8 June 2017, The Conversation, What is a pre-industrial climate and why does it matter? Over the past few days there has been a lot of talk about the Paris climate agreement, from which the United States is planning to withdraw. Although this is a setback, there is still near-complete consensus from the world’s governments that a strong effort to tackle climate change is needed. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming relative to a pre-industrial baseline. Its precise commitment is: Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2℃ above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. But this begs the question: what are “pre-industrial levels”? Clearly, if we’re aiming to limit global warming to 1.5℃ or 2℃ above a certain point, we need a common understanding of what we’re working from. But the Paris Agreement doesn’t provide a definition. This becomes key as governments expect climate scientists to coherently compare different plans to reach their Paris targets. It’s crucial to be clear on what researchers mean when we say “pre-industrial”, and what assumptions our projections are based on. Of course, as the chart below shows, no matter which baseline we use it’s clear there’s been a drastic rise in global temperature over the last century. Read More here
hmcadmin
8 June 2017, The Guardian, Australia’s carbon emissions rise in off-season for first time in a decade. Exclusive: On the eve of the long-awaited Finkel review, analysis shows Australia’s emissions rose sharply in the first quarter of 2017. Australia’s carbon emissions jumped at the start of 2017, the first time they have risen in the first few months of a year for more than a decade, according to projections produced exclusively for the Guardian. Emissions in the first three months of the year normally drop compared with the previous quarter, driven by seasonal factors and holidays. But in something not seen in since 2005, emissions rose in the first quarter of 2017 compared with the last quarter of 2016 by 1.54m tonnes of CO2, according to the study by consultants NDEVR Environmental. The rise was driven by increases in emissions from electricity generation. Government data on greenhouse gas emissions is released up to a full nine months after the end of a quarter. So NDEVR Environmental replicate the government data for the Guardian, releasing it about a month after the quarter finishes. The unseasonal rise in emissions continues a trend of rising national emissions which began in 2014 and which the government’s own modelling suggests will continue for decades to come, based on current policies. Read More here
5 June 2017, Renew Economy, Finkel’s fine line through Australia’s testy power politics. It now seems certain that chief scientist Dr Alan Finkel will deliver a range of options for government policy makers when presenting his review to the COAG ministers and leaders this Friday. There will be mention of the emissions intensity scheme, but because a carbon price of any form is not on the menu of this Coalition government, other more “palatable” alternatives will be on offer, including a low emissions target, an option on pairing new renewables with storage or back-up and, possibly, a pathway for regulation. All have their merits. But as in any policy, the devil will be in the detail and the way these schemes are designed – for the future or the past. And it is going to be interesting to see how Finkel presents his case. Will it be his view of what should be done? Or will it be focused on what can be managed in the current political environment? Certainly, there is a growing chorus among politicians and the mainstream media that something should be done. But there is not a lot of thought into what these policies can actually achieve, even though they should obviously seek to meet climate targets and manage the energy transition efficiently and at lowest cost. The problem was that none of the institutions could bring themselves to actually say it: that wind and solar are by far cheaper than coal and gas and any “other low-carbon technologies”. The Australian Energy Markets Commission and the Climate Change Authority reinforced their support for an emissions intensity scheme (EIS), and only saw a low emissions target (LET) as a second-best measure. Once again, those recommendations simply reinforce preconceived ideas, and lousy modelling. Both institutions came out strongly in support of an EIS last year, but as we pointed out at the time, here and here, these positions were based on hopelessly pessimistic modelling inputs on the cost of solar and wind. Read More here
5 June 2017, Renew Economy, “Reputation” clause may scupper government loan deal for Adani. The federal government’s ability to hand Adani Energy a $1 billion loan to help finance the rail link for the Carmichael coal project in the Galilee basin has been dealt a decisive blow by the emergence of a “reputation” clause that must guide the board of Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF). The Board of NAIF is expected to make a decision on whether to grant the funding in the next few days, but legal experts, financiers and environmental advocates argue that the existence of the reputation clause written in to the investment mandate by then resources minister Josh Frydenberg make it impossible for approval to be given. Leading environmentalists and climate change advocates such as Tim Flannery and John Hewson says the wording of the “reputation” clause should forbid the directors from supporting the loan, particularly in light of the international climate deal, the impacts on the Greater Barrier Reef, and on water quality. They say that Section 16 of the Investment Mandate of the NAIF, a $5 billion fund created by the Coalition government that is yet to make a single investment, is quite clear and specific: Read More here