17 September 2015, Renew Economy, Turnbull channels Abbott as he attacks Labor’s renewables target, ETS. Plus ça change. The more it changes, the more it stays the same. Despite Malcolm Turnbull’s tantalising sales pitch ahead of the leadership spill earlier this week, there wasno real expectation for quick policy change. But there was hope that at least the rhetoric might change once Turnbull dislodged Tony Abbott as head of the Liberal Party and as prime minister of Australia. It hasn’t happened. It is pretty much business as usual. Nothing has changed. On Wednesday, Turnbull attacked Labor’s 50 per cent renewable energy target as reckless, environment minister Greg Hunt trotted out his usual nonsense about the cost of Labor’s as yet unstated emissions reductions target, while Queensland Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald resumed his long-running campaign to describe climate change science as a hoax and a fraud. If that wasn’t enough, the federal Nationals rejected a motion put forward by progressive members from their Western Australia division to declare support for renewable energy. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the independent Senator John Madigan, head of a Coalition-supported wind inquiry, continued to wage war on the industry. Turnbull’s comments were particularly alarming, given his presumed support for renewable energy. He has yet to pronounce himself on the future of the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, three institutions that Abbott tried unsuccessfully to destroy, but Turnbull was already dismissive of Labor’s proposed 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. Read More here
Category Archives: The Mitigation Battle
16 September 2015, The Guardian, Stopping fracking won’t stop climate change. I am neither pro nor anti-fracking, but green campaigners must look beyond future threats and tackle the present impacts of fossil fuels if we are to combat climate change…. My concern with the current debate about fracking stems not from any love of the technology but from the fact that it is currently absorbing people’s time and energy fighting potential future impacts, when all around us are far worse existing activities, such as burning Russian coal in 1960s’ power stations. It seems some in the green movement work on the basis that their best chances of making a difference lie in stopping threats that have yet to happen, rather than the impacts that are already with us. Anti new road protests, anti GM, anti incinerators, anti biofuel, anti new nuclear, even stopping the building of the new Kingsnorth coal fired power station – all are examples of this brand of campaigning. Done well they can penetrate the political discourse and change the debate. The problem, however, with whipping up fear of future threats is that it can also lead to fixed ideological positions being adopted in the absence of any actual evidence of harm, and, unless we start blocking the things that are already happening, we risk locking ourselves into the flawed and damaging system we have today. This is of particular concern because it is not just the green movement that has learned the game of how to stop new things from happening. Stoking nimbyism can carry risks for all who seek action on global issues. Read More here
11 September 2015, The Conversation, Ignored by the government, shrunk by resignations – where now for Australia’s Climate Change Authority? Bernie Fraser’s resignation as chairman of Australia’s Climate Change Authority has left many wondering what is left of it and what its future might be. Established three years ago as part of the climate change package negotiated by the previous parliament’s Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, the Authority was formed to serve as the principal source of climate policy advice to the federal government, particularly on the issue of emissions targets. Championed by the then Greens deputy leader Christine Milne, it was modelled closely on Britain’s Committee on Climate Change. The Authority is legislated to have nine part-time members, including the Chief Scientist ex officio. When the Abbott government was elected two years ago it expressed its intention to abolish the Authority along with the rest of the Labor government’s climate policy architecture. Unlike the former Climate Commission, which had a public education role (and since losing government backing has morphed into the independent Climate Council), the Authority was established by legislation as a statutory authority. The government could not obtain sufficient support in the Senate to abolish the Authority. In particular, Palmer United Party leader Clive Palmer struck a deal with the government in which he would support thecarbon tax repeal but not the abolition of the Climate Change Authority. With the Authority saved, Palmer said he wanted the government to instruct it to assess whether Australia should have an emissions trading system at some time in the future, and what conditions should trigger its introduction, taking special note of the policies of Australia’s major trading partners. The government agreed to Palmer’s request to extend funding for the Authority. Continued funding was essential in order to sustain the Authority’s secretariat, based in Melbourne, which at its peak reached around 35 but now stands at around 25. On its formation the Authority attracted some of the best and brightest to work for it. Read More here
9 September 2015, Energy Post, The Urgenda judgment: a “victory” for the climate that is likely to backfire. The Dutch government has decided to appeal the widely publicised “Urgenda” ruling from the district court in The Hague, ordering the Netherlands to step up its climate change actions. According to Lucas Bergkamp, Partner at Hunton & Williams and Emeritus Professor of International Environmental Liability Law at Erasmus University Rotterdam, there are good reasons why we should hope that the court of appeals will overturn the ruling. According to Bergkamp, it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial activism, is inconsistent with European law and will even undermine international climate negotiations. Read More here