Global Warming

[Rosy]

Sorry I don't have a link for this email from Cathy McGowen. I am so rapt she won our electorate. I thought some might be interested to read the words of an Independent. Cathy is great. She keeps us informed, consults people and invites input.


Today the Parliament will vote on the Government’s ‘Carbon Tax Repeal’ bills. This is a contentious piece of legislation and I wanted to outline my thinking on it before the House votes.

I accept that climate change is human induced and that the market is the most efficient and effective place to pursue action to reduce emissions at low cost.

Tourism and agriculture are important industries in Indi and both will be impacted by a changing climate.

On this basis that I won’t be supporting the government’s repeal of the Clean Energy legislation.

Over the last few weeks I’ve spoken across the spectrum to constituents about the legislation, including manufacturers, tourism operators in the Alpine region, transport businesses, young people and farmers.

There are differing views about how to approach climate change, and I accept that my decision won’t please everyone.

The legislation will likely be debated much more in the Senate and may return back to the House for another vote.

I’ve met with the Minister for the Environment’s office to discuss the legislation and the Government’s proposed next steps.

Across Indi, we have have many companies, community groups and individuals working on climate change mitigation and reducing emissions. Regardless of what happens with this legislation, there is a lot we can do as an Indi community. I’m encouraging people to think about how you would like to see our area approach climate change over the long term.

Cathy.

 

[bullus_hit]

Cathy McGowen is indeed a politician of principle, there should be more like her.

 

[Azza]

Cathy McGowen is indeed a politician of principle, there should be more like her.

Independents seem to make a habit of that - whether you agree with those principles or not.

 

[Tigers of Old]

China to launch two new carbon trading exchanges
BY DAVID STANWAY
BEIJING Mon Nov 25, 2013 4:49am EST

(Reuters) - China will launch two new pilot carbon trading schemes this week in Beijing and Shanghai as it strives to cut soaring rates of greenhouse gas, reduce choking smog and determine the best system for a nationwide roll-out.

China, the world's biggest source of climate-changing carbon emissions, is under domestic pressure from its population to counter air pollution and has pledged to cut the 2005 rate of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP growth by 40-45 percent by 2020.

As U.N.-led climate talks stumbled in Warsaw last week, the country's chief negotiator Xie Zhenhua was keen to push the country's CO2 cutting credentials, challenging developed nations to match the efforts being made by China to tackle global warming.

The new platforms, which will force industrial firms to buy credits to cover any CO2 they emit above allocated quotas, also underscore Beijing's commitment to "market mechanisms" to slow emissions growth, in line with an ambitious raft of reforms outlined earlier this month.

"It is definitely a move in the right direction, but there are concerns about activity -- these are pilot schemes and are used as a learning experience, and local governments might not be particularly concerned by volumes," said Shawn He, a climate lawyer with the Hualian legal practice in Beijing.

Trading is likely to start slowly as the government treads cautiously and tries to learn lessons from Europe, where an excess of credits has left carbon prices in the doldrums.

Hualian's He said there were concerns how effective the pilot schemes would be, as no binding carbon caps would be imposed on enterprises and there were no legal means of forcing them to participate.

POLICY REFORM SLATE

China's government hopes climate targets will help meet other policy goals on pollution, sustainable development and industrial restructuring.

The pilot markets would not only allow China to reduce CO2 but would also help "upgrade industries", Xie said in Warsaw last week.

Officials have suggested carbon credits could provide a financial incentive to close down inefficient steel or cement plants. Closures would free up the carbon credits to sell on the market.

The schemes are expected to draw in some of the country's largest companies, including leading steelmaker Baoshan Iron and Steel in Shanghai. The Beijing exchange will include oil giant Sinopec's Yanshan refinery, coal miner Shenhua Group and giant utilities like Huaneng.

While the fines for noncompliance are minimal, Hualian's He acknowledged the state-owned companies are expected to participate fully given political pressure to take part and the close relationship with local governments.

In the first phase, credits will be distributed to member firms free of charge, meaning participants will face additional costs only if they exceed their quotas and have to buy.

The Beijing platform is expected to force bigger polluters to buy more credits in coming years.

China is set to launch seven pilot carbon trading schemes in total, with one already in operation in the southeast city of Shenzhen. Another platform will be established for the province of Guangdong before the end of the year, and another three are due to go into operation in Hubei province and the cities of Tianjin and Chongqing next year.

Officials have said China's policy on emissions markets has been to "let a hundred flowers bloom" and see which one works best before a nationwide scheme is established.

Each regional-level platform has ambitions to dominate nationwide trade, with the Shenzhen platform already branding itself as the China emissions exchange and hoping its early start will give it an advantage.

"We don't know how all the schemes will develop but if I have to choose one I would look to Shanghai -- it is the most commercially friendly and active city in the country and is where market mechanisms will work the best," said He.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/25/us-china-carbon-idUSBRE9AO07E20131125

 

[Brodders17]

Flat emissions result masks impact of carbon tax

The carbon tax is succeeding in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the parts of the economy where it applies, Labor and the Greens say, as they vow to resist Abbott government plans to scrap the key climate change policy.
Figures due out later this week from the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory will show emissions for the year to June - the first year of the carbon tax - fell just 300,000 to 545.9 million tonnes, the government said.
The government estimates the carbon tax bill is $8 billion, implying it cost about $26,700 per tonne of emissions abated.
That emissions total, though, indicates emissions were 2 per cent lower in the year ending June than the 12 months to March 31.
Fairfax Media sought a breakdown of the national emissions total from the office of Environment Minister Greg Hunt.
If the inventory figures for the year to March are any guide, though, power sector emissions are sliding.
Industries only partly covered by the carbon price, or not at all - such as agriculture, transport and fugitive emissions from gas and coal operations - are seeing rising emissions, nullifying the gains from electricity generators.
John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute, said the release of overall emissions figures without showing the carbon tax's direct impact was misleading: ‘‘It is at best disingenuous to leak a proportion of it and not have the full report at the same time.’’
Mr Hunt released a similar statement in October with the March greenhouse emissions total, but with much less media pick-up than resulted from Sunday's partial disclosure to Murdoch newspapers.
Repeal push
The government has used the flat emissions result to push its case that the carbon tax - now at $24.15 per tonne - should be repealed when the Senate sits this week, and be replaced by a direct-action plan to pay polluters to cut back.
A limited reduction in national emissions, as shown in the year-to-June figures, would not in itself be new.
Inventory figures available on the government's website for the year to March also reveealed almost no change in emissions. They edged 0.1 per cent lower to 557 million tonnes over that period.
The June quarter, though, saw a cut of 11.1 million tonnes on an annual basis, or about 2 per cent, from that March total.
The March 2013 annual figures also detailed which sectors are experiencing emissions growth and which are in decline - trends unlikely to have changed significantly in the April-June period.
For the year to March, emissions from the carbon tax electricity sector, which is affected by the carbon tax, fell 12.1 million tonnes, or 6.1 per cent.
Non-taxed emissions jump
That decline – partly due to slumping demand but also a carbon tax-prompted switch away from black coal-fired power plants – was masked by big increases in areas of the economy only partly affected by the carbon price.
For instance, fugitive emissions from the gas and coal mining industry jumped 12.7 per cent in the year to March to 45.8 million tonnes. Both industries continue to expand rapidly.
In transport, another growing sector, emissions rose 3.1 per cent in the 12 months to March 31, while emissions from agriculture rose 3 per cent.
While aviation, rail and marine transport, for instance, has to pay a carbon price, general transport does not. Similarly, while fugitive emissions face a carbon price, most gas for processing gets free permits and the coal industry has access to compensation to help limit the carbon cost.
The government used the total emissions to the year to June – without revealing its breakdown by sector – to press Labor and the Greens to drop their opposition in the Senate to its carbon tax repeal package.
The inventory figures show the "tax is a rolled-gold failure”, Mr Hunt told journalists on Sunday.
"We have an $8 billion-a-year tax with virtually no impact," he said. "There couldn't be a clearer demonstration of an utter carbon con.
“There can be no more excuse, no more delay, for [Opposition Leader Bill] Shorten to stand in the way of repealing the carbon tax,” he said.
Opposition environment spokesman Mark Butler said the release of more complete greenhouse gas figures would show emissions from electricity generation had dropped 6 per cent while driving a 25 per cent increase in renewable energy.
“This information flies in the face of Tony Abbott's last-ditch attempt to bully the Senate into agreeing to scrap an effective climate change policy without having a credible alternative,” Mr Butler said.
“The government doesn't believe in the climate change science and doesn't believe in effective climate change action.”
Australian Greens leader Christine Milne said the government “can pick, choose and release data to suit its own ideological position against action on global warming but that won't change the fact that the price on pollution is working. We will continue to see bigger and bigger cuts as the scheme comes to maturity.”
The Greens intend to call on the Coalition to reveal its plans for emissions in sectors not covered by the emissions trading scheme.
“Deforestation from land clearing and fugitive emissions from coal and gas are increasing. What will Direct Action do to stop that?” said Senator Milne.
Mike Raupach, a climate scientist with the CSIRO, said the future expansion of the mining industry will make it harder for the government to meet the bipartisan target of cutting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020.
‘‘Anticipated developments in a variety of industries, particularly coal seam gas, open the possibility for a further emissions increase," Dr Raupach said. "The Direct Action scheme would need to both overcome (the increase) in other areas, or exceed it, to get down to five per cent below (2000 levels).

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/flat-emissions-result-masks-impact-of-carbon-tax-20131209-2z0mr.html#ixzz2n2DdDwqP

so i read this correctly Australia's overall emissions have not decreased since the price on carbon was introduced. but the sectors which are affected have decreased their emissions, whilst those areas not affected have increased theirs.

 

[tigersnake]

China to launch two new carbon trading exchanges
BY DAVID STANWAY
BEIJING Mon Nov 25, 2013 4:49am EST

(Reuters) - China will launch two new pilot carbon trading schemes this week in Beijing and Shanghai as it strives to cut soaring rates of greenhouse gas, reduce choking smog and determine the best system for a nationwide roll-out.

China, the world's biggest source of climate-changing carbon emissions, is under domestic pressure from its population to counter air pollution and has pledged to cut the 2005 rate of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP growth by 40-45 percent by 2020.

As U.N.-led climate talks stumbled in Warsaw last week, the country's chief negotiator Xie Zhenhua was keen to push the country's CO2 cutting credentials, challenging developed nations to match the efforts being made by China to tackle global warming.

The new platforms, which will force industrial firms to buy credits to cover any CO2 they emit above allocated quotas, also underscore Beijing's commitment to "market mechanisms" to slow emissions growth, in line with an ambitious raft of reforms outlined earlier this month.

"It is definitely a move in the right direction, but there are concerns about activity -- these are pilot schemes and are used as a learning experience, and local governments might not be particularly concerned by volumes," said Shawn He, a climate lawyer with the Hualian legal practice in Beijing.

Trading is likely to start slowly as the government treads cautiously and tries to learn lessons from Europe, where an excess of credits has left carbon prices in the doldrums.

Hualian's He said there were concerns how effective the pilot schemes would be, as no binding carbon caps would be imposed on enterprises and there were no legal means of forcing them to participate.

POLICY REFORM SLATE

China's government hopes climate targets will help meet other policy goals on pollution, sustainable development and industrial restructuring.

The pilot markets would not only allow China to reduce CO2 but would also help "upgrade industries", Xie said in Warsaw last week.

Officials have suggested carbon credits could provide a financial incentive to close down inefficient steel or cement plants. Closures would free up the carbon credits to sell on the market.

The schemes are expected to draw in some of the country's largest companies, including leading steelmaker Baoshan Iron and Steel in Shanghai. The Beijing exchange will include oil giant Sinopec's Yanshan refinery, coal miner Shenhua Group and giant utilities like Huaneng.

While the fines for noncompliance are minimal, Hualian's He acknowledged the state-owned companies are expected to participate fully given political pressure to take part and the close relationship with local governments.

In the first phase, credits will be distributed to member firms free of charge, meaning participants will face additional costs only if they exceed their quotas and have to buy.

The Beijing platform is expected to force bigger polluters to buy more credits in coming years.

China is set to launch seven pilot carbon trading schemes in total, with one already in operation in the southeast city of Shenzhen. Another platform will be established for the province of Guangdong before the end of the year, and another three are due to go into operation in Hubei province and the cities of Tianjin and Chongqing next year.

Officials have said China's policy on emissions markets has been to "let a hundred flowers bloom" and see which one works best before a nationwide scheme is established.

Each regional-level platform has ambitions to dominate nationwide trade, with the Shenzhen platform already branding itself as the China emissions exchange and hoping its early start will give it an advantage.

"We don't know how all the schemes will develop but if I have to choose one I would look to Shanghai -- it is the most commercially friendly and active city in the country and is where market mechanisms will work the best," said He.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/25/us-china-carbon-idUSBRE9AO07E20131125

well there goes the; 'we shouldn't be leading the world because we are only a small nation' argument (it was always a monumentally dumb argument anyway)

 

[Giardiasis]

well there goes the; 'we shouldn't be leading the world because we are only a small nation' argument (it was always a monumentally dumb argument anyway)

Well given that reducing Australia's carbon dioxide emissions to zero will have zero influence on the climate, I find your use of the word "dumb" to be a tad harsh.

 

[Brodders17]

Well given that reducing Australia's carbon dioxide emissions to zero will have zero influence on the climate, I find your use of the word "dumb" to be a tad harsh.

agree. that is why i dont donate to charity. or turn my taps off, or worry about wasting electricity, or picking up my rubbish when i am out. nothing i do will have any influence.

it is also why i do not expect individuals in china or india to have to change their behaviour at all, or any companies in the world.

and it is this thinking that will lead to no change. anywhere. which of course suits those who dont want any action taken at all.

 

[Giardiasis]

agree. that is why i dont donate to charity. or turn my taps off, or worry about wasting electricity, or picking up my rubbish when i am out. nothing i do will have any influence.

it is also why i do not expect individuals in china or india to have to change their behaviour at all, or any companies in the world.

and it is this thinking that will lead to no change. anywhere. which of course suits those who dont want any action taken at all.

Only a global agreement to reduce CO2 emissions makes sense. Unilateral action of course suits those that want to feel good about themselves, and care more about good meanings than good outcomes.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Only a global agreement to reduce CO2 emissions makes sense. Unilateral action of course suits those that want to feel good about themselves, and care more about good meanings than good outcomes.

Or it could be that those who oppose unilateral action attempt to draw the world in flat theoretical ways. Would equal rights for minorities or women have been achieved if we waited for a consensus? How long would it have taken? Were the benefits not worth being the leaders? Did the early steps not influence others to follow suit? Groundswells are proven and useful ways of achieveing outcomes. Snowballs start small and only grow large as they accumulate, if you started with a giant snowball you wouldn't be able to get it to start rolling.

 

[bullus_hit]

Only a global agreement to reduce CO2 emissions makes sense. Unilateral action of course suits those that want to feel good about themselves, and care more about good meanings than good outcomes.

Unilateral action? You are kidding aren't you? Europe, China, America and the UK are all making steps to decarbonise their economies, Australia are lagging behind. Even ignoring the environmental effects, the economic benefits could be huge for any early adopters of renewable technologies. You sound like little more than a fossil fuel hack clinging onto the past.

 

[AngryAnt]

Unilateral action? You are kidding aren't you? Europe, China, America and the UK are all making steps to decarbonise their economies, Australia are lagging behind. Even ignoring the environmental effects, the economic benefits could be huge for any early adopters of renewable technologies. You sound like little more than a fossil fuel hack clinging onto the past.

As long as American Samoa refuses to sign on I say, hell no, we ain't signing!

 

[Giardiasis]

Unilateral action? You are kidding aren't you? Europe, China, America and the UK are all making steps to decarbonise their economies, Australia are lagging behind. Even ignoring the environmental effects, the economic benefits could be huge for any early adopters of renewable technologies. You sound like little more than a fossil fuel hack clinging onto the past.

Are you capable of writing responses without resorting to ad hominen?

 

[Giardiasis]

Or it could be that those who oppose unilateral action attempt to draw the world in flat theoretical ways. Would equal rights for minorities or women have been achieved if we waited for a consensus? How long would it have taken? Were the benefits not worth being the leaders? Did the early steps not influence others to follow suit? Groundswells are proven and useful ways of achieveing outcomes. Snowballs start small and only grow large as they accumulate, if you started with a giant snowball you wouldn't be able to get it to start rolling.

Call me nuts, but I don't buy the argument that developing countries will follow us in reducing standards of living. Cheap energy is the cornerstone of improving living standards. It is a dubious claim at best, especially given the current economic hardship the world is currently experiencing.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Call me nuts, but I don't buy the argument that developing countries will follow us in reducing standards of living. Cheap energy is the cornerstone of improving living standards. It is a dubious claim at best, especially given the current economic hardship the world is currently experiencing.

I understand that you don't buy it "nuts" but from over here it just looks like confirmation bias. It seems we were all waiting for China but now they're out pacing us so we're waiting for who? It is not a purely economic decision and yet China (hardly home of soppy leftist tree huggers) are acting.

 

[bullus_hit]

Are you capable of writing responses without resorting to ad hominen?

Are you capable of writing a response without using 'ad hominen'?

 

[tigersnake]

Call me nuts, but I don't buy the argument that developing countries will follow us in reducing standards of living. Cheap energy is the cornerstone of improving living standards. It is a dubious claim at best, especially given the current economic hardship the world is currently experiencing.

You're nuts.

Cheap energy is the cornerstone of high immediate material living standards, lets be precise (and even that is highly debateable). If you don't care about pollution, ecology, equity, your view is valid from that perspective.

On another note, from someone who knows what they're talking about, this from Paddy Manning, Crikey's business editor today in his 2013 wrap:


"Green business of the year: Clean Energy Finance Corporation

Set to be abolished by the Coalition in its war on climate action, even though the CEFC is on track to deliver -- at a profit to taxpayers, mind you -- half the abatement necessary to meet our -5% emissions reduction target by 2020, and the government plans to water down the renewable energy target and has no other credible policy. Too depressing for words"

I agree with him. The Abbot government's attacks on the environment over the past fortnight have been eye-popping. If you haven't seen the GBR yet, I'd book some tickets soon.

 

[tigersnake]

Well given that reducing Australia's carbon dioxide emissions to zero will have zero influence on the climate, I find your use of the word "dumb" to be a tad harsh.

Its very generous actually.

 

[tigersnake]

Only a global agreement to reduce CO2 emissions makes sense. Unilateral action of course suits those that want to feel good about themselves, and care more about good meanings than good outcomes.

this post proves you don't consider opposing views, or look at evidence.

 

[tigersnake]

agree. that is why i dont donate to charity. or turn my taps off, or worry about wasting electricity, or picking up my rubbish when i am out. nothing i do will have any influence.

it is also why i do not expect individuals in china or india to have to change their behaviour at all, or any companies in the world.

and it is this thinking that will lead to no change. anywhere. which of course suits those who dont want any action taken at all.

spot on