role of behavioural change in sustainability projects. More info and booking details here.
I thought I’d share this fascinating TED presentation on how bio mimicry can provide inspiration for sustainable design. Definitely worth a watch if you have a spare 15 mins. Click to watch
Following a deal with the Greens, Julia Gillard announced plans for a carbon tax today. The scheme will start in July 2012 with a full Emissions Trading Scheme to following in three to five years. Lets see if Labor can get it over the line this time around. There is some more information available on the Carbon Price Mechanism. The announcement is below:
CLIMATE CHANGE FRAMEWORK ANNOUNCED
The Prime Minister Julia Gillard today outlined the Government’s plan to cut pollution, tackle climate change and deliver the economic reform Australia needs to move to a clean energy future.
This is an essential economic reform, and it is the right thing to do.
The two-stage plan for a carbon price mechanism will start with a fixed price period for three to five years before transitioning to an emissions trading scheme.
The Government will propose that the carbon price commences on 1 July 2012, subject to the ability to negotiate agreement with a majority in both houses of Parliament and pass legislation this year.
A carbon price is a price on pollution. It is the cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution and build a clean energy economy. The best way to stop businesses polluting and get them to invest in clean energy is to charge them when they pollute.
The businesses with the highest levels of pollution will have a very strong incentive to reduce their pollution.
The Government will then use every cent raised to:
- Assist families with household bills
- Help businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy
- Tackle climate change
The Government will not shy away from this difficult but vital economic reform to move Australia to a clean energy nation.
The global economy is shifting.
Right now, Australia is at risk of falling behind the rest of the world. The longer we wait, the greater the cost to the economy, and the greater the cost to Australian jobs.
An initial fixed carbon price will provide businesses with a stable and predictable platform to transition to a ‘cap and trade’ emissions trading scheme that will be linked to international carbon markets.
This will give businesses time to understand their carbon liability and begin the transformation in a steady and purposeful way.
Today’s proposal is the result of hard work by the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee which has been meeting co-operatively, determined to help deliver this crucial economic reform.
The framework has been agreed by Government and Greens members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee (MPCCC). The other members, Mr Tony Windsor and Mr Robert Oakeshott, have agreed that the proposal should be released for community consultation.
The Committee will continue to discuss other important elements of the proposal including the starting level of the fixed price, any phasing in of sectors of the economy, and assistance for both households and industry.
The document outlining the proposed carbon price mechanism is attached.
Members of the public and interested parties who wish to provide input on this approach should contact: MPCCC@climatechange.gov.au, or write to:
The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee Secretariat
GPO Box 854
Canberra ACT 2601
Australia
The Australian Institute of Management has recognised the need to train organisations in the practices of sustainability. Starting in 2011 they will be running two courses: The two day Foundations of Sustainability and three day Strategic Sustainability for Today’s Organisations.
With the experience Greensense has in sustainability education, combined with countless examples of assisting our customers develop sustainable practices, we have been been engaged by AIM to produce the content for these courses.
We are covering everything from energy efficiency, climate change, biodiversity, water and waste management to how the government is responding and what you can do in the context of your organisation. Filled with many real life examples — we are looking forward to continuing to equip West Australian organisations to respond the challenges and opportunities of a resource-contrained economy.
Over the past couple of weeks Eastern Australia has been racked by record flooding events and it has been hard not to get swept up in the emotion and momentum. With continuous media coverage we’ve seen more rivers peak, more levees break, more towns inundated and swarms of people aiding the recovery effort.
Looking beyond the human element and the tragedy of lives and livelihoods lost, we have seen multiple severe rainfall events wreak havoc on our infrastructure and economies. With the recovery expected to cost over $30 billion dollars and take years to complete, I hope we can learn from this and mitigate any future such events, not only in Eastern Australia, but also here in WA and Perth, despite the fact that floods are rarely seen here.
Depending on which newspapers you read or the blogs you follow, there are articles attributing the events in Eastern Australia to climate change, the La Niña weather patterns or even just the 1 in 100 year event that was bound to happen sooner or later. In general, there appears to be a consensus that there is a combination of these factors. In the medium term, we can expect El Niño and La Niña to signal periods of low and heavy rainfall across differing regions of Australia. In the longer term, it appears to be accepted that our climate is changing and we should expect these weather extremes more frequently.
Planning for these events should be a risk management exercise. At Greensense, it is a part of what we call Climate Change Adaptation. It is a process of considering a possible risk, the impacts and consequences of that risk occuring and how likely it is to happen. At the end of such an exercise, a business, community or government body should understand how resilient or vulnerable they are to various risks and should plan and adapt behaviours accordingly.
The difference between a standard risk assessment and a climate change risk assessment is that standard risk assessments consider risks under the current climate status quo. On the other hand, a climate change risk assessment takes into consideration forecast changes to climate such as increasing sea levels and changes to rainfall patterns. Often the likelihood and consequence of an event occurring may be altered in differing climate scenarios, and therefore the resulting action plan to address any vulnerabilities may be different under a climate change risk assessment.
Having watched the Eastern Australian floods play out over the last few weeks and knowing the recovery effort will be extensive, I would urge all businesses, organisations and government bodies to review their risk management processes and ensure that where you are evaluating a risk, sufficient consideration has been given to our changing climate.
If you are in south-west WA, where we are more accustomed to bushfires and storm surges, don’t forget to give consideration to floods. Following the events in the East, a quick look at Perth’s flood history shows a handful of serious flooding events on the Swan River in 1926, 1934, 1945 and 1963 with smaller, localised floods more recently. Despite the fact we’ve seen very little in the way of floods in Perth’s recent history, the risk is real and should be recognised.
The government announced its Low Carbon Communities program late last year. If you are a local council or you operate a community facility, it might be time to start thinking about potential projects that you could seek funding for under the program.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is currently in the process of developing the program guidelines, including determining how the learnings from funded projects and information about the benefits of energy efficiency can be shared. They will be consulting on the draft program guidelines in early 2011. We’d expect applications for funding to open before the end of this financial year.
You should probably start by dusting off your greenhouse gas reduction plans, energy efficiency strategies, and climate change adaptation plans to look for potential projects. As a reminder there will be three funding streams:
- Small scale grants of up to $500,000 for local councils to undertake smaller scale projects to reduce energy consumption in facilities such as outdoor lighting.
- Large scale grants of up to $5 million for operators of community facilities to invest in energy efficient upgrades such as the installation of cogeneration or new heating and air conditioning.
- Greener Suburbs grants of up to $500,000 for councils to implement capacity building and demonstration projects that improve the use of parks and green spaces in urban areas.
Grants will be competitive so it is worthwhile being prepared. By considering project opportunities in the context of your broader strategies you can maximise the benefits of any funding you obtain.
There are three ways Greensense can potentially help.
Firstly, we are preferred suppliers of climate change consulting services to WA local governments and have worked with many councils developing adaptation and abatement plans. If you would like to think strategically about building a Low Carbon Community we would love to help.
Secondly, if you have some projects in mind, we can help to develop implementation plans and business cases for these projects. Once the program guidelines are available, we can help you to prepare effective grant applications.
Lastly, our technology, Greensense View supports energy efficiency and is already implemented in many councils and community buildings including leisure centres, sports stadiums, libraries and community centres. As an eligible energy efficiency technology, you could apply for funding to implement Greensense View.
Alternatively, you might want to consider installing Greensense View ahead of your Low Carbon Communities grant application, particularly if you are interested in the large scale grants. Greensense View is very cost effective to deploy and the real-time profile information it provides would be invaluable in supporting a grant application for a more substantial upgrade of a building.
In any case, its time to start put your thinking caps on to think about how this new government policy can support the changes you want to make in your community.
One of the challenges in planning for climate change adaptation is understanding what the proposed scenarios really mean for our own neighbourhoods and regions. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has just released a series of coastal maps to help with this problem for sea level rise.
The maps (available here)
identify the potential future impacts of climate change on some coastal regions around Australia. In particular, they show the areas likely to be inundated around Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, the Hunter and Central Coast and South-East Queensland with respect to three scenarios in 2100.
These maps will be a useful tool for coastal councils and organisations when planning for climate change adaptation. They will assist organisations in understanding how sea level rise is likely to impact on their operations and infrastructure, allowing more informed decisions on how to respond to these impacts.
If you live or work in one of these regions, why not check it out. You might be surprised by what you find. If you’re interested in knowing more about climate change adaptation for your organisation, feel free to get in touch with us here at Greensense.
With little fanfare, a modest deal has been done in Cancún, and unlike Copenhagen, COP16 will probably be remembered as a success. The outcome of Cancún was not a legally binding treaty, and to be fair this was never really expected, but it delivered some tangible and import agreements. And, perhaps just as importantly, it demonstrated that multilateral negotiations could be effective and paved the way more progress in Durban next year.
The Cancún Agreements build as much on the roadmap set out in Bali as they do on the slim accord thrashed out last year in Copenhagen. The text records the commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions that developed and developing countries made in Copenhagen, establishes a framework for transparency, sets up a global climate fund with the goal of providing $100 billion in financing to developing countries by 2020, and establishes REDD, an initiative aimed at curbing deforestation.
One sticking point in the negotiations was the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Kyoto is important because it is the only legally binding treaty we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and because it is the basis for current global carbon markets. However Kyoto doesn’t include developing nations or either of the two top emitters, the US and China, and so only covers around 30% of global emissions. Developing nations and the EU were calling for for a new round of commitments under Kyoto. Russia and Japan led the way opposing any extension to Kyoto. The question of Kyoto has now been left to Durban to resolve.
Meanwhile, greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, and global warming continues, with 2010 now ranking as the hottest year on record.
