18 October 2017, Renew Economy, States gobsmacked by lack of detail, research in Turnbull’s NEG. The chances of the Turnbull government getting the approval of the states for its National Energy Guarantee appear remote after a devastating response to the proposal following an emergency phone hook-up on Tuesday. Approval for the states – through the COAG process – is apparently critical for the Coalition to implement the plan, because it requires changes to the National Electricity Rules. But in a testy phone-hook up between Frydenberg and the state energy ministers, the federal Coalition admitted it had no details, no modelling – and all it had to show for what it describes as “breakthrough moment” was a press release and an eight-page letter from the Energy Security Board. State representatives said they were gobsmacked by the sheer front and incompetence. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” said one. “We would be ripped apart if we tried something like that.” Queensland energy minister Mark Bailey was dismissive of the lack of detail. “The detail is threadbare and it would be irresponsible to set the nation’s energy policy based on a short letter which is all we’ve been given.” (Read Bruce Mountain’s account for an explanation as to how this policy farce may have come about). It is particularly ironic because the federal Coalition needs the state approval, yet Frydenberg told the state energy ministers that the states would be relied on to do the heavy lifting to meet the various targets. Read More here
Category Archives: Australian Response
10 October 2017, The Conversation Government’s energy plan still under wraps while Abbott shouts his from afar. Speaking in a light and bright FM radio interview on Tuesday, Malcolm Turnbull said that in politics, “just being chilled, calm is very important. A little bit of zen goes a long way.” He was answering a question about himself. But those with a stake in energy policy might be feeling a rather desperate need to dip into their own zen reserves right now. The government hates the suggestion its policy process looks chaotic, and insists there is “a plan”. “The good news is that we have learned the lessons of the past, we know where we are going and we have a comprehensive plan to get there,” Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg told The Australian Financial Review’s energy summit. But what the core feature of the plan is has yet to be revealed, and this week has added to the public confusion. The AFR’s two-day forum, which seemed to have everyone who is anyone in the field, provided a stage for the latest episode in the policy saga. Frydenberg’s Monday speech was widely seen as the government walking away from the clean energy target proposed by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel. The justification was the falling price of renewables, obviating the need for future subsidies. No surprise perhaps, because despite some initial enthusiasm from Turnbull and Frydenberg, the crab-walk back, under the pressure of the naysayers in Coalition ranks, had been apparent for some time. But here it was happening with Finkel himself in the room, as one of the conference speakers. Read More here
9 October 2017, The Conversation, After the storm: how political attacks on renewables elevates attention paid to climate change. This time last year, Australia was getting over a media storm about renewables, energy policy and climate change. The media storm was caused by a physical storm: a mid-latitude cyclone that hit South Australia on September 29 and set in train a series of events that is still playing itself out. The events include:
- an extraordinary attack on renewables by federal government ministers; a steadfast pushback by the South Australian government to continue its renewables roll-out; the offer of tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to build the largest battery storage facility in the world in South Australia and; the Finkel Review.
In one sense, the Finkel Review was a response to the government’s concerns about “energy security”. But it also managed to successfully respond to the way energy policy had become a political plaything, as exemplified by the attacks on South Australia. New research on the media coverage that framed the energy debate that has ensued over the past year reveals some interesting turning points in how Australia’s media report on climate change. Read More here
4 October 2017, The Conversation, Why are we still pursuing the Adani Carmichael mine? Why, if Adani’s gigantic Carmichael coal project is so on-the-nose for the banks and so environmentally destructive, are the federal and Queensland governments so avid in their support of it? Once again the absurdity of building the world’s biggest new thermal coal mine was put in stark relief on Monday evening via an ABC Four Corners investigation, Digging into Adani. Where the ABC broke new ground was in exposing the sheer breadth of corruption by this Indian energy conglomerate. And its power too. The TV crew was detained and questioned in an Indian hotel for five hours by police. It has long been the subject of high controversy that the Australian government, via the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF)that is still contemplating a A$1 billion subsidy for Adani’s rail line, a proposal to freight the coal from the Galilee Basin to Adani’s port at Abbot Point on the Great Barrier Reef. But more alarming still, and Four Corners touched on this, is that the federal government is also considering using taxpayer money to finance the mine itself, not just the railway. No investors in sight As private banks have walked away from the project, the only way Carmichael can get finance is with the government providing guarantees to a private banking syndicate, effectively putting taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in project finance. The prospect is met with the same incredulity in India as it is here in Australia: Read More here