Australia recently made a provisional promise to cut emissions by 25 per cent by 2020, pending strong international agreement on climate change. Climate change Minister Penny Wong said the budget aimed to make that possible. The question is, does the budget deliver on climate change, and will it get us to the rather unimpressive target of 25% by 2020, well below where the science tells us we need to be?

The Budget established the $4.5 billion Clean Energy initiative ($1billion of existing funding and $3.5 billion in new investment), to support low emission technologies and create low pollution jobs. The Clean Energy initiative has three aims:
•    to establish Renewables Australia, a new innovation body to promote the development, commercialisation and deployment of renewable technologies.
•    to establish up to four new Solar Flagship projects to demonstrate the viability of solar technologies.
•    to support projects that demonstrate carbon capture and storage on an industrial scale from coal‑fired power stations.

Despite tough economic times, the climate change budget has been beefed up, to $15 billion over nine years.

The four large scale solar farms are exciting news. Together they will produce as much electricity as a single coal-fired power station. $1.5 billion will be spent over six years for plants using solar thermal or solar photovoltaic technologies. These 4 solar farms should have been built 20 years ago!   The photovoltaic technology and the science of climate change were both already well established. It is a case of “better late than never”, and will lead to the development of further large scale solar projects.

The government has not forgotten coal. $2 billion will be spent building between two and four industrial-sized coal-fired power plants, demonstrating Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. This largely unproven technology plans to capture the carbon emissions from power plants and store them underground.  Previously the government has funded small CCS demonstration plants, but wants to be part of a global push to have 20 Carbon Capture and Storage power stations operational by 2020.  This seems ambitious given the state of current technology, and somewhat insignificant given the 600 coal fired power stations in the US, and the fact that China is building 2 new coal fired power stations per week. This so-called “Clean” coal technology needs to be looked at seriously, but we must not depend on it for a solution. It may well be a couple of decades before we know whether or not coal can ever be considered “clean”.

The budget has also provided $100 million for one regional city - it hasn't been selected yet - to become a green energy showcase. The money will pay for "smart meters" in homes, which can regulate electricity use, and to integrate those meters with solar and wind power. It's hoped the demonstration project will improve energy efficiency. I think one of our towns in SE NSW would be an excellent candidate to become a green energy showcase.

Overall the budget spends a lot of money on some high profile show case projects. The extra $3.5 billion of funding in this year’s budget for low emissions projects represents a lot of money in tough economic times, but to put things into perspective, $22 billion is going towards nation building infrastructure. This is money going to transport, communications, education and health infrastructure across Australia. This is all important, particularly in regional Australia, but the low proportion of this money going towards renewable energy reflects our government’s unambitious emission reduction targets and lack of vision.

The budget contained no national strategy for a Feed in Tariff, and no discussion about how a 20% Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) by 2020 is going to work. I hope MRET hasn’t been forgotten. We will also need to wait to see what will be happening with the Federal Government’s solar rebates for household photovoltaic cells.

The delay in emissions trading, and the lack of a coherent national climate strategy in the recent budget make Australia’s effort to reduce emissions look “piecemeal”. This is of concern in the lead up to global climate change talks in Copenhagen at the end of the year.
Matthew Nott

The Federal Governments Emissions Trading Scheme has been delayed by 12 months. A numbers of factors have lead to its delay. The ETS has struggled for political support, with the Liberal Party saying that it is too much too soon, and the Greens saying that it is too little, too late. The Global Economic Crisis has placed huge economic pressure on everyone, and the national budget is now in deficit. What a time to be planning an overhaul of our economy with an Emissions Trading Scheme. In addition, the Rudd Government has come under huge pressure from the big polluters to delay action on climate change, and they are being listened to.

The counter argument is that renewable energy provides a cost effective and enduring economic stimulus, particularly in regional areas, where hundreds of thousands of jobs could be created. Tough climate change action on a national level would be a huge economic stimulus to Eden-Monaro.

The future of global climate negotiations hangs in the balance. In Copenhagen this December, the world will meet to discuss a global response, and global targets for tackling climate change. It is by no means certain that those talks will be successful. It is very much in Australia’s short and long term interest that those climate negotiations are successful.

Australia will arrive in Copenhagen as a follower, not a leader. Australia will be waiting for other countries to lead, in fact we are depending on it. Australia is the largest exporter of coal, and has the highest per capita rate of pollution of any country. We are asking China and the US to rein in their emissions so that our Barrier Reef can be saved, whilst doing nothing ourselves. I imagine it will be an awkward time for our diplomats in Copenhagen.

Kevin Rudd talked tough on climate change prior to the 2007 election. He described climate change as the defining issue of our generation. He has set a conditional 25% reduction target for 2020 pending global agreement on action. This is better than the pathetic 5% target originally set, but still far below what mainstream science demands as necessary to curb dangerous climate change impacts.  Rudd is likely to be out of politics by 2020. It easy to be tough on climate change before and after your term, but delaying an Emissions Trading Scheme means that very little will be achieved in the Rudd Government’s first term.

Have we got time to wait? There is much made of the fact that 1998 was the hottest year ever recorded, and years since have not been as hot. That information is taken from the Hadley Met Office in Britain, and has even been used by Professor Ian Plimer in his new book “Heaven on Earth” to prove that Global Cooling is occurring. Can those who want to delay action on climate change can reassure themselves that the rate of global warming has slowed since 1998?  It is useful to look at what the Hadley Centre is saying.

According to the Hadley Met Office, 1998 was indeed the hottest year ever recorded. That was attributed to a particularly strong El Nino event that year. What is not mentioned by skeptics is that the 10 years after 1998 were hotter than the ten years prior, and that the 11 hottest years ever recorded have been in the last 13 years. Global Warming is not slowing, atmospheric pollution continues to rise, and it is going to get hotter. The longer we delay action, the more costly and less effective the remedy will be.

Climate Change should be the defining issue of our generation.
Matthew Nott