↓
 

PLEA Network

Climate change information and resources for change

  • PLEA Network
  • Addiction to Growth
    • Steady State Economy
    • Universal Basic Income
    • The Law vs Politics
  • The Science
    • Impacts Observed & Projected
    • All Things Carbon and Emissions
    • BOM Updates
    • Antarctica
  • Mainstreaming our changing climate
  • Fairyland of 2 degrees
  • Population & Consumption
    • People Stress
    • Food & Water Issues
    • Equity & Social Justice
    • Ecosystem Stress
    • Security & Conflict
  • Communication
    • Resource News Sites
  • Global Action/Inaction
    • IPCC What is it?
    • Paris COP21 Wrap-up
  • Australian Response / Stats
    • Federal Government – checking the facts
  • The Mitigation Battle
    • Fossil Fuel Reduction
  • Adaptation & Building Resilience
    • Downsizing Plan B
    • City Basics for Change
  • Ballarat Community
    • Regional Sustainability Alliance Ballarat
    • Reports & Submissions
  • Brown Hill Community FireAware Network
    • FireAware Network – Neighbourhood clusters
    • FireAware Network – Understanding risk
    • FireAware Network – Be prepared
    • FireAware Network – Role of council and emergency services
    • FireAware Network – Resources
  • The Uncomfortable Corner
  • Archive Library
    • Site Topics Index
    • Links Page for Teachers
  • Countries fail again to decide timing of key IPCC climate science reports
Home→Categories Australian Response - Page 57 << 1 2 … 55 56 57 58 59 … 85 86 >>

Category Archives: Australian Response

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →
PLEA Network

7 September 2016, The Conversation, Pacific pariah: how Australia’s love of coal has left it out in the diplomatic cold. Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will have some explaining to do when he attends the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Pohnpei, Micronesia, this week. Australia’s continued determination to dig up coal, while refusing to dig deep to tackle climate change, has put it increasingly at odds with world opinion. Nowhere is this more evident than when Australian politicians meet with their Pacific island counterparts. It is widely acknowledged that Pacific island states are at the front line of climate change. It is perhaps less well known that, for a quarter of a century, Australia has attempted to undermine their demands in climate negotiations at the United Nations. The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) – organised around an annual meeting between island leaders and their counterparts from Australia and New Zealand – is the Pacific region’s premier political forum. But island nations have been denied the chance to use it to press hard for their shared climate goals, because Australia has used the PIF to weaken the regional declarations put forward by Pacific nations at each key milestone in the global climate negotiation process. In the run-up to the 1997 UN Kyoto climate summit, Pacific island leaders lobbied internationally for new binding targets to reduce emissions. However, that year’s PIF leaders’ statement was toned down, simply calling for “recognition of climate change impacts”. Likewise, in the lead-up to the 2009 Copenhagen talks, Pacific island countries called for states to reduce emissions by 95% by 2050. But at that year’s PIF meeting in Cairns, the then prime minister, Kevin Rudd, convinced leaders to scale back the proposed target to 50%. Pacific media branded the outcome “a death warrant for Pacific Islanders”. Ahead of last year’s Paris summit, Australia again exercised its “veto power” over Pacific climate diplomacy. Over the preceding years Pacific island leaders had made their climate positions quite clear, both at UN discussions in New York and in a string of declarations including the Melanesian Spearhead Group Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change, the Polynesian Leaders’ Declaration on Climate Change, and the Suva Declaration on Climate Change. Read More here

PLEA Network

5 September 2016, Renew Economy, One small gain for battery storage, one big win for fossil fuel industry. Australia’s principal policy maker for the energy markets has waved through a rule change that could accelerate the use of battery storage to provide grid stability as more renewables enter the market. But the rule maker has shocked participants with another decision that may reinforce the dominance of the big fossil fuel utilities. The Australian Energy Market Commission late last week made two rulings that it was first asked to consider way back in 2012 (such is the glacial pace of change in Australian regulatory circles) but which seen as critical as more wind and solar enter the market and old fossil fuel generators are phased out. One of the rulings was good news and largely expected: The AEMC said it would allow “unbundling” of ancillary services for the grid – which provide fast-acting balancing responses following a “contingency” event, usually the unexpected loss of a large thermal generator. This means that these services, known as FCAS, can now be more easily provided by more players, and not just the big generators, which currently control the supply (and thus the price) of FCAS services. Allowing new players like batteries and demand response loads should increase the supply of FCAS, and lower market prices. That ruling was largely uncontroversial and expected, with any opposition by incumbents lukewarm at best. The second ruling, however, has stunned some participants in the industry, because it effectively limits the amount of battery storage and new ideas – such as aggregating power plants in homes – by leaving it in the control of the major players. The proposal was to create a “demand response” mechanisms in the spot market to respond to times of high load, and high electricity prices, as were experienced in South Australia and other states in recent months, and which used to be frequent years ago, and may well become regular again as gas prices rise. Read more here

PLEA Network

5 September 2016: THE CLIMATE CHANGE AUTHORITY’S SPECIAL REVIEW ON AUSTRALIA’S CLIMATE GOALS AND POLICIES: TOWARDS A CLIMATE POLICY TOOLKIT MINORITY REPORT Professor Clive Hamilton AM Professor David Karoly 1. Introduction 1. As Members of the Climate Change Authority who have participated fully in the processes of the Special Review, we have reached the conclusion that the majority report does not respond adequately to the Review’s terms of reference and has not followed the principles set out on the Climate Change Authority Act (Section 12). We also disagree with several, but not all, of the major recommendations and conclusions of the majority report. We find the analysis used to defend some of the report’s recommendations inadequate. Overall, we view the majority report as a recipe for further delay in responding to the urgent need to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. 2. We regret that a consensus report has not been possible but feel that in good conscience we cannot lend our names to the majority report. After consideration, we have therefore decided to write a minority report. Access full minority report here Access Climate change Authority’s Special Review here

PLEA Network

29 August 2016, The Guardian, Greg Hunt’s approval of Adani’s Queensland mine upheld by federal court. Former environment minister entitled to find any assessment of resulting carbon pollution on the Great Barrier Reef was ‘speculative’, court says. The federal court has upheld the commonwealth approval of Adani’s Queensland mine, ruling that former environment minister Greg Hunt was entitled to find any assessment of resulting carbon pollution on the Great Barrier Reef was “speculative”. The court on Monday dismissed a challenge by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), which claimed Hunt failed to consider the impacts of the mine’s 4.6bn tonnes of emissions on the world heritage values of the reef. The ruling prompted the ACF to call for tougher national environment laws to tackle carbon pollution from coalmines, while flagging hopes that Hunt’s successor, Josh Frydenberg, would take a “fresh look” at the Carmichael mine. The Queensland resources council accused the ACF of running a “nonsense case” that was akin to holding the Saudi Arabian government responsible for emissions from Australian cars running on their oil. Read more here

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Archive Library

Access Latest News by date; tags and categories
©2025 - PLEA Network - Weaver Xtreme Theme
↑