Thread: Keeping tabs on Australia"s newly elected Government

Just one early news event. Couldn’t wait.

• Former Australian PM Tony Abbott says climate warnings are ‘ahistorical and implausible’

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has claimed some warnings of human-induced climate change are “ahistorical and utterly implausible”, criticising what he called “the climate cult” in a speech in London.

The former Liberal leader – who earlier this year was nominated to join the board of Fox Corporation by Lachlan Murdoch – decried what he claimed was an “emissions obsession”, pointing to historical examples of warmer and cooler periods which had “nothing to do with mankind’s emissions.”

“I think it is worth stating that the anthropogenic global warming thesis, at least in its more extreme forms, is both ahistorical and utterly implausible,” Abbott said at the launch of a report on energy by the Institute of Public Affairs on Tuesday.

“And I think that needs to be repeated. Ladies and gentlemen, the climate cult will eventually be discredited.”

Then Australian prime minister Tony Abbott in 2015. Lachlan Murdoch has nominated him to Fox Corporation’s board of directors.

Abbott’s remarks come a week after scientists warned Earth’s “vital signs” are worse than at any time in human history, with 20 of the 35 planetary vital signs at record extremes, including July being probably the hottest the planet has been in 100,000 years.

Abbott, the Australian prime minister from 2013-15, lost his seat of Warringah at the 2019 election to independent Zali Steggall, who campaigned heavily on stronger climate action. Abbott infamously described the “so-called settled science of climate change” as “absolute crap” in 2009; in 2017 he suggested climate change is “probably doing good” in a speech in London in which he likened policies to combat it to “primitive people once killing goats to appease the volcano gods”.

In London this week, Abbott spoke at the launch of a new paper on energy security from the IPA, a rightwing Australian think tank. According to a transcript of his remarks shared by his office, Abbott claimed that while he was in office he had a “mantra” of saying climate change was real, that mankind made a difference and that reasonable steps should be taken to reduce emissions.

“Then I would invariably add this rider but not at the expense of jobs, at the expense of ordinary people’s cost of living, and with the effect of driving important industries offshore to countries that don’t take emissions as seriously as we do,” he said.

“Sometimes, when I was feeling particularly bold, I would add things like this: you know, 10,000 years or so back we had an ice age. That was rather dramatic climate change, but presumably that had nothing to do with mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions.”

According to Nasa, “the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97% – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change”. Research from Cornell University in 2021 found the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate had passed 99.9%.

Three studies in 2019 used extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades. The studies found that periods dubbed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Anomaly, which were referred to in Abbott’s speech, did not take place in more than half the globe at any one time.

In recent weeks climate scientists have warned of inevitable accelerated ice melt in Antarctica, that Earth’s “vital signs” are worse than at any time in human history, and that the Earth is moving dangerously close to irreversible tipping points that would drastically damage our ability to cope with disasters.

Abbott said he believed voters would continue prioritising cost of living and energy price issues over emissions reduction.

“I’m pleased to be chosen for this task tonight because I suppose I’m one of the very few national leaders who has been elected to office promising to end the emissions obsession which has dominated energy policy for the last two decades,” he said.

“I have to say that on every occasion in Australia where energy policy and climate policy has been a big election focus, it’s the people who have been on the sceptical end of the spectrum who have done well. On every occasion when the Australian public have been asked to choose between reducing emissions and protecting their cost of living, they’ve put their cost of living first.”

Australia’s current Labor government was elected in 2022 on the promise of a 43% emissions reduction target by 2030 based on 2005 emissions levels, compared with the then-Coalition government’s 26-28% target which was agreed under Abbott’s administration. Labor also set an ambitious target of 82% of Australia’s energy coming from renewables by 2030.

nominated to join the board of Fox Corporation by Lachlan Murdoch

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Just one early news event. Couldn’t wait.

• Former Australian PM Tony Abbott says climate warnings are ‘ahistorical and implausible’

Australia’s current Labor government was elected in 2022 on the promise of a 43% emissions reduction target by 2030 based on 2005 emissions levels, compared with the then-Coalition government’s 26-28% target which was agreed under Abbott’s administration. Labor also set an ambitious target of 82% of Australia’s energy coming from renewables by 2030.

Still damne

Originally Posted by BLD

I'm not sure what your banging on about and I'm certainly not going to read your long winded cut n pastes just to waste time. Yes Australia has a Labor govt now and yes promises were made re climate change etc. Weather that can be achieved who fucking knows.

Not sure how you can equate the size of the vote due to the difference in climate policy on the last federal election and how a decrease in Labor votes means acceptance of a more radical climate policy. Still, damned lies and statistics.

LNP Coalition

5,233,334

35.70%
-5.74%

Australian Labor Party

4,776,030

32.58%
-0.76%

Some questions regarding Australia's ME involvements.

A price paid in blood: Australia secretly deploys to another Middle East war

By Cameron Leckie

Oct 31, 2023

"Will Australia involve itself in another war in the Middle East? One that promises to be far more destructive and damaging to Australia than our previous misadventures.

It is really rather difficult to comprehend the epic chasm between the real challenge of addressing the many pressing domestic concerns facing Australia and the grave and immediate risk that our Government has placed us in. A grave and immediate risk which the Albanese Government has unnecessarily taken, either through gross ignorance or more likely because of our alliance with the United States. A decision that entails enormous risks; yet has been taken for unclear purposes without any debate or media attention and for which the entire nation appears to be blissfully ignorant but also entirely unprepared.

Australia could once again, find itself at war in the Middle East in coming days or weeks. A regional war that could see the primarily Islamic nations of the region pitted against Israel and its allies. A regional war that could see the United States and its allies in direct conflict with Russia. A regional war that could see much of the oil trade through the Middle East cease. A regional war that could see NATO’s largest Army (Turkiye) on the opposite side to other NATO countries. A regional war with the potential to become a global war.

Australia could once again, find itself at war in the Middle East in coming days or weeks. A regional war that could see the primarily Islamic nations of the region pitted against Israel and its allies. A regional war that could see the United States and its allies in direct conflict with Russia. A regional war that could see much of the oil trade through the Middle East cease. A regional war that could see NATO’s largest Army (Turkiye) on the opposite side to other NATO countries. A regional war with the potential to become a global war.


Into this incredibly unstable situation resulting from Israel’s 16 year blockade and occupation of Gaza and Hamas’ subsequent deadly terrorist attacks on Israel, the Australian Government has made the decision to deploy a ‘significant’ but unspecified number of Australian troops and three RAAF aircraft to an unspecified location in the Middle East, ostensibly for the purposes of the evacuation of Australian citizens. As is so often the case in the Orwellian world we live in, it appears that a humanitarian veneer may have been applied to mask the underlying reason for this decision.

......

It is time for our elected representatives, the media and the public to start asking hard questions of the Government as to what Australia is potentially getting itself involved in.

Here is a short list:

Where are these forces deployed? Could they not be deployed to lower risk areas such as southern Europe?


What forces elements are being deployed to the Middle East? Are there any forces over and above that required to conduct evacuation operations? If so, why? What is their purpose?
Where are these forces deployed? Could they not be deployed to lower risk areas such as southern Europe?


Is the withholding of information on ADF deployments a new norm to condition Australians to be kept in the dark in the future?


What is the command-and-control relationship between Australia’s deployed forces and those of other countries, particularly the US, NATO and Israel? Are the Australian forces operating independently, or have they been subsumed into an allied command and control structure?
If the conflict becomes regional, how will Australia respond? Will Australia send further forces? Or will we withdraw? Who will we be fighting against? What is the strategy? What are the objectives? What are the risks?


What happens if ADF personnel become casualties as a result of this deployment? Will that be used as an excuse to increase Australia’s involvement?


Why are Australia’s diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions and end the conflict so, to put it bluntly, pathetic and hypocritical? The claim from the Foreign Minister that it is difficult to ‘judge from afar’ Israel’s actions in Gaza is not credible in light of the evidence nor in the ready judgement she casts on Russia in Ukraine. Australia’s abstaining on the vote at the UN General Assembly on a resolution for an immediate truce highlights once again that our alliances are more important than the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.


How does the rest of the world, outside of the collective West, view Australia? How does our region view Australia? What impact would Australian involvement in another Middle Eastern war have on our relationships in the region?


What role does US domestic politics play in this unfolding crisis? With US elections next year, the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the colossal failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive (and Ukraine all but disappearing from the news cycle), the Biden administration cannot afford another defeat or disaster, yet the present crisis may present an opportunity to target Iran and Syria (again), a long time ambition of the neoconservatives whose original plan was to take out ‘Seven countries in five years.’

Why do we focus on proximate issues rather than root causes, whether that be Hamas’ attacks on Israel rather than the failure to implement a two-state solution, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine rather than NATO expansion? After all it is the root causes that need to be addressed if we actually want to solve conflicts.


Is Australia prepared for oil prices to soar, or even worse an inability to import sufficient oil if a regional war sees the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or the OPEC nations implement embargoes against countries perceived to be anti-Muslim via their support to Israel? The economic pain from any such disruption could make the ‘cost of living’ crisis facing Australia exponentially worse.


And finally, when will the Parliament get a say as to whether Australia involves itself in another overseas armed conflict?"

A price paid in blood: Australia secretly deploys to another Middle East war - Pearls and Irritations

• Santos ordered to stop Barossa pipeline work after Tiwi Traditional Owner wins injunction

A Tiwi Traditional Owner has won his bid for an urgent injunction to prevent Santos beginning work to lay an export pipeline for its Barossa Gas Project

Jikilaruwu man Simon Munkara lodged civil enforcement proceedings on Monday against Santos over its Barossa gas export pipeline.

Mr Munkara asked the court for an urgent injunction to prevent Santos from beginning work to install the pipeline in the short term, as well as a wider injunction which prevents the work going ahead until Santos revises its Environmental Plan, so that the pipeline’s impact and risk to underwater cultural heritage are properly assessed. That Environment Plan would then need to be accepted by NOPSEMA.

Tiwi Traditional Owners have commissioned reports from independent experts, who confirmed that, if installed in the current proposed location, the pipeline would damage Sea Country, dreaming tracks, songlines and areas of cultural significance.

Mr Munkara argues commencing the pipeline work under these circumstances breaches environmental regulations because there is a significant new environmental impact or risk that has not been assessed and accounted for in the Environment Plan.

Today, Justice Charlesworth found that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case and that Mr Munkara had standing to bring the proceedings he brought.

Her honour said she had to weigh the balance of convenience between the “significant financial loss” Santos would suffer as a result of the delay with the “irreparable damage” Mr Munkara could face if the pipeline work began.

The court heard that Santos’ ship had left Darwin Harbour last night and was hours away from beginning work on the pipeline.

Her honour ordered that work on the pipeline cease until 5pm on the 13th November when the matter will return to court.

_________

The Greens back the call from Pacific Elders: https://twitter.com/AdamBandt/status...70197388575156

• Former Pacific Island leaders call for Australia to stop climate ‘contradiction’

Former Pacific leaders have called on the Australian government to stop “contradicting” itself on climate action.

The Australian government is hoping to host COP 29 in 2024, but former Kiribati president Anote Tong said it would be “wrong”, considering the current continued support for new oil and gas projects.

Mr Tong and his fellow Pacific Elders Voice colleague Thomas Remengesau Jr – the former president of Palau – have spent time in Canberra this week meeting with government, opposition, and crossbench MPs and senators.

It follows the official legislation of a 43 per cent minimum emissions reduction by 2030, and net zero by 2050.

The pair have welcomed the call for Australia, on behalf of the Pacific region, to host the international climate conference, but called for them to do better in order to prevent island countries like their own from “completely disappearing” by 2060.

“We are very conscious of the fact that the current government is willing to take a more proactive stance on climate change and wants to be more proactive with respect to the Pacific,” Mr Tong said.

“(But) it would appear to be a contradiction (that Australia wants to host COP 29 while still approving new fossil fuel projects.

“It just doesn’t make sense.

“We support Australia hosting because it would be in our part of the world and we want to be part of it, but to be part of something that’s not doing the right thing is wrong.”

Mr Tong said COP was a forum that “really should be addressing” the progress.

“We cannot morally feel right to ask people to come when we’re not doing enough,” he said.

Mr Tong – who in 2015 lead the call for a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects – said he was still asking world leaders for the same commitment.

“Because according to the UN Secretary General, in order to survive as a species, we need to leave what’s in the ground underground,” he said.

“Climate change is the primary stability issue.”

Independent Senator David Pocock said the ongoing burning of oil and gas was causing significant harm to the Pacific Islands.

“We’re at a point in our history where we have to have a look at our actions going forward,” he said.

“(The Pacific elders) have shown leadership that we’ve been missing here in Australia.”

Australia climate change: Pacific Islands leaders make demand to Albanese

________

• Environment and Communications Legislation Committee - 31/10/2023 - Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023

A key plank of the Murray-Darling Basin plan is based on “dodgy” science, South Australia’s River Murray commissioner, Richard Beasley, said.

Speaking at an inquiry into the federal government’s proposed changes to the plan, Beasley said a “truly independent scientific review” was needed of projects intended to keep 605 gigalitres a year in the system.

“Because it looks - I’ll use a layperson’s term - dodgy, the science, if I can call it science, it’s not actually science,” he said.

Beasley said that, as well, 450GL of the plan was still in doubt, while another 70GL reduction after a review of the northern basin meant that the plan was now about a 2080GL plan instead of a 3200GL plan.

“What I’m just pointing out as a matter of sheer obviousness is that we have a 2080GL basin plan at the moment with no possibility of progressing an extra 450, with a dodgy 605,” he said, in an at times heated hearing.

Professor Jamie Pittock, from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, was also critical of the projects and said they needed to be audited. The targets in the plan “were not based on sound science to begin with”, he said, and that since they were set out in 2012, there was less water in the system because of climate change.

Irrigators blamed the states. NSW Irrigators’ Council chief, Claire Miller, said the states were “dragging their heels” on the projects.

The hearing was on the same day the Productivity Commission released a report calling for the federal government to expand voluntary buybacks.

Miller described buybacks as a “blunt sledgehammer” that would hit communities hard.

South Australian Greens senator and water spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, said the Greens would not “rubber stamp” the amendments as they are,

“The bill must include a guarantee that the water promised for the environment and SA will be delivered on time and not delayed again,” she said.

The inquiry had heard from witnesses “that the bogus and costly irrigation infrastructure projects which have failed to deliver water should be scrapped, and money should instead be used for buybacks”, Hanson-Young said.

In its submission to the inquiry, the National Farmers Federation said buybacks were not needed and would impact on regions and communities:

Less water available for consumptive use means less agricultural production. Less production increases pressure on food and fibre prices. Less production impacts on and off farm jobs. Less production erodes economic activity in regional towns and undermines the socio-economic resilience of communities.

_________

• Murray-Darling Basin plan: government should expand voluntary buybacks, Productivity Commission finds

The federal government should step up efforts to recover water in the Murray-Darling Basin, including expanding voluntary buybacks and doing more to hold state governments to account, the Productivity Commission has said in a major report.

Originally agreed in 2012, the plan aimed to recover 2,750 gigalitres a year with an additional 450 GL/y from efficiency measures. But it won’t “be implemented on time or on budget”, with delays inflating costs even as the climate crisis adds to challenges, the commission’s interim review of the plan’s implementation has found.

The review was also critical of previous Coalition governments. The decision to switch from open tenders to “limited” ones was “a slower way to recover large volumes of water”, with “weak transparency” for amounts paid between 2016 and 2019.

“This report confirms what we already knew, that after a decade of sabotage under the Liberals and Nationals, the Murray-Darling basin plan is off track,” said the water minister, Tanya Plibersek. “More than 80% of the water recovered under the plan so far has been under federal Labor governments.”

Plibersek’s office separately released the results of a buyback scheme to recover 44.3 GL across six catchments in New South Wales and Queensland. The tender attracted about 250 responses to sell about twice as much water as offered.

“This is a fantastic signal to governments and communities that voluntary water purchase is a necessary and feasible tool to help meet the targets of the Murray-Darling basin plan,” Plibersek said.

In September the Albanese government introduced legislation to postpone the full implementation of the plan from June 2024 to the end of 2026. The move had the support of the NSW, Queensland, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory but not Victoria.

The urgency of diverting water use to ensure the environmental health of the basin’s rivers, lakes and wetlands will probably intensify as drought conditions spread across the food bowl region.

______

• ‘Serious concerns’ over Australia’s soil carbon scheme

Scientists say Australia’s soil carbon targets are flawed and farmers could face a big bill, with the nation’s emissions reductions being overestimated.

Under the offset scheme, producers receive credits for storing carbon in the soil that companies or the federal government can then buy from them.

But there is a growing chorus of discontent among experts over how credits are awarded and the research behind the idea.

In a paper published in the October edition of the Journal of Environmental Management, 18 scientists examined the impact of grazing management on soil carbon across 30 projects.

The group, from the NSW Department of Primary Industries and several Australian universities, concluded changing practices can bring benefits but more science is needed to prove carbon capture.

“There is a lack of evidence in Australia that grazing management directly increases soil carbon,” they found.

While technology may improve the outcomes for storing carbon in the soil, it’s “unlikely to be a cornerstone strategy for the Australian Livestock Industry to mitigate livestock emissions”.

Paper co-author David Rowlings from the centre for agriculture at Queensland University of Technology goes further.

“My biggest fear is that these farmers will get down the track and have to pay it back,” he says.

“Carbon developers are focused on the short term and there is a big risk that over the 25 years, the results will go backwards and leave the farmer with a bill.

“It’s meaningless trying to project over five years.”

Based on results from an independent project in Southern Queensland, Professor Rowlings says some soil carbon projects are overblown by as much as 10 times, which risks the accuracy of Australia’s greenhouse gas inventory.

“A lot of major fossil fuel developments are only going to proceed on the assumption of offsets being provided,” he argues.

“If the project lost carbon after 25 years, even if the farmer pays the money back, the project will have still not offset any of the emissions.”

Professor Rowlings told AAP the current system is unable to work out what carbon is captured as a result of seasonal variation verses what is management driven, and lacks independent scrutiny of the data.

“The methodology is an accounting methodology,” he says.

“It’s not a methodology that actually understands how, from a scientific point of view, we build and store carbon for the long term.”

He’s among a number of leading soil scientists who have raised “serious concerns” about the scheme, which is run by the Clean Energy Regulator.

More in the link

__________

• Mixed response to consultation on new laws for nature

There's no sign yet that Australia's new environment laws will account for the threat climate change poses to nature, a conservation group says.

The federal government has starting consulting stakeholders on its once-in-a-generation rewrite of laws to protect the environment.

The work is supposed to fix fatal flaws in the existing Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act after a scathing review found it was incapable of producing good outcomes.

The first round of consultations - limited to about 30 stakeholder groups - began in Canberra on Monday.

The Australian Conservation Foundation was among those presented with an outline of the assessment and approval system for new projects.

The group has offered a mixed view of what's on the table so far, particularly in relation to climate change.

National biodiversity policy adviser Brendan Sydes says the government has accepted the Samuel review's recommendations that project applicants disclose their scope one and two emissions.

But so far there's nothing to suggest anything will be done with that information.

"The assumption is ... fairly safely, that there's no intention to take that information into account ... That is a serious shortcoming," Mr Sydes said.

"We need to be thinking about how the current silence of the EPBC Act, when it comes to climate impacts, is actually addressed."

He said the new laws would for the first time define unacceptable impacts for the environment.

The new, independent environment protection authority won't be able to approve those projects, but the minister still can.

"Unhelpfully ... though, we've got a phenomenon where the minister will still have this call-in power and potentially quite broad discretion available to her in terms of what she approves, including being able to permit what would otherwise be unacceptable impacts."

AAP contacted other stakeholder groups for comment. The Business Council of Australia and Minerals Council of Australia declined to share any early views.

The government is planning a staged approach to consultation on the new laws.

Stakeholder groups will get a series of opportunities to comment on the reforms, which will be released in tranches. But they are not being given copies.

The government says the material is not ready for broad release, and the groups invited to view material in person are providing "early soundings".

The general public won't get to see the proposed laws until they are tabled in parliament early next year.

Part 1 of 2

• Pacific Islands Forum: Australia under pressure to rein in fossil fuel subsidies | Pacific Islands Forum

Australia is facing fresh pressure to rein in fossil fuel subsidies, with new figures showing just a fraction of that spending could fully fund the shift to clean energy in eight Pacific island countries.

The climate crisis is one of the biggest issues on the agenda at the Pacific Islands Forum’s top political gathering this week, with Vanuatu demanding “radical” action to end the world’s fossil fuel addiction.

The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, arrived in the Cook Islands on Tuesday local time (Wednesday Australian time) and acknowledged the climate crisis was “certainly felt most acutely in island states”.

In a report published to coincide with the talks, campaigners highlight how Pacific island countries are on the frontline of the climate crisis despite being responsible for just 0.23% of annual global emissions.

By contrast, the world’s 15 largest-emitting nations – led by China, the US and India with Australia in 15th place – are collectively responsible for 71.88% of annual emissions.

The report was commissioned by the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, a group that is campaigning to end new development of fossil fuels and phase out existing production.

Island countries are still heavily dependent on imports of diesel fuel for use in generators, says the report titled Ki Mua: Towards a Just Transition for the Pacific.

It suggests that a mix of utility-scale and decentralised renewables, dominated by solar PV and wind installations, would provide the region with “significant opportunities”.

These gains would include reducing pollution and improving public health while ending reliance on fossil fuel imports. It suggests developed countries like Australia have a responsibility to help.

“In the past year, Australia has handed out $US7bn ($AU11 bn) to the fossil fuel industry,” said Auimatagi Joe Moeono-Kolio, an adviser to the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.

“That’s seven times the amount of money it would take to fund a renewable energy transition for eight Pacific countries.”

The report estimates that across eight Pacific island countries analysed, the upfront cost of replacing all existing fossil fuel electricity generation “ranges from $US691m to just over $US1bn, depending on the specific technology mix”.

_________

• Australia-Tuvalu agreement: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signs historic climate change deal allowing citizens of Tuvalu to move to Australia

Prime minister signs historic climate change deal allowing citizens of Tuvalu to move to Australia

All citizens of the Pacific nation of Tuvalu will be able to apply for a new visa to move to Australia and flee the catastrophic impacts of climate change under a historic deal signed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese today.

Tuvalu, an atoll home to slightly more than 11,000 people, is one of the lowest-lying countries on the planet, and as such one of the nations at most risk from rising sea levels due to climate change.

The country's prime minister Kausea Natano said the deal would allow Tuvaluans to "work, study and live" in Australia.

"The government of Tuvalu initiated and submitted a request to the government of Australia for a more elevated bilateral partnership," he said.

"This means that we would enter a treaty that guides us to respect each other's sovereignty, commit us to safeguard and support each other as we face the existence or threat of climate change and geostrategic challenges, to commit Australia to establish a special visa arrangement to allow people from Tuvalu to work, study and live in Australia."

Under the agreement, a new special visa category will be set up for Tuvaluans, with up to 280 issued each year.

_________

• Australia’s 2024-25 budget to focus on supporting green energy industries, Chalmers flags

The next federal budget will back green energy winners to help the renewable energy transition, Jim Chalmers has flagged.

The treasurer told ABC’s Insiders on Sunday that Australia’s energy transformation is “absolutely central” to the Albanese government’s goals and will be a focus of the 2024-25 federal budget.

So far, the federal government has committed $40bn in its efforts to achieve its promised national emissions reduction target of 43% by 2030 with an 82% share of renewables in the energy grid.

But Chalmers acknowledged in a speech on Thursday that Australia was behind on its pathway to its Paris agreement target of net zero emissions by 2050.

On Sunday the treasurer identified four key industries – critical minerals, battery manufacturing, renewable hydrogen and ammonia, and green metals – as key factors in getting the country back on track.

“What we need to do is not just to attract and commit more private and more public capital, but we need to be able to absorb and deploy that investment in the most efficient and effective way,” Chalmers said.

“And so some of the things that we need to consider as we work towards the next budget, is to make sure we get the skills base, the technological base, the relationship with the states right as well.”

The commitment to further boost Australia’s green energy revolution follows US president, Joe Biden’s introduction of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.

The $US369bn is expected to significantly ramp up the take-up of zero-carbon technologies in the US, and drive up competition in the global race to become renewable superpowers.

Chalmers on Thursday said he was not seeking to introduce an Inflation Reduction Act-“lite”, but something “uniquely Australian”.

“We need a set of prescriptions right for this transformation and right for this country,” he said.

“We will complement, not copy, the priorities and plans of other nations, not just do exactly the same kind of investment with the exact same subsidies.”

The treasurer’s appearance on Sunday comes ahead of Tuesday’s interest rates decision from the Reserve Bank.

_______

• Germany's Climate Envoy Calls for Australia's Action Pre-COP28

In a significant development ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference COP28, Jennifer Morgan, Germany’s special envoy for International Climate Action, has stressed the necessity for Australia to join Germany and the European Union in the drive to phase out fossil fuels. This call to action underscores the urgency of aggressive emissions reduction, with the ambitious but crucial goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius still in our crosshairs.

Morgan Calls for Australia’s Active Participation

Morgan emphasized that as one of the world’s leading exporters of coal and liquefied natural gas, Australia carries a hefty responsibility to take more assertive action on phasing out fossil fuels. This is particularly pertinent in light of Australia’s aspirations to host COP31 in 2026. In her interview with @FergusonNews, she underscored Australia’s abundant solar energy resources and the critical minerals necessary for the energy transition, urging the country to capitalize on these opportunities.

Arguments Against LNG and Nuclear Power

Countering arguments from Australian LNG exports that more gas is required to aid Asia’s transition away from coal, Morgan firmly stated that gas is not a bridge fuel. She advocated for countries with significant fossil fuel exports to diversify their economies. In terms of emissions reduction in the electricity sector, she advised Australia to concentrate its efforts on renewable energy sources, suggesting safe, affordable, and deployable technologies over nuclear power.

Germany’s Commitment and Australia’s Potential Role

Morgan highlighted Germany’s pledge to produce exclusively carbon-free cars post-2035 and encouraged Australia to incorporate similar plans within its domestic agenda. She articulated doubts regarding the significant contribution of carbon capture and storage to emissions reductions by 2030. Wrapping up her interview, Morgan underscored the necessity for accelerated action to tackle the climate crisis and underscored Australia’s potential leadership role in climate finance.

Part 2 of 2

• Cash to help WA firms charge ahead with EVs

Thousands more electric vehicle chargers could be rolled out across Western Australia as part of a $12.5 million project to encourage their use in the workplace.

Western Australia Energy Minister Bill Johnston announced the latest round of Charge Up Workplace Grants after awarding $2.4 million to install 403 electric car chargers earlier this year.

The announcement comes after the state opened another three charging stations in its 7000km EV Network and after Western Australian motorists purchased a record number of electric cars in the year to October.

Mr Johnston said the latest round of electric vehicle infrastructure funding would be open to not-for-profit organisations, small and medium businesses, as well as local councils.

Successful applicants would receive up to half the cost of installing an electric car charger at their workplace, with the cash to support AC or faster DC charging.

"The program encourages daytime charging, enabling EV owners to utilise abundant solar energy during sunny hours, which also assists in stabilising our electricity grid," Mr Johnston said.

The first round of grants helped fund 403 chargers in 221 locations around Perth, and from Karratha in the Pilbara region to Albany in the south.

Mr Johnston said many of the chargers would support local tourism, small businesses and community service organisations in regional areas.

Applications are open until May 3 next year.

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries welcomed the funding, with charging projects "critical to a low-emissions technology future".

The latest funding also comes after the public vehicle charging network in WA grew, with the state government launching its first charging station at Esperance last Thursday, in addition to new chargers opened by Synergy at Merredin and Southern Cross.

Charging stations have so far opened in 18 locations along the planned EV Network, designed to feature 98 charging stations in 49 locations, covering a 7000km stretch of road.

The network is expected to be complete in 2024.

Sales figures from the FCAI last week revealed electric vehicles accounted for 6.4 per cent of new vehicle sales in Western Australia so far this year, with demand more than tripling from 1845 vehicles in 2022 to 6590 in 2023.

Across the nation, motorists have purchased 71,800 electric vehicles this year compared to 23,869 last year.

________

• SunCable Manufacturing names Tasmania as preferred site for advanced cable manufacturing facility

Bell Bay, Tasmania has been named as SunCable’s preferred site to build an advanced high-voltage subsea cable manufacturing facility. Should it proceed in Tasmania, it would also be a critical enabler of SunCable’s flagship AAPowerLink project.

The construction of a purpose-built facility will help solve global supply constraints of HVDC subsea cable. Currently, all advanced HVDC subsea cable facilities are located in the Northern Hemisphere.

The proposed facility will support a globally significant renewable energy supply chain ecosystem in Australia and drive domestic demand for critical minerals and processing industries.

The potential site, at Bell Bay, has been identified due to its unique advantages including its size and proximity to one of the country’s few natural deep-water ports, rail infrastructure and renewable energy infrastructure.

The proposed facility will include:

• large integrated workshop buildings for the cable manufacture, storage, testing and supporting offices;
• customised port facilities for the transport of finished product loaded on specialised cable laying vessels; and
• a tower for the critical vertical manufacturing processes required to ensure the production of the highest quality advanced subsea cables.

The future-facing facility would include a state-of-the-art advanced cable manufacturing process and require many current trades and skills as well as new capabilities unique to the advanced high-voltage cable-making industry. The facility will typically use around 25-40MW of renewable energy to enable the cable making.

SunCable Chief Projects Officer, Chris Tyrrell, said the use of high voltage subsea cables over long distances has a critical role to play in the global energy transition and solving for the transmission of green electrons within and between countries.

“Australia has an abundance of sunshine and wind. HVDC cable enables the export of this natural resource to the world, establishing Australia as a renewable energy superpower as well as an advanced manufacturing hub for critical supply chains,” Mr Tyrrell said.

“SunCable will soon commence consultation with local communities and stakeholders. We welcome further input and feedback before proceeding with a final decision and subsequent development applications.”

Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, welcomed the news that Tasmania was the preferred site for the new SunCable Manufacturing facility.

“The proposed facility has the potential to significantly boost the region’s economic prospects. A project of this size could create over 800 construction jobs, and over 400 long-term advanced manufacturing roles across a diverse range of trades, skills and capabilities.

“This is an extraordinary opportunity for the northern region and confirms that Tasmania has what the world wants.

“Our Government’s long-term plan supports major developments and investments in Tasmania as we continue to create jobs, boost the economy and make Tasmania the best place to work, live and raise a family.

Deputy Premier and local Member for Bass, Michael Ferguson, said the positive economic impact of the project would be felt in the region for generations to come.

“SunCable’s manufacturing facility would inject billions into the Tasmanian economy and I’m sure numerous Tasmanian businesses will see the flow on benefits of having such a project in our State.

“This project would provide exciting careers for Tasmanian generations to come, particularly in the Tamar region.

“It is a huge vote of confidence in the Tasmanian economy, and our Government welcomes the role the private sector plays in Tasmania.”

SunCable will work in partnership with the Tasmanian Government to identify and develop the required workforce, as well as training and development programs that will enable the renewable energy transition.

SunCable will also work with George Town, West Tamar and Launceston Local Government Areas to progress plans for the site.

If SunCable proceeds with the Bell Bay site, construction is scheduled to commence in 2025 and first manufactured cable in 2029.

________

• Businesses still in the slow lane for electric vehicles

Almost one in three businesses have yet to add an electric vehicle to their fleet and more than half say they will not replace all vehicles with the low-emission technology until after 2030, according to a new study.

But regulatory changes could speed up electric vehicle adoption in Australia, according to Accenture, as could encouraging businesses to take a "wider view" of cost savings unlocked by the technology.

The findings come after sales of new electric vehicles dipped in Australia during October but also during a year of significant growth for the industry.

The consulting firm released its Lead the Charge report after surveying 450 senior fleet managers and decision-makers about electric vehicle adoption.

Accenture Australia client group lead Glenn Heppell said despite skyrocketing sales worldwide, many companies were still taking a cautious approach to electric vehicles.

"This transition is really complex and most organisations are still in the early stages of electrification," he said.

"Our analysis shows there's still a lot of senior management who don't see this as a number one priority."

The report found 30 per cent of companies had yet to add an electric vehicle to their operations, 54 per cent did not expect to transition to a fully electric fleet until after 2030, and 21 per cent expected to make transition after 2035.

In the Asia Pacific, just 35 per cent of decision-makers expected to adopt a fully electric fleet before 2030 and fewer businesses had started the journey.

Mr Heppell said meeting government regulations was still the biggest motivation for businesses to adopt electric vehicles, followed by gaining a competitive advantage, and cutting carbon emissions.

The report found companies could benefit from taking "a wider view of costs and benefits" related to electric vehicles, including savings that could be made in power, maintenance and overall costs.

Mr Heppell said the findings indicated more ambitious regulatory targets like those in Europe and the US could also have a significant impact on vehicle adoption and emission cuts.

"It's that classic early adopter challenge around high upfront business costs and an unclear business case," he said.

"In a challenging economic environment, the return on investment becomes even more important."

Concerns around private and public vehicle-charging infrastructure were also identified as hurdles in the Accenture report, in addition to managing electric and petrol vehicles simultaneously.

Despite speed bumps to their adoption in fleets, electric cars have set sales records in Australia during 2023, with more than 71,000 new vehicles sold - an increase of more than 200 per cent.

Electric car sales fell in October to represent 5.7 per cent of all new vehicle sales, however, down from a high of eight per cent in April.

___________

• Sea dumping legislation won't pass Senate this week

It's been put up four times, three times today, and the Senate has made its view very well known – it's a no.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...7140%2F0048%22

________

• DUD SEA DUMPING BILL SHOULD BE DUMPED

ACT Independent Senator David Pocock is calling on the Albanese Government to abandon legislation enabling the sequestration of carbon dioxide in the seabed that has been universally condemned by scientific experts and environmental advocates.

The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is currently scheduled to come before the Senate on Monday.

Senator Pocock said he was concerned the government would seek to push the bill through the upper house with the support of the Coalition.

“Australians sent a strong message at the last election that they want to see the Australian Government do a lot better when it comes to climate action and protecting Nature,” Senator Pocock said.

“Sadly it seems that message wasn’t heard and the Albanese Government is continuing some of the approaches that failed us so badly over the past decade.

“It is an absolute indictment on Labor if - faced with a Senate crossbench that is urging them to do better on climate and environment - they choose instead to rely on the Coalition to get their environmental legislation through.

“It also raises serious concerns about how they plan to pursue critical reforms of our national environmental laws.

“The upper and lower house crossbenchers and the Australian Greens have all put their concerns on the record.

“This bill is nothing more than greenwashing for gas companies with potentially catastrophic impacts on our marine environment, sealife and climate.

“It will enable the expansion of oil and gas projects that the IPCC and every credible expert says we can’t afford.

“I urge Labor to have the courage to do the right thing by current and future generations and not put through legislation that will hurt our collective future.”

Part 2 of 2

Climate blockade of Newcastle port continues

__________

• Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue pulls trigger on $1.14b in green energy projects

Fortescue will proceed with its first three projects under the iron ore group’s ambitious plans to become a major force in hydrogen and renewable energy, giving a green light to $US750 million ($1.14 billion) in investments.

The board was dealt a first strike on executive pay at its annual meeting in Perth on Tuesday.

The company, chaired by billionaire businessman Andrew Forrest, unveiled the final investment decisions ahead of the meeting. The highest expenditure, $US550 million, is on the Phoenix Hydrogen Hub in the United States where Fortescue has plans for an 80 megawatt electrolyser and liquefaction plant with production capacity of up to 11,000 tonnes per annum of liquid green hydrogen.

Andrew Forrest, the chairman of Fortescue, has big plans to turn the company into an energy giant. Bloomberg

Fortescue also ticked off on a $US150 million, 50 megawatt green hydrogen project utilising Fortescue’s own electrolyser technology at Gladstone in Queensland, and developing a green iron trial plant at its Christmas Creek iron ore mine in Western Australia with a price tag of $US50 million.

The company said other projects in the pipeline were in Brazil, Kenya and Norway. But it has set aside $US750 million to spend on the three board-sanctioned projects, announced on Tuesday, over the next three years.

The future of the Gibson Island green hydrogen and ammonia project in Queensland that was heavily touted by Fortescue remains unclear. Fortescue said Gibson Island required more work “as Australia struggles to shed its petro-state status and still suffers structurally high green electricity costs”.

The first stage of the Gladstone project comprises installation of a 30 megawatt electrolyser plant, with the remaining 20 megawatt capacity to be installed and commissioned in 2028 depending on the availability of water.

Fortescue said the 50 megawatt Gladstone project would have capacity of up to 22 tonnes per day or 8000 of green hydrogen and be developed using the company’s own proton exchange membrane technology. The plant will be built next to Fortescue’s existing Gladstone electrolyser manufacturing facility with construction expected to start in 2024.

Fortescue said renewable energy supplied from Australia’s National Energy Market would feed the Gladstone plant via a transmission line newly installed by Powerlink Queensland. “It is anticipated that power will initially be purchased from the spot market, and flexible operations will be employed to manage pricing,” the company told investors.

Fortescue is hoping to produce 1500 tonnes a year at the green iron pilot plant at Christmas Creek in the Pilbara, where it already has some green hydrogen infrastructure.

_________

• NSW announces contracts for six batteries to supply 1GW by 2025

Six batteries which could supply power to 430,000 households will be in operation by the end of 2025, as NSW battles warnings of energy shortfalls in its transition away from coal-fired power.

On Wednesday, the state and federal governments announced six batteries which will be able to store 1.075GW of renewable energy, or around eight per cent of the total amount needed during NSW’s peak demand periods in summer.

The $1.8bn project will be funded through the Commonwealth’s Capacity Investment Scheme, and is estimated to create about 400 jobs.

Contracts have been awarded to Akaysha Energy’s Orana Renewable Energy Zone battery in NSW’s central west, AGL Energy’s Liddell battery in Muswellbrook, Iberdrola Australia’s Smithfield Sydney battery, and three virtual power plants through Enel X Australia.

NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe said although the government would have to contend with a “reliability gap,” having the six projects in operation would help reduce the potential shortfalls as coal-fired power plants were retired from the grid.

“This program helps us with the most important challenges in the transition and that’s dealing with reliability as coal-fired power exits the system,” she said.

“Getting more renewables in batteries gives us the storage that allows us when we’re in peak demand to be able to get more energy into the grid.

“They also help us that when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, they are able to keep that level amount of energy going to households.”

_______

• Victoria warned against ‘very inefficient’ hydrogen buses after trial announced

Australia’s push towards hydrogen-powered buses could lead to governments repeating costly and energy-intensive trials that have failed around the globe, an expert has warned.

The Victorian government last week announced two Australian-made hydrogen buses will be rolled out in Melbourne’s west as part of a transition to a more sustainable transport fleet.

They will be part of a trial of 52 zero-emission buses, of which 50 are electric. The Victorian announcement came as jurisdictions across Australia were trialling hydrogen-powered buses, amid a focus on electric vehicles, as they transition to emission-free transport.

But Guardian Australia understands the buses will run on grey hydrogen, produced using natural gas.

Currently about 96% of the world’s hydrogen is produced using coal (brown hydrogen) and gas (grey). The production of grey and brown hydrogen releases carbon dioxide and unburnt fugitive methane into the atmosphere.

David Cebon, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Cambridge, said hydrogen buses were expensive, inefficient to run compared to electric vehicles and not a “true zero-emissions solution”.

“It’s destructive from the point of view of emissions. It’s destructive from the point of view of the energy transition,” he said. “It’s destructive in terms of finances and the economy because you have to subsidise them in order to make them financially viable.”

Cebon, a member of the hydrogen science coalition, said hydrogen was inefficient because of the energy-intensive process.

“It’s very, very inefficient. And that means that you use a lot more energy in that process than if you just took electricity and you put it in a battery and then just ran a battery electric bus,” Cebon said.

Victoria’s hydrogen buses will service routes across Footscray, Williamstown, Moonee Ponds and Sunshine in Melbourne’s west. The government said the trial, involving six operators, would provide information on how no-emission buses perform, including energy usage.

The government said the hydrogen fuel cell buses were estimated to save about 90 tonnes of emissions annually, as they only emitted water vapour at their tailpipe.

Prof Scott Hamilton, from Monash university’s department of chemical and biological engineering, said buses should use green hydrogen, which needs to be independently certified.

“If it’s not, the emissions profile can end up worse than if you were using petrol or other fuels because of the use of fossil fuels and electricity,” he said.

_______

• Queensland’s wet tropics see 25% rise in threatened species in three years as climate change bites

The number of listed threatened species in Australia’s world heritage northern rainforests has increased by 25% since 2020, as ecologists say they are now clearly observing the long-predicted impacts of global heating.

The management and conservation authority for the Unesco-listed Queensland wet tropics this week handed its latest environmental report to the state government, containing “sombre but pragmatic” warnings about the declining health of some species, including the ringtail possum, that were believed robust when the area was given international protection in 1988.

“The insidious and damaging threat posed by invasive species and diseases, and the impacts of climate change, present real danger to the continuing integrity of the area’s biodiversity,” the report says.

It found a number of additional species – including endemic rainforest frogs, ringtail possums, high-altitude birds and myrtle plants – that were considered secure at the time of world heritage listing, “now face significant challenges from accumulated and compounding threats”.

Stephen Williams, a rainforest ecologist and a director of the Wet Tropics Management Authority, says his analysis showed there had been a 25% increase to the number of listed threatened vertebrate species in the area in the past three years.

Williams said previously predicted declines in some species were now being observed first-hand.

“It’s primarily climate … it’s almost entirely climate,” Williams said.

_________

Extra

• Ove Hoegh-Guldberg was just 10 years old when he first saw the Great Barrier Reef. That year, 1969, most young kids around the world were getting their inspiration from Nasa’s mission to put an astronaut on the moon. But for Hoegh-Guldberg, the fine grey dust of the lunar surface had nothing on the other world below the gentle Queensland waves.

He remembers the copperband butterfly fish and its fringing iridescent colours whose beauty “defied logic”, as well as the “incredible” epaulette shark that uses its fins to walk on the sea bed.

These days, however, diving on reefs comes with the burden of knowledge that Hoegh-Guldberg’s 10-year-old self didn’t have.

“Maybe my depression is because ... I’m feeling a sense of failure,” he tells Guardian Australia in his home city of Brisbane.

The pioneering coral scientist is looking at 2023’s record-breaking temperatures in the ocean around the globe and is taking it personally.

In what is becoming an all-too-regular event, coral reefs like those he has spent a lifetime researching are turning white in the northern hemisphere. He’s nervous about what the coming summer might bring for the Great Barrier Reef.

“It’s 40 years of trying to get the science in place to solve the problems,” he says. “And with sea temperatures literally going off the rails, it really starts to look like we haven’t done it.”

For any objective onlooker, Hoegh-Guldberg’s career has been anything but a failure.

A pioneer of the scientific understanding of coral bleaching, the University of Queensland professor has written more than 400 scientific papers. His work has helped shape the world’s understanding of the risks the ocean’s richest ecosystems – home to a quarter of all marine species – face from global heating.

Hoegh-Guldberg was starting his PhD in California in the early 1980s when reports were starting to emerge of coral reefs turning white across wide areas.

Was it a disease? Was it pollution? Was it caused by excess sunlight? Were corals reacting to a change in the saltiness of water? “Everyone was sort of speculating, but no one had done the experiment,” he says.

In a series of what he calls “cooking experiments”, Hoegh-Guldberg took coral fragments and subjected them to different conditions in the lab.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup
What he and his colleagues found was that corals had a temperature threshold. Once those temperatures are breached, the corals start to expel the tiny algae that live inside them and give corals their colour and much of their nutrients.


He first saw a major bleaching event for himself in 1994 in Tahiti. The reef was so bright, he could see the bleaching from the boat before he got in the water. Hoegh-Guldberg says locals told him they had no term in Polynesia to describe what was happening.

Branded an alarmist

More in the link: https://www.theguardian.com/australi...eating-warming