ABC Online kindly published this piece of mine today here. It’s very encouraging to see the overwhelmingly positive comments thread thus far.
Martin Ferguson, let the cat out of the bag shortly after the Budget, when he said that carbon capture and storage would be “essential for the long-term sustainability of coal-fired power generation.” With those words, he betrayed the fact that his government prioritises the coal sector’s profits over climate protection.
If that seems like a long bow to draw, look at the evidence that the Budget presents.
In the vital area of commercialisation of technologies, the myriad of renewable energy options that are ready to roll out now were allocated precisely zero for the coming year, with only $125 million in this term of government. Next to that, the pipedream that is ‘clean coal’ received $35 million this year and $250 million this term.
When immediately called to task by the geothermal industry, which was, like many other renewable technology developers, calling for urgent commercialisation funding, the government chose to make that sector an ad hoc $40 million grant, instead of shifting funding priorities. What’s worse, instead of taking the $40 million from the coal sector’s windfall, the government took it out of the Energy Innovation Fund, money that had been earmarked for research into storage of solar energy.
That blow to the solar sector came on top of the extraordinary decision to means test the rooftop solar rebate, making it available only to those on a family income of less than $100,000. My immediate reaction – “how many families on less than $100,000 can afford to spend thousands on solar panels?” – was backed up by the flood of calls to my office from installers, manufacturers and individuals, telling me that 80-90% of solar business has evaporated since this decision, and the industry is on the point of collapse. Comments in recent days from those as high as the Treasurer and Prime Minister suggest that this was not a foolish and ill-considered mistake, but a deliberate decision.
The full rebate must be restored until such time as the government introduces a comprehensive feed-in tariff to guarantee a market for renewable energy, such as the one I introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the Senate last week, based on the one which created the world-leading German renewable energy industry.
The government’s strategy appears to be to delay renewables to give coal the chance to catch up. The Budget’s funding timing and arrangements, alongside draft legislation for carbon capture and storage, are clearly geared to make renewables seem way off in the future, while ‘clean coal’ is portrayed as a reality. The reverse is true.
Amidst the Budget flurry last week, the news was lost of yet another collapse of a geosequestration trial. The Western Australian joint venture between BP and Rio Tinto, announced to great fanfare last year, was pulled when it was discovered that the storage site proposed was geologically unstable. This comes after the collapse of the FutureGen project in the USA, the world ‘clean coal’ pin-up, after the Bush Administration discovered that it was far behind schedule and its budget had blown out. Australia’s leading project, ZeroGen in Queensland, is yet to turn a sod. Parts of the traditional energy sector are losing patience and suggesting that the promise of a few years ago is not being demonstrated.
On the other hand, large-scale renewables are ready to go now. Australian solar thermal engineer, DavidMills, having gone to California to get the support that was lacking here, is on the cusp of building a gigawatt of cheap, zero emissions power, while Spain has ten new solar thermal power plants about to be built. Wind energy is rapidly being deployed across the globe, occasionally powering more than the entire demand of both Spain and Germany in recent months. Geothermal and wave energy both hold great promise, and bioenergy, subject to environmental conditions, can provide an additional stabiliser for the energy grid and potentially suck carbon out of the atmosphere.
The urgency of climate change is such that we need to pull out all stops. The science is clear that we have already entered dangerous climate change, and we are playing a game with unimaginably high stakes. When there is clearly no risk that we could cut emissions faster than necessary, we must move to a post-carbon economy immediately.
Renewable energy has the potential to power our whole country with zero emissions within the near future, something coal cannot dream of. However, in terms of fast, cheap emissions reductions, nothing can beat energy efficiency. The Greens’ proposal for a systemic infrastructure upgrade across Australia, to increase efficiency by 30% or more across the economy, stands in stark contrast to the government’s piecemeal, tokenistic approach. A few tens of millions in rebates, grants and loans will cover a tiny percentage of homes, businesses and industry, while the cash-only offer fails to address the other well-known barriers to energy efficiency, such as lack of information and priority. Tackling energy efficiency provides a tremendous economic and social opportunity, let alone the climate benefits. Yet it was largely ignored by the Rudd Government.
Where is the urgency? Where is the priority? What can you say about a Budget which allocates $2.3 billion over 5 years to climate change and 50 times that much - $125 billion over 5 years – to Defence? If climate change were prioritised the way Defence is prioritised, the vision of an energy efficient Australia powered completely by renewable energy by 2020 would be entirely within our grasp.
Martin Ferguson’s dreams of liquefied coal fuelling our cars, and of exporting Victoria’s dirty, wet coal, are a climate nightmare that can only appeal to those whose eyes are filled with coal dust. They are trying to hold back the tide of history, maintaining the coal age when the solar century has already begun. King Canute wisely proved a thousand years ago that no one can stop the tide.
Those of us who can see clearly have noticed that Australia is richer by far in sun, wind, hot rocks, waves, and brilliant ideas, than in coal. Where some see only a threat to the resource based status quo, we see an exciting future in which imagination is the key resource.
The government should give more funding to solar research in my opinion because coal is going to be a thing of the past soon right? Well, not anytime SOON. But the USA always thinks about how to be leading in the economy now and then makes mistakes for the future. That’s just what I think anyway.
Ferguson is one of the most strident anti-environmentalists in the Rudd government. I am not in the least bit surprised.
Yes we have just swapped the coal mining government for the coal mining union government.
What a betrayal.
Anthony Albanese had far better ideas and I think clout than Garrett. I loved him in Midnight Oil however he needs to start doing something or get out.
Bravo Christine - an excellent article, and thanks for keeping this issue in the spotlight. I’m still holding out hope that the gov’t will come to its senses…
It seems that the government does not handle renewable energy industries with the same kid-gloves that it uses to handle the coal, aluminium, steel, LNG, livestock, irrigated agriculture and car industries.
The solar photovoltaic rebate wasn’t a good policy but while there is no carbon price or any other good policies in place, it should not have been cut back so drastically.
Disapointed, disgusted, moving to Spain.
Not surprising in the least! I am sick of governments doing their best to actually contain renewable technology advancements. Institutionalised interest groups have so much power within governments.
The electric car should by now be one of the primary forms of transport on our roads, solar energy should be much improved , much cheaper and in much more widespread use, wind power can be used in many places just as the Netherlands do. Our country is perfectly suited to geothermal energy production.
If we are serious about climate change we should be pursuing these things at least as equally as ‘clean’ coal technology. This is just a joke of a technology. Why don’t we instead develop our nascent renewable energy industries and develop a competitive trading advantage in that sector as well!?
At least this oil price should be doing wonders for the development of the electric car. Soon the electric car’s fuel cost will be a mere 10% of petrol and diesel for same distance covered.
The trade-in price on old imported gas guzzlers must be looking terrible these days.
Another eventual big disincentive (other than fuel costs) for buying a petrol car will be that the petrol car trade in price will look even worse once we have significant electric car numbers.
The internal combustion scrap steel price looks better and better every day.
Quieter fume-free roads will be an amazing thing.
Lets just make sure the grid making the power is renewable.
Am I the only one who is not a proponent of electric cars?
To think that we can maintain today’s sort of car use with these supposed “zero emission vehicles” is absurd. It’s difficult enough to meet today’s power demands with 100% renewables without people using electric vehicles. Let’s not forget the emissions involved in manufacturing and delivery either.
Even if these personal vehicles emitted as much CO2 as a bicycle, cars have a number of problems. Cars kill a staggering number of people, they are antisocial, they make some people more materialistic and people don’t get as much exercise compared to the truly sustainable forms of transport. If cars are so wonderful, why are houses situated on roads with lots of traffic cheaper than houses situated on quiet roads? Some people argue that electric cars are quiet but air drag and tyre noise will be very audible at higher speeds.
I feel electric vehicles are the lesser of the two evils when compared with internal combustion vehicles. In my view, they do have a place in a sustainable society but I would hope that most people would commute via walking, cycling and public transport after they get rid of their gas guzzlers.
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe there is a single science trained individual in cabinet. I believe they are all lawyers and economists, with a smattering of political ’science’ training thrown in. This is not a recipe for good decisions about anything that requires a modicum of science based comprehension. Oh, and their advisers are technocrats too, so no hope there.
In short all decisions by the Rudd government will be financial bottom line focused, tied up in linguistic knots, whilst mindful of the swinging voter.
You don’t need to be a proponent of electric cars to recognise that there will for a long time yet be a strong consumer demand for a personal vehicle.
If that demand is filled with electric vehicle then it leaves open the best possibility (compared to biofuels) that the cars might be powered by renewable sources. Hence the need to fight even harder for an emission free grid supply.
The lack of fumes is a definite plus. Sitting in grid lock sucking in exhaust from idling engines for hours must be desperately bad for one’s health. That would be reason enough alone for electric cars even if the emissions equation was equal.
An electric is much more capable of being renewably powered than a petrol car.
King Canute wasn’t able to command back the tide. For the same reason making an argument that cars are bad and no one should have them is less likely to successfully reduce emissions than is enabling the advent of electric cars at the expense of fossil fuel cars.
It seems to me that as a species, humans are going to disappear pretty quickly unless we make some fundamental changes to the way our governments are run.
We have solutions to our problems, we vote in governments to implement these solutions, and interest groups representing wealth and power subvert these governments for their own short term interests.
Governments must be made to implement the will of informed and educated citizens. Government and corporate propaganda should be identified for what it is. We need some mechanism for removing governments as soon as they stop representing the interests of citizens. If things continue as-is, we will all be starving soon, and our planet will no longer support our existence on it.
The current government is a case in point. Promised so much real action on climate change and sustainability, but looks to be all piss and wind. Possibly the most disappointing budget in recent history.
Clean coal technology as I understand it is a good twenty years away. I think by then the game will be over for homo sapiens. The penny hasn’t dropped for Martin Ferguson and his cronies in this government. It will be interesting to see which way they jump once the final, final Garnault Report is released or will we need FOI to get the results?
Think I’ll move to a more enlightened country too. Spain’s looking good.
Those who expect sensible environmental actions from the Rudd government can’t have been observing the actions of all the state labor governments for the last several years.
It is the same party organization promoting the same representatives and senators.
The Labor party and the conservatives are willing captives of big business,particularly resource extraction,the developer lobby and the grab bag motley bunch of boosters.
The operative word is - corruption.
Anybody with just half a brain knows that “clean coal’ is an oxymoron and that carbon sequestration is energy intensive,extemely expensive,potentially dangerous and will never be significant in reducing carbon emissions.
It appears that we are in for the perfect storm.
Now I have ranted about this before but the carbon trading scheme will have consequences that have nothing to do with fair and equitable policies. Watch as power plants meet their mandated target by switching from one dirty fuel to another. It’s already happening in the ACT where ACTEW/AGL is proposing a gas fired power plant. The bosses of ACTEW/AGL will be able to put their hands on their hearts and say, “we are meeting our carbon emissions targets”.
So to all the Green supporters of the carbon trading scheme, you have been duped. Why do you think the Rudd govt. is not concerned that it has spent it’s $22 billion surplus? Because when the trading scheme comes into play in 2010, Nota Bene - just before the election, there will a huge slush fund with which to pork barrel. And don’t for one minute believe it will be used for the common good, leave that to the spin doctors as funds are surgically dispensed for ALP electoral gains.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/23/2253292.htm
Hey, mcfarm, don’t look at me, I never supported carbon trading. Slavery was not eliminated by creating a slave market. Perhaps they think we could eliminate drug use by creating a legalised drug market?
You do not eliminate, but can reduce things by taxing them to buggery.
I agree mfarm a tax is needed. We need GetUp to start a movement to tax exported coal. Does anyone from GetUp read these pages?
Such a export tax would always be separate to what Garnaut is doing so no undermining it from productivity commission along the lines of the commissions last complaint about MRET.
Interesting that Westpac have done a deal with AGL to purchase 10,000 tons of carbon credits at $19 a ton. I wonder how a net polluter gets to sell 10,000 tons of future carbon credits? Not to mention the price is approx. half that of carbon being traded in Europe.
The system isn’t even in play and already there are distortions and hedging. And before we get too excited, $190,000 is less than Westpac would spend on a few corporate lunches.
I say, Christine is obviously right. This Ferguson character,of walk and chew gum at the same time, is a dim-wit. So it looks like the average thinking person on all of this has to be as insulting as the accumulated non-wisdom of the dim-wit.So when protesting,think about it,facing coppers in riot gear for the dim-wit.Tell the coppers,have a payrise,as long as one of you in riot gear,will say out loud, “Ferguson is a dim-wit.” I got no satisfaction out of that.Other thoughts are,this clean coal idea,was never in the hands hearts and minds of Australians first,so the resultant stardom built on it,the dim-wit star is now on the horizon ! If coal is going to be used for diesel,and it still could be,it is simply in the wrong hands right now,to trust the outcome will indeed be clean. Coal is still a great resource,and capable of other uses besides direct and indirect energy use,but still primarily in that area of interest. After all,as some here are adequately informed its possible to convert algae to fuels grown in coal bed mediums.The science and the scientists are not even being considered ,so the dim-wit will go promoting himself via the TV as the greatest man since,well, walking and chewing gum at the same time was invented as a political statement,about uranium mining and selling stuff,and the world hazard of Nuclear Arms!? We also have Beattie in Queensland,the publicity whore retired, as Queensland Trades Commissioner. See you on the dark side of the coal spill amongst the Corral!?
I have to say that I agree.
If they need to ask the question of how to ensure the sustained economic viability of coal-fired electricity generation when subject to carbon dioxide trading or taxing type arrangements, then clearly the price on carbon dioxide emissions isn’t high enough.
The entire point of putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions is to reduce the use of coal-fired electricity generation, (among other things) to decommission those plants, and to build non greenhouse intensive replacements.
The point is not just as another revenue stream for the government, the point is to provide an incentive that actually leads to the elimination of coal-fired plants.
I dont think Australias political leaders have any real drive to get rid of coal energy in Australia. They will come to the table and tinker with the edges of it.
Im so depressed that Solar will not become mainstream energy supply. Its a no-brainer really why it hasnt already. What can we as Greens do though. Im tired of writing letters and getting nowhere…..?
Kelvin Jones
Going solar electrical immediately may not be the most carbon friendly way
Mobile phones with no batteries, cordless electric drills which work harder and longer, full sized high powered cordless vacuum cleaners, these are some of the appliances now on the market around the world but not yet seen in Australia. This is the result of a break through in electrical energy storage technology called “the super capacitor”. Super capacitors never need replacing and charge and discharge very quickly and have very high energy storage capacities for volume and increasing with development.
There has never been any difficulty in generating renewable energy it has been the difficulty of storing electrical energy using the current technology to iron out the vagaries of nature’s erratic energy delivery pattern and to supply instantaneous load currents something which super capacitance technology help to fulfil. By building super capacitance into our day to day household appliances we would effectively bit by bit increasing the electrical storage of the electrical supply system and when multiplied by the millions of consumers this would amount to a huge electrical storage capacity. Such capacity would enable the introduction of smaller more efficient renewable energy home packs a little later on. Also, as this new technology works at a lower and much safer voltage, it would be an opportunity to phase out the current household 240VAC distribution system that we now use for a 50 VDC system which is a better match to most new home appliance technology.
Current home power generation such as solar and wind should not ignored but taken up by those in the community that have the means and enough expertise to manage. For industry the recent installation of a industrial capacity wind turbine by a Tasmanian poultry processor is positive step in the direction of the future, generate and use power in the same location it has the least losses and I have no doubt super capacitance will further use of these types of installations reducing the need for battery banks.
It should always be remembered, upgrading the passive energy performance of buildings is the greatest energy saver of all and if implemented in a progressive way carbon neutral. By upgrading building performance the high users of energy are reduced. This further makes home renewable electrical energy generation viable.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/08/12/2333337.htm
“Australian industry is warming to the real power of the sun. The country’s biggest engineering company WorleyParsons has announced plans to build the world’s biggest solar thermal power plant.” ABC online.
WorleyParsons are proposing to build the world’s biggest solar thermal plant, and hedging their bets by investing in oil and gas companies at the same time. Just goes to show that businesses are doing the calculations and, assuming a national feed-in tariff becomes effective soon, there is money to be made in solar.
This is a billion dollar decision being made on hard economic grounds - no touchy feely green sentiment on that board I’m fairly sure. It will be interesting to see if they continue with the billion dollar plan if a national feed-in tariff fails to materialise.
Thanks, mcfarm. I had intended to post on that yesterday but ran out of time.
Christine Milne’s media release on the issue is here.
You can also go to the Lateline website here and click on the fourth story down today and watch what Christine told ABC last night.