Category Archives: Fossil Fuel Reduction

PLEA Network

5 August 2015, The Conversation, Adani court case leaves the climate change question unanswered. The Federal Court has overturned the federal environmental approval of Adani’s A$16.5 billion coalmine project in central Queensland. The court ordered the approval of the Carmichael mine licence in the Galilee Basin to be set aside, meaning that Adani will have to re-apply for the coal licence and the federal environment minister Greg Hunt will have to re-approve the application. Sue Higginson, principal solicitor of the Environment Defenders Office NSW, said that the decision of the Federal Court was “based on a failure by the minister to have regard to the conservation advices for two federally listed vulnerable species” – the yakka skink and the ornamental snake. The lawsuit also alleged a failure “to consider global greenhouse emissions from the burning of the coal”. The court found that failure of the minister to take account of two endangered species specifically listed in the EPBC Act – the yakka skink and the ornamental snake – was sufficient for it to be overruled. In reviewing the endangered species the minister was not presented with the correct conservation documents which meant that any conditions that were included in the approval may have been insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the EPBC Act. One of the specific aims of the EPBC Act is to ensure that endangered species are properly protected and the endangered species list is specifically identified as a matter of national environmental significance. However, one of the other considerations raised by the Mackay conservation group – the greenhouse gas emissions released from burning extracted coal overseas – was left unresolved by the court. The EPBC Act specifically requires the principles of ecological sustainable development to be taken into account when assessing matters of national environmental significance. Whether this includes consideration of the climate change implications for the Great Barrier Reef National Park that may flow from the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from such a coal project was not resolved. Read More here

 

PLEA Network

4 August 2015, The Guardian, G20 countries pay over $1,000 per citizen in fossil fuel subsidies, says IMF. World’s leading economies still paying trillions in subsidies despite pledges to phase them out, new figures show. Subsidies for fossil fuels amount to $1,000 (£640) a year for every citizen living in the G20 group of the world’s leading economies, despite the group’s pledge in 2009 to phase out support for coal, oil and gas. New figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) show that the US, which hosted the G20 summit in 2009, gives $700bn a year in fossil fuel subsidies, equivalent to $2,180 for every American. President Barack Obama backed the phase out but has since overseen a steep rise in federal fossil fuel subsidies. Australia hosted the most recent G20 summit, where prime minister Tony Abbott was forced to reaffirm the commitment to the phase out, but it still gives $1,260 per head in fossil fuel subsidies. The UK, which is cutting renewable energy subsidies, permits $41bn a year in fossil fuel subsidies, which is $635 per person. In contrast, Mexico, India and Indonesia, where per capita subsidies average $250, have begun cutting fossil fuel support. The vast fossil fuel subsidies estimated by the IMF for 2015 include payments, tax breaks and cut-price fuel. But the largest part is the costs left unpaid by polluters and picked up by governments, including the heavy impacts of local air pollution and the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change. The [new] figures reveal the true extent to which individual countries are subsidising pollution from fossil fuels – Lord Nicholas Stern. The IMF, which published a global estimate – $5.3tn a year – of fossil fuel subsidies in May, calculates that ending fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emissions by 20%, a huge step towards taming global warming. Read More here

PLEA Network

31 July 2015, Renew Economy, Investors have lost their shirts on Peabody; now taxpayers are in the line of fire: The U.S. coal sector is in financial distress, a fact that’s been apparent for some time now and is made more evident with this week’s second-quarter earnings report from Peabody Energy. Peabody continues to tank for the main reasons many other major coal producers continue to tank: It made too many top-of-the-cycle, multibillion-dollar debt-funded acquisitions and its executives have continued to pretend that they can’t see the oversupply in a seaborne coal market that is in structural decline. Meanwhile, Alpha Natural Resources has been delisted from the New York Stock Exchange, Arch Coal is fighting to stay in play, and Walter Energy filed for bankruptcy this month. Some key detail from the latest numbers on Peabody, the biggest non-government-owned coal producer in the world: Read More here

PLEA Network

30 July 2015, The Conversation, Fact Check: Would Labor’s renewable energy plan cost consumers $60 billion? (It) will mean a massive bill, perhaps A$60 billion or more, that will have to be carried by the consumers of Australia. – Prime Minister Tony Abbott, speaking to reporters about Labor’s plan to source half the nation’s power from renewable energy sources by 2030, July 27, 2015. Abbott’s quote, a response to the new Labor policy to set a goal of 50% renewable energy by 2030, appears to be drawing on reported comments by Paul Hyslop, chief executive of ACIL Allen – the company used by the government’s Warburton review into the existing Renewable Energy Target (RET). The prime minister’s office sourced the A$60 billion figure to an article in The Australian last week that quoted Hyslop saying of Labor’s 50% renewables pledge that: If this were met by wind power it would require 10,000 to 11,000 additional turbines… with capital costs for the turbines alone of $65 billion. Hyslop’s ACIL Allen colleague, Owen Kelp, told Sky News this week that the A$60 billion was a “fairly simplistic, back-of-the-envelope calculation”. When asked by The Conversation for a copy of any calculations to see how the A$65 billion capital costs figure was reached, Hyslop said the internal analysis was not publicly available, but explained that: To get to the 50%, you need about another 80,000 gigawatt-hours… To build that with renewables, the current cheapest technology would be wind. We estimate between 10,000 and 11,000 additional wind turbines with a bottom end estimate of around $65 billion in capital costs… Would it have an impact on consumers? It really depends on the trade-off on the cost of funding the subsidy versus the downward pressure on electricity prices. We don’t know exactly what that would look like. That would be a significant piece of modelling. Read More here