2017-10-15
Chris Johansen
The average surface temperature of our planet has warmed just 1°C above preindustrial times but the adverse effects of climate change are manifesting themselves even faster than predicted by climatologists just a few years ago. For example, melting of polar ice and glaciers, rising sea levels, increasing frequency and intensity of storms emanating from tropical waters, global demise of coral reefs, increasing drought in temperate regions, increasing wild fires, increasing frequency of record high temperatures, etc. The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, signed up to by most (i.e. 195) countries of the world, set 2°C as the limit below which global mean temperature must remain to avoid catastrophic climate change, but with an aspiration to remain below 1.5°C. However, the assessment now is that 1.5°C will be catastrophic.
Greenhouse gas emissions, mainly those of carbon dioxide and methane, are primarily derived from burning of fossil fuels in electricity generation, industrial activity and transport, and from land use (vegetation removal) and agriculture (e.g. soil tillage, methane emission from ruminants). The cheapest way to reduce those emissions, without unduly disrupting contemporary lifestyle, is to reduce emissions from electricity generation. This is because not only has new technology provided viable means of replacing, and indeed completely replacing, fossil fuel reliant generation – e.g. solar, wind, battery storage, demand management, etc. – tipping points have already been reached or soon will be reached whereby unsubsidized renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel-derived (or nuclear for that matter) electricity. Additionally, expansion of renewable energy makes the evolution of electricity-powered land transport ever more feasible, to eventually replace oil-based fuel (California wants to ban petrol driven cars from 2030). Looking dispassionately at both the science and the economics, the writing is on the wall certainly for coal, and not much later oil and gas.
The Federal COALition Government in Australia, in apparent partnership with the Trump administration in the USA, seemingly remains completely oblivious to the above – with respect to both their concern about climate change and the now inevitable global trend towards renewable energy. Most observers acknowledge that Australias energy policy is in a mess. The COALition attributes this to the 'green religion of opposing political parties, with their 'ideological pursuit of clean energy. However, to me, the COALition support for fossil fuels more closely resembles a 'religion as it is 'faith-based and completely non-reliant on facts, scientific or economic. Driven by their hard right, they oppose any form subsidy for renewables, while ignoring the historic and continuing government subsidies provided to fossil fuels. They thus oppose any form of carbon tax, such as the 'clean energy target (CET) as proposed in the recent Finkel review on energy policy. Indeed, my interpretation of their policy is that they want a 'dirty energy target (DET) – of the order of >80% fossil fuel derived energy by 2030 and >75% by 2050. The current portfolio of renewable energy in Australia is about 17% and the COALition seems to be doing everything it can to stifle its further growth.
Fossil fools – the Treasurer fondling a lump of 'clean coal. Kym Smith, The Australian
In view of continuing poor opinion polling results the COALition have apparently felt the need to give an impression that they indeed do have a credible energy/climate change policy. The latest manifestation of this is the National Energy Guarantee, or NEG (which immediately inspires one to add the suffix 'ative). This aims at framing the entire problem as one of high electricity prices purely driven by high costs and unreliability of renewables and an over-reaction to climate change. Preliminary analysis indicates that, if implemented, carbon emissions would end up higher with NEG than the current already frightening trajectory, due to the encouragement provided to fossil fuel generation. Assertions that maintaining or increasing fossil fuel-based generation would lower electricity prices defy the mathematics – not only are renewable energy generation costs dipping below those of fossil fuels but electricity storage costs, via big batteries, pumped hydro, etc. are going that way also. However, nuts and bolts details of NEG are yet to be revealed – once they are Im sure well have plenty to write about for another day.
Why this apparently irrational behaviour of the Federal COALition Government? There have been many analyses of 'climate denial but the major reasons for its manifestation in Australia seem to be two-fold. Firstly, the conservative philosophy that changing the way that we have previously done things is wrong. Secondly, the power of old money. Particularly in Australia, mining is a major economic activity, with coal and gas major income earners. Companies and persons who control the coal and gas industries, from mining to burning, obviously are reluctant to see income from those sources decline, as demanded by those concerned about climate change. And, these companies and persons wield considerable political influence, including with Labor, via their obvious financial influence, even if exactly what goes on remains opaque. Im sure many of these persons do realize the existence and consequences of climate change but they give greater priority to prolonging the life of their fossil fuel cash cows. A similar pattern to tobacco company executives who, in the last century, probably knew very well that smoking causes cancer but publicly denied it, and tried to discredit the evidence, to protect their sales and thus profits.
While the Federal Government steps up their spruiking of a national energy policy firmly based on fossil fuels, the public and now many businesses seem to be increasingly ignoring it. This is despite a largely conservative media (e.g. Murdoch) vigorously pushing the climate denial and anti-renewables message. Electricity costs have soared in recent years, due to such factors as network costs ('poles and wires), costs of maintaining aging coal-fired power stations, costs of installing gas-fired generators, gas prices and the usual profit skimming inevitable with privatization of electricity generation and distribution. Irrespective of what people may think about climate change, they are installing rooftop solar at a rapid rate. Currently more than 1 in 5 houses in Australia have rooftop solar and the curve is still exponentially upwards, despite many earlier government incentives closing. Now, businesses, from shopping centres to mining operations, are installing banks of solar panels at ever-increasing rates. This is simply due to economics, as solar energy markedly lowers electricity costs with a short payback period for the upfront installation cost. Further, costs of batteries, to capture energy from renewable sources for use when direct access from renewables is diminished or not possible (e.g. night), are rapidly declining to make them also an economic proposition in reducing energy costs, with negligible emissions.
For network generation also, tipping points where costs of renewable energy from wind and solar are falling below costs of fossil fuel derived energy are being reached in many countries. This is already the case for comparison with new-build fossil fuel generators and is approaching fast when the comparison is with existing fossil fuel generation (no fuel costs for renewable energy as sunlight and wind come free).
The Greens has been the only party, having significant representation in federal and state parliaments, that has been consistently advocating and predicting these trends to renewable energy and hence reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Labor has been somewhat inconsistent due to their perceived requirement of continued support from fossil fuel industries (e.g. donations) and obligations to protect the jobs of those working in those industries. Notable exceptions are the present SA and Victorian Labor governments. Thus, The Greens need to be more proactive in reminding voters that they have been on the right side of history all along, with respect to electricity generation at least. Not in an 'I told you so way but emphasizing that we do know something about economics and how it interacts with environment, and that win-win is indeed possible. My sense is that we could harvest a lot more votes from individuals who are contemplating or have already made the switch towards renewable energy.
Header photo credit: Ikea Australia