What you will find on this page: LATEST NEWS; Fossil fuel emissions have stalled; Analysis: Record surge of clean energy in 2024 halts China’s CO2 rise; does the world need hydrogen?; Mapped: global coal trade; Complexity of energy systems (maps); Mapped: Germany’s energy sources (interactive access); Power to the people (video); Unburnable Carbon (report); Stern Commission Review; Garnaut reports; live generation data; fossil fuel subsidies; divestment; how to run a divestment campaign guide; local council divestment guide; US coal plant retirement; oil conventional & unconventional; CSG battle in Australia (videos); CSG battle in Victoria; leasing maps for Victoria; coal projects Victoria
Huge task to decarbonise
Source: Australian Delegation presentation to international forum held in Bonn in May 2012
Latest News 30 May 2022, The Conversation: Australia’s biggest carbon emitter buckles before Mike Cannon-Brookes – so what now for AGL’s other shareholders? Billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes has won a major battle against Australia’s biggest energy company, AGL Energy, thwarting its plan to split up the company’s coal-heavy generation and power distribution assets. AGL’s board announced it was dumping its demerger proposal this morning. Heads have rolled too. Chief executive Graeme Hunt, chairman Peter Botten and non-executive director Jacqueline Hey have resigned. Another director, Diane Smith-Gander, will go in August. But it remains to be seen if Cannon-Brookes and his allies can achieve their ultimate goal – to force AGL, Australia’s biggest carbon emitter, to accelerate the closure of its coal and gas-fired power stations. Read more here 9 November 2021, NASA, Emission Reductions From Pandemic Had Unexpected Effects on Atmosphere. The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting limitations on travel and other economic sectors by countries around the globe drastically decreased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions within just a few weeks. That sudden change gave scientists an unprecedented view of results that would take regulations years to achieve… The most surprising result, the authors noted, is that while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4% in 2020, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years… First, while the 5.4% drop in emissions was significant, the growth in atmospheric concentrations was within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes. Also, the ocean didn’t absorb as much CO2 from the atmosphere as it has in recent years – probably in an unexpectedly rapid response to the reduced pressure of CO2 in the air at the ocean’s surface. Read more here 16 August 2021, Renew Economy: Study finds blue hydrogen worse for climate than burning coal or gas. It is touted as a “clean” technology, but so-called “blue” hydrogen produced from gas – even with carbon capture – is significantly worse for the climate than burning coal or gas directly, a new study by Cornell and Stanford researchers has found. Cornell’s Robert Howarth and Stanford’s Mark Jacobson asked the question, “how green is blue hydrogen?” in their peer-reviewed paper, the first to examine the total or ‘lifecycle’ greenhouse gas emissions from blue hydrogen. The answer? “We see no way that blue hydrogen can be considered ‘green’,” the researchers concluded. Emissions associated with producing blue hydrogen from gas were actually greater than emissions from burning gas or coal directly, the paper found. This was because of the significant extra energy required for processes to produce hydrogen and power carbon capture and storage. The hydrogen industry is a significant source of climate pollution globally, responsible for around 830 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, equivalent to the annual emissions from the United Kingdom and Indonesia combined, according to the International Energy Agency. That’s because nearly all hydrogen produced and used today comes from fossil fuels, and is classed as either ‘grey’ (from gas) or ‘brown’ (from coal). Read more here. 12 March 2020, The Conversation, 1 million rides and counting: on-demand services bring public transport to the suburbs. The technology-driven revolution in urban transport is largely centred on the inner city. It has completely missed the suburbs, which lack the public transport services and shared micromobility devices, such as e-scooters, that inner-city residents enjoy. But new technologies, skilled operators and willing governments may have produced a solution for the suburbs, known as on-demand transit. According to our data collection, there have been 36 on-demand trials across Australia since October 2017, providing over 1 million rides to residents. Half of these trips have been in the past six months. Our research at the Griffith Cities Research Institute examines the social equity impacts of these services. What is on-demand transit? On-demand transit does not follow fixed routes or timetables. Riders book a trip for a cost similar to a bus fare. Vehicles are often smaller buses, 13-seater vans, or sedans and fleets that can be adjusted based on demand for rides. Unburdened by fixed stops, which are convenient for only a few people, these services can weave their way through communities, optimising routes on the fly. Read more here 21 April 2025, Renew Economy: “Damaging, regressive policies:” Coalition scores 1/100 on climate and nature, Labor scrapes a pass. One election cycle after the federal Coalition was Australian tossed out of government following a voter backlash against inaction on climate and renewables, the Liberal National Party has scored just 1 point out of 100 for its policies supporting climate and renewables.The “woeful score” was awarded to the Coalition as part of the Australian Conservation Foundation’s election scorecard, described as an issue-based assessment of how closely parties and candidates align with the ACF’s own policy agenda for protecting nature and acting on climate.ACF CEO Kelly O’Shanassy says it’s the lowest mark the election scorecard has ever given the Coalition – even lower than the 4/100 awarded in 2019, the year Tony Abbott lost his “safe” Liberal seat of Warringah in a protest vote against his climate wrecking efforts while prime minister. “The Coalition’s woeful score reflects its damaging, regressive policies: climate wrecking gas, and expensive and risky nuclear energy over clean, affordable renewables, coupled with cuts to environment protection at the behest of the fossil fuel industry,” O’Shanassy said on Tuesday. O’Shanassy says the Coalition scored its single point for acknowledging concerns about details of the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal that could saddle Australia with high levels of nuclear waste from overseas. But that is it. “Australia would be a worse place to live under the Coalition’s policies,” she said. The scorecard is based on surveys of the major parties and independent candidates in key seats to determine where they stand on the 16 outcomes in ACF’s national agenda. Read more here: 18 April 2025, Inside Climate News: Trump May Target Environmental Nonprofits in Executive Orders. Environmental groups say they are preparing for the worst—and preparing to fight back. Environmental groups across the country are battening down the hatches in preparation for new executive orders from President Donald Trump. Sources in Washington, including within the Department of Justice and on Capitol Hill, have told Inside Climate News that White House officials are preparing executive orders on environmental issues. One order, they say, would target the tax exempt status of environmental nonprofits, particularly those that do legal work. President Trump himself tipped his hand at this possibility in Oval Office comments made Thursday, after he was questioned about his administration’s plans to rescind the tax-exempt status of Harvard University. “Tax exempt status, it’s a privilege,” Trump said. “And it’s been abused. By a lot more than Harvard, too.” After Trump added that the administration would soon be making statements that are “a big deal,” he was asked if environmental groups were among the nonprofits that are being scrutinized. “Could be,” he replied. A number of environmental nonprofits Inside Climate News contacted declined to comment on rumors that an executive order attacking their nonprofit status was in the works. But others said that they were preparing for potential actions by the Trump administration. “A lot of organizations in the U.S. are geared up and ready for this battle and will not back down,” said Todd Paglia, executive director of the international environmental advocacy group Stand.earth. “Really, what Trump is talking about is an intimidation strategy, because legally they have no grounds to do this and they will lose very quickly in court.” Read more here 12 April 2025, Reuters: White House aims to eliminate NOAA climate research in budget plan. The administration of President Donald Trump aims to eliminate the arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that oversees research on climate change and refocus the U.S. fisheries service to support energy development, according to a draft White House budget document seen by Reuters. The moves are part of a plan to downsize NOAA dramatically, slashing agency funding by around $1.67 billion, or 27%, according to the proposal. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, known also as NOAA Research, would be closed under the proposal, along with $480 million in funding for regional climate data and information, agency research laboratories, and cooperative institutes, among other programs. NOAA, a division of the Department of Commerce, is a scientific agency that oversees weather and climate forecasts, monitors ocean and atmospheric conditions and manages the nation’s commercial fisheries. The Trump administration has fired hundreds of NOAA workers as part of its effort to slash government bureaucracy. “No final funding decisions have been made,” Alexandra McCandless, a spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said in an email. Read more here. 4 April 2025, The Conversation: No, that’s not what a trade deficit means – and that’s not how you calculate other nations’ tariffs. On April 2, United States President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping new “reciprocal tariff” regime he says will level the playing field in global trade – by treating other countries the way (he claims) they treat the US. First, Trump’s plan will impose a “baseline” 10% tariff on virtually all goods imported into the US, effective April 5. Then, from April 9, 57 countries will face higher “reciprocal tariffs”. These vary by country, according to a formula based on individual trade deficits. On face value, the new tariff regime might sound like a simple solution for fairness. If a particular country was taxing American imports with a 50% tariff, it might seem fair for the US to tax their imports at 50% as well. But appearances are deceiving. These new “reciprocal” tariffs ostensibly aim to eliminate the US trade deficit by making imports more expensive so that Americans buy less from abroad until imports equal exports. But the Trump administration hasn’t directly matched specific foreign tariffs. Instead, they’ve opted for a crude formula based on bilateral trade deficits between the US and each specific country. Those aren’t the same things. Trade deficits aren’t tariffs A country has a trade deficit when the total value of everything it imports from somewhere else exceeds the value of what it exports there. A trade surplus is the opposite. Trade deficits and surpluses – the balance of trade – can be calculated between specific countries, but also between one country and the rest of the world. Tariffs are different things altogether – taxes a country charges on imports when they cross the border, paid by the importer. Read more here. 16 October 2025, The Conversation: A crucial store of carbon in Australia’s tropical forests has switched from carbon sink to carbon source. One approach to help fight climate change is to protect natural forests, as they absorb some atmospheric carbon released by burning fossil fuels and store large volumes of carbon. Our new research on Australia’s tropical rainforests challenges the assumption that they will keep absorbing more carbon than they release. We found that as climate change has intensified over the past half-century, less and less carbon has been taken up and converted to wood in the stems and branches of the trees in these forests. Woody biomass is a large and relatively stable store of carbon in forests, and acts as an important indicator of overall forest health. The effect has been so pronounced that the woody biomass of these forests has gone from being a carbon sink to a carbon source. This means carbon is being lost to the atmosphere due to trees dying faster than it is being replaced by tree growth. This is the first time woody biomass in tropical forests has been shown to switch from sink to source. Our research indicates the shift likely happened about 25 years ago. It remains to be seen whether Australian tropical forests are a harbinger for other tropical forests globally. Read more here 7 October 2025, Insurance Council of Australia: Extreme weather costs: the silver medal we don’t want. New data released by the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) today shows that Australia has consistently taken the silver medal for extreme weather losses over the last 45 years – beaten only by the United States. The data uses both the insured and broader economic costs of extreme weather, averaged across the populations of each of six developed countries in order to accurately compare the growing impact of extreme weather. Published as part of the ICA’s annual 2024-25 Insurance Catastrophe Resilience Report, the data from Munich Re’s NatCatSERVICE global database shows that for most of the last 45 years Australia has ranked second only behind the United States for economic and insured losses per capita – and was only pushed into third place in the last five years by two extraordinary events in New Zealand. Each decade since 1980, inflation-adjusted losses from floods, bushfires, storms and extreme cold temperatures have climbed across the globe, with the Report looking at France, Canada, and Germany in addition to Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Australia’s persistent second place reflects our unique geography and exposure to natural perils, compounded by the growth of populations in higher-risk areas and infrastructure that has not been built to withstand the impacts of a changing climate. Also included in the Report is updated data on the cost of extreme weather over the past 12 months, with insured losses reaching almost $2 billion across three events – the North Queensland Floods ($289m), Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred ($1.43b), and the Mid North Coast and Hunter floods ($248m). Read more here 7 October 2025, The Conversation: Extreme weather now costs Australians $4.5b a year. Better insurance options and loans would help us adapt. Today’s release of the Insurance Council of Australia’s report puts Australia on the spot: we rank second in the world in extreme weather-related losses. As the Insurance Council puts it, this is not the silver medal we want to win. Why is this a problem? According to the Resilient Building Council of Australia, a collaboration of independent experts, close to 90% of Australian homes are not actually fit for a changing climate. Many renters, low income groups, and people living in high-risk areas are especially vulnerable and often unable to even get insurance. In the 2020s, Australia has spent around A$4.5 billion a year on extreme weather costs, while insurance affordability and access are plummeting in regions that need it the most. The report found almost eight in ten of the homes that face severe to extreme flood risk do not have flood insurance. Australia’s first National Climate Risk Assessment, released last month, predicted a staggering 444% increase in heat-related deaths in Sydney as heatwaves become more severe under the most extreme scenario of 3°C degree warming by 2050. Other very dire numbers are outlined for climate risks across the country. The insurance industry says we need to rethink how we can keep our communities safe and thriving in the face of escalating disasters. How do we make sure these safety nets actually work for people – especially when costs and losses are escalating? Read More Here 7 October 2025 2025: The Guardian: Carbon offsets fail to cut global heating due to ‘intractable’ systemic problems, study says.The failure of carbon offsets to cut planet-heating pollution is “not due to a few bad apples”, a review paper has found, but down to deep-seated systemic problems that incremental change will not solve. Research over two decades has found “intractable” problems that have made carbon credits in most big programmes poor quality, according to the study. While the industry and diplomats have made efforts to improve the system, it found much-awaited rules agreed at a UN climate summit last year “did not substantially address the quality problem”.“We must stop expecting carbon offsetting to work at scale,” said Stephen Lezak, a researcher at the University of Oxford’s Smith School and co-author of the study, in Annual Reviews. “We have assessed 25 years of evidence and almost everything up until this point has failed.” Carbon offsets are a tool to cut emissions efficiently by crediting rich polluters for financing cheap climate action abroad while pumping out the same amount of planet-heating gas at home. In theory, the practice could lead to lower levels of global heating by funnelling money to the places where it will do the most good as soon as possible. But voluntary carbon markets have long been plagued by “junk offsets” that overstate their impact. More details access here 27 January 2025, Carbon Brief: A record surge of clean energy kept China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions below the previous year’s levels in the last 10 months of 2024. However, the new analysis for Carbon Brief, based on official figures and commercial data, shows the tail end of China’s rebound from zero-Covid in January and February, combined with abnormally high growth in energy demand, stopped CO2 emissions falling in 2024 overall. While China’s CO2 output in 2024 grew by an estimated 0.8% year-on-year, emissions were lower than in the 12 months to February 2024. Other key findings of the analysis include: As ever, the latest analysis shows that policy decisions made in 2025 will strongly affect China’s emissions trajectory in the coming years. In particular, both China’s new commitments under the Paris Agreement and the country’s next five-year plan are being prepared in 2025. Read More Here 3 November 2020, Carbon Brief: Hydrogen gas has long been recognised as an alternative to fossil fuels and a potentially valuable tool for tackling climate change. Now, as nations come forward with net-zero strategies to align with their international climate targets, hydrogen has once again risen up the agenda from Australia and the UK through to Germany and Japan. In the most optimistic outlooks, hydrogen could soon power trucks, planes and ships. It could heat homes, balance electricity grids and help heavy industry to make everything from steel to cement. But doing all these things with hydrogen would require staggering quantities of the fuel, which is only as clean as the methods used to produce it. Moreover, for every potentially transformative application of hydrogen, there are unique challenges that must be overcome. In this in-depth Q&A – which includes a range of infographics, maps and interactive charts, as well as the views of dozens of experts – Carbon Brief examines the big questions around the “hydrogen economy” and looks at the extent to which it could help the world avoid dangerous climate change. Access full article here Fossil fuel emissions have stalled 14 November 2016, The Conversation, Fossil fuel emissions have stalled: Global Carbon Budget 2016. For the third year in a row, global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry have barely grown, while the global economy has continued to grow strongly. This level of decoupling of carbon emissions from global economic growth is unprecedented.Global CO₂ emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and industry (including cement production) were 36.3 billion tonnes in 2015, the same as in 2014, and are projected to rise by only 0.2% in 2016 to reach 36.4 billion tonnes. This is a remarkable departure from emissions growth rates of 2.3% for the previous decade, and more than 3% during the 2000’s. Read More here Do you want to understand the complexity of energy systems which support our high consumption lifestyles? Most people don’t give too much thought to where their electricity comes from. Flip a switch, and the lights go on. That’s all. The origins of that energy, or how it actually got into our homes, is generally hidden from view. This link will take you to 11 maps which explain energy in America (it is typical enough as an example of a similar lifestyle as Australia – when I find maps for Oz I’ll add them in) e.g. above map showing the coal plants in the US. Source: Vox Explainers Mapped: how Germany generates its electricity – another example Power to the People – Lock the Gate looks back at the wins of 2015 And there’s lots more coming up in 2016. Some of the big priorities coming up next for the “Lock the Gate” movement are: If you want to give “Lock the Gate” your support – go here for more info This new report reveals that the pollution from Australia’s coal resources, particularly the enormous Galilee coal basin, could take us two-thirds of the way to a two degree rise in global temperature. To Read More and download report The 2006 UK government commissioned Stern Commission Review on the Economics of Climate Change is still the best complete appraisal of global climate change economics. The review broke new ground on climate change assessment in a number of ways. It made headlines by concluding that avoiding global climate change catastrophe was almost beyond our grasp. It also found that the costs of ignoring global climate change could be as great as the Great Depression and the two World Wars combined. The review was (still is) in fact a very good assessment of global climate change, which inferred in 2006 that the situation was a global emergency. Read More here The Garnaut Climate Change Review was commissioned by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in 2007 to conduct an independent study of the impacts of climate change on the Australian economy. Prof. Garnaut presented The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report to the Australian Prime Minister, Premiers and Chief Ministers in September 2008 in which he examined how Australia was likely to be affected by climate change, and suggested policy responses. In November 2010, he was commissioned by the Australian Government to provide an update to the 2008 Review. In particular, he was asked to examine whether significant changes had occurred that would affect the analysis and recommendations from 2008. The final report was presented May 2011. Since then the Professor has regularly participated in the debate of fossil fuel reduction, as per his latest below: To access his reports; interviews; submissions go here 27 May 2015, Renew Economy, Garnaut: Cost of stranded assets already bigger than cost of climate action. This is one carbon budget that Australia has already blown. Economist and climate change advisor Professor Ross Garnaut has delivered a withering critique of Australia’s economic policies and investment patterns, saying the cost of misguided over-investment in the recent mining boom would likely outweigh the cost of climate action over the next few decades. Read More here Live generation of electricity by fuel type Fossil Fuel Subsidies – The Age of entitlement continues 24 June 2014, Renew Economy, Age of entitlement has not ended for fossil fuels: A new report from The Australia Institute exposes the massive scale of state government assistance, totalling $17.6 billion over a six-year period, not including significant Federal government support and subsidies. Queensland taxpayers are providing the greatest assistance by far with a total of $9.5 billion, followed by Western Australia at $6.2 billion. The table shows almost $18 billion dollars has been spent over the past 6 years by state governments, supporting some of Australia’s biggest, most profitable industries, which are sending most of the profits offshore. That’s $18 billion dollars that could have gone to vital public services such as hospitals, schools and emergency services. State governments are usually associated with the provision of essential services like health and education so it will shock taxpayers to learn of the massive scale of government handouts to the minerals and fossil fuel industries. This report shows that Australian taxpayers have been misled about the costs and benefits of this industry, which we can now see are grossly disproportionate. Each state provides millions of dollars’ worth of assistance to the mining industry every year, with the big mining states of Queensland and Western Australia routinely spending over one billion dollars in assistance annually. Read More here – access full report here What is fossil fuel divestment? Local Governments ready to divest Aligning Council Money With Council Values A Guide To Ensuring Council Money Isn’t Funding Climate Change. 350.org Australia – with the help of the incredible team at Earth Hour – has pulled together a simple 3-step guide for local governments interested in divestment. The movement to align council money with council values is constantly growing in Australia. It complements the existing work that councils are doing to shape a safe climate future. It can also help to reshape the funding practices of Australia’s fossil fuel funding banks. The steps are simple. The impact is huge.The guide can also be used by local groups who are interested in supporting their local government to divest as a step-by-step reference point. Access guide here How coal is staying in the ground in the US Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign May 2015, Politico, Michael Grunwald: The war on coal is not just political rhetoric, or a paranoid fantasy concocted by rapacious polluters. It’s real and it’s relentless. Over the past five years, it has killed a coal-fired power plant every 10 days. It has quietly transformed the U.S. electric grid and the global climate debate. The industry and its supporters use “war on coal” as shorthand for a ferocious assault by a hostile White House, but the real war on coal is not primarily an Obama war, or even a Washington war. It’s a guerrilla war. The front lines are not at the Environmental Protection Agency or the Supreme Court. If you want to see how the fossil fuel that once powered most of the country is being battered by enemy forces, you have to watch state and local hearings where utility commissions and other obscure governing bodies debate individual coal plants. You probably won’t find much drama. You’ll definitely find lawyers from the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, the boots on the ground in the war on coal. Read More here Oil – conventional & unconventional May 2015, Oil change International Report: On the Edge: 1.6 Million Barrels per Day of Proposed Tar Sands Oil on Life Support. The Canadian tar sands is among the most carbon-intensive, highest-cost sources of oil in the world. Even prior to the precipitous drop in global oil prices late last year, three major projects were cancelled in the sector with companies unable to chart a profitable path forward. Since the collapse in global oil prices, the sector has been under pressure to make further cuts, leading to substantial budget cuts, job losses, and a much more bearish outlook on expansion projections in the coming years. Read full report here. For summary of report USA Sierra Club Beyond Oil Campaign Coal Seam Gas battle in Australia Lock the Gate Alliance is a national coalition of people from across Australia, including farmers, traditional custodians, conservationists and urban residents, who are uniting to protect our common heritage – our land, water and communities – from unsafe or inappropriate mining for coal seam gas and other fossil fuels. Read more about the missions and principles of Lock the Gate. Access more Lock the Gate videos here. Access Lock the Gate fact sheets here 2014: Parliament of Victoria Research Paper: Unconventional Gas: Coal Seam Gas, Shale Gas and Tight Gas: This Research Paper provides an introduction and overview of issues relevant to the development of unconventional gas – coal seam, shale and tight gas – in the Australian and specifically Victorian context. At present, the Victorian unconventional gas industry is at a very early stage. It is not yet known whether there is any coal seam gas or shale gas in Victoria and, if there is, whether it would be economically viable to extract it. A moratorium on fracking has been in place in Victoria since August 2012 while more information is gathered on potential environmental risks posed by the industry. The parts of Victoria with the highest potential for unconventional gas are the Gippsland and Otway basins. Notably, tight gas has been located near Seaspray in Gippsland but is not yet being produced. There is a high level of community concern in regard to the potential impact an unconventional gas industry could have on agriculture in the Gippsland and Otway regions. Industry proponents, however, assert that conventional gas resources are declining and Victoria’s unconventional gas resources need to be ascertained and developed. Read More here 28 January 2015, ABC News, Coal seam gas exploration: Victoria’s fracking ban to remain as Parliament probes regulations: A ban on coal seam gas (CSG) exploration will stay in place in Victoria until a parliamentary inquiry hands down its findings, the State Government has promised. There is a moratorium on the controversial mining technique, known as fracking, until the middle of 2015. The Napthine government conducted a review into CSG, headed by former Howard government minister Peter Reith, which recommended regulations around fracking be relaxed. Labor was critical of the review, claiming it failed to consult with farmers, environmental scientists and local communities. Read more here Keep up to date and how you can be involved here Friends of the Earth Melbourne Coal & Gas Free Victoria 20 May 2015, FoE, Inquiry into Unconventional Gas: Check here for details on the Victorian government’s Inquiry into unconventional gas. The public hearings have not yet started, however the Terms of Reference have been released. The state government’s promised Inquiry into Unconventional Gas has now been formally announced, with broad terms of reference (TOR). FoE’s response to the TOR is available here. The Upper House Environment and Planning Committee will manage the Inquiry. You can find the Inquiry website here. The final TOR will be determined by the committee. Significantly, it is a cross party committee. The Chair is a Liberal (David Davis), and there is one National (Melinda Bath), one Green (Samantha Dunn), three from the ALP (Gayle Tierney, Harriet Shing, Shaun Leane), an additional MP from the Liberals (Richard Dalla-Riva), and one MP from the Shooters Party (Daniel Young). Work started by the previous government, into water tables and the community consultation process run by the Primary Agency, will be released as part of the inquiry.The moratorium on unconventional gas exploration will stay in place until the inquiry delivers its findings. The interim report is due in September and the final report by December. There is the possibility that the committee will amend this timeline if they are overwhelmed with submissions or information. Parliament will then need to consider the recommendations of the committee and make a final decision about how to proceed. This is likely to happen when parliament resumes after the summer break, in early 2016. Quit Coal is a Melbourne-based collective that campaigns against the expansion of the coal and unconventional gas industries in Victoria. Quit Coal uses a range of tactics to tackle this problem. We advise the broader Victorian community about plans for new coal and unconventional gas projects, we put pressure on our government to stop investing in these projects, and we help to inform and mobilise Victorian communities so they can campaign on their own behalf. We focus on being strategic, creative, and as much as possible, fun! The above screen shot is of the Victorian State government’s Mining Licences Near Me site. Go to this link to see what is happening in your area Environment Victoria’s campaign CoalWatch is an interactive resource that tracks the coal industry’s expansion plans and helps builds a movement to stop these polluting developments. CoalWatch provides a way for everyday Victorians to keep track of the coal industry’s ambitious expansion plans. To check what tax-payer money has been pledged to brown coal projects and the coal projects industry is spruiking to our politicians. Here’s another map via EV website (go to their website and you should be able to get better detail from Google Maps: Red areas: Exploration licences (EL). These areas are held by companies to undertake exploration activity. A small bond is held by government in case of any damage. If a company wants to progress the project it needs to obtain a mining licence. Exploration Licence applications are marked with an asterix in the Places Index eg. EL4684*. Yellow areas: Mining Licences (MIN). A mining licence is granted with the expectation that mining will occur. A larger bond is paid to government. Green areas: Exploration licences that have been withdrawn or altered due to community concern. Green outline: Existing mines within Mining Licences. Purple areas: Geological Carbon Storage Exploration areas for carbon capture and storage. On-shore areas have been released by the State Government, while off-shore areas have been released by the Federal Government. The Coal Watch wiki tracks current and future Victorian coal projects, whether they are power stations, coal mines, proposals to export coal or some other inventive way of burning more coal. To get the full picture of coal in Victoria visit our wiki page. Get more info and see the full list of Exploration Licences current at 17 August 2012 here August 2015, Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis – powerpoint: Changing Dynamics in the Global Seaborne Thermal Coal Markets and Stranded Asset Risk. Information from one of the slides follows. To view full presentation go here Economic Implications for Australia 83% of Australian coal mines are foreign owned, hence direct leverage of fossil fuels to the ASX is relatively small at 1-2%. However, for Australia the exposure is high, time is needed for transition and the new industry opportunities are significant: 1. Energy Infrastructure: Australia spends $5-10bn pa on electricity / grid sector, much of it a regulated asset base that all ratepayers fund much of it stranded. BNEF estimate of Australia’s renewable energy infrastructure investment for 2015-2020 was cut 30% from A$20bn post RET. Lost opportunities. 2. Direct employment: The ABS shows a fall of ~20k from the 2012 peak of 70K from coal mining across Australia, and cuts are ongoing. Indirect employment material. 3. Terms of trade: BZE estimates the collapse in the pricing of iron ore, coal and LNG cuts A$100bn pa from Australia’s export revenues by 2030, a halving relative to government budget estimates of 2013/14. Coal was 25% of NSW’s total A$ value of exports in 2013/14 (38% of Qld). Australia will be #1 globally in LNG by 2018. 4. The financial sector: is leveraged to mining and associated rail port infrastructure. WICET 80% financed by banks, mostly Australian. Adani’s Abbot Point Port is foreign owned, but A$1.2bn of Australian sourced debt. Insurance firms and infrastructure funds are leveraged to fossil fuels vs little RE infrastructure assets. BBY! 5. Rehabilitation: $18bn of unfunded coal mining rehabilitation across Australia. 6. Economic growth: curtailed as Australia fails to develop low carbon industries. Analysis: Record surge of clean energy in 2024 halts China’s CO2 rise
In-depth Q&A: Does the world need hydrogen to solve climate change?
3 May 2016, Carbon Brief, The global coal trade doubled in the decade to 2012 as a coal-fueled boom took hold in Asia. Now, the coal trade seems to have stalled, or even gone into reverse. This change of fortune has devastated the coal mining industry, with Peabody – the world’s largest private coal-mining company – the latest of 50 US firms to file for bankruptcy. It could also be a turning point for the climate, with the continued burning of coal the biggest difference between business-as-usual emissions and avoiding dangerous climate change. Carbon Brief has produced a series of maps and interactive charts to show how the global coal trade is changing. As well as providing a global overview, we focus on a few key countries: Read More here/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3915730/EIA%20coal%20power%20plants.png)
21 April 2015, Climate Council, Will Steffen: Unburnable Carbon: Why we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground.Stern Commission Review
Australia’s Garnaut Review
November 2014 – The Fossil Fuel Bailout: G20 subsidies for oil, gas and coal exploration report: Governments across the G20 countries are estimated to be spending $88 billion every year subsidising exploration for fossil fuels. Their exploration subsidies marry bad economics with potentially disastrous consequences for climate change. In effect, governments are propping up the development of oil, gas and coal reserves that cannot be exploited if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change. This report documents, for the first time, the scale and structure of fossil fuel exploration subsidies in the G20 countries. The evidence points to a publicly financed bailout for carbon-intensive companies, and support for uneconomic investments that could drive the planet far beyond the internationally agreed target of limiting global temperature increases to no more than 2ºC. It finds that, by providing subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, the G20 countries are creating a ‘triple-lose’ scenario. They are directing large volumes of finance into high-carbon assets that cannot be exploited without catastrophic climate effects. They are diverting investment from economic low-carbon alternatives such as solar, wind and hydro-power. And they are undermining the prospects for an ambitious climate deal in 2015. Access full report here For the summary on Australia’s susidisation of it’s fossil fuel industry go to page 51 of the report. The report said that the United States and Australia paid the highest level of national subsidies for exploration in the form of direct spending or tax breaks. Overall, G20 country spending on national subsidies was $23 billion. In Australia, this includes exploration funding for Geoscience Australia and tax deductions for mining and petroleum exploration. The report also classifies the Federal Government’s fuel rebate program for resources companies as a subsidy.
