Australia urged to adopt 75% emissions reduction target by 2035 if it is to reach net zero

[jserraglio]

THE GUARDIAN

Australia urged to adopt 75% emissions reduction target by 2035 if it is to reach net zero

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... h-net-zero

The Investor Group on Climate Change report warns ongoing delay on ambitious climate action will lead to a ‘disorderly and more costly transition to net zero emissions’.

Australia needs an ambitious 75% emissions reduction target by 2035, a clear price on carbon, and to remove all fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 in order to unlock the investment needed to reach net zero by 2050, according to a new report.

The Investor Group on Climate Change has released its policy priorities report for 2022-2025, outlining key areas for reform that would align Australia’s emissions target to the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5C and ensure the country was able to manage an “orderly” retreat from coal.

Arguing that there are billions of dollars in capital that could be unlocked for the transition to renewables by government policy settings, the report also warns that ongoing delay on ambitious climate action will lead to a “disorderly and more costly transition to net zero emissions”.

The Investor Group on Climate Change represents investors in Australia and New Zealand who are focused on the effect of the climate crisis on the financial value of investments.
Among its members are institutional investors with funds under management worth more than $3tn.

The report calls on the government to align policy with the government’s commitment under the Paris agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C, calling for a beefing up of the safeguard mechanism, an “emissions reduction incentive” across the electricity market, and targeted policies to build demand for near-zero emission technology.

Describing Australia’s 2035 target as “very important to investors”, the report advocates a nationally determined contribution of a 75% emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2035, a dramatic increase to the 43% target set by the Albanese government for 2030.

The report says the government must ensure its revamp of the safeguard mechanism – which acts as an effective carbon price – does not shield industries that will decline in a net zero economy, such as coal and gas.

“Clear and transparent carbon pricing sends market signals, accurately prices the cost and impact of emissions, and incentivises behavioural change and investment flows into lower and zero emissions solutions,” the report says.

“The more carbon is explicitly priced, the more investment will flow to new zero emissions technologies.”

The IGCC chief executive, Rebecca Mikula Wright, said the report underlined the fact that institutional investors had the capital to finance a clean energy economy.

“Many governments, businesses and investors have already committed to achieving net zero emissions,” she said. “The biggest barrier to reaching these goals remains lack of stable policy that supports investment in zero carbon technologies, goods, and services.”

Investors are also calling for a mandatory climate risk disclosure regime consistent with international best practice which would require corporate reporting of emissions, including scope three emissions, phased in by 2025 and capturing ASX 300-listed companies, large financial institutions and companies with annual revenues of at least $100m.

The report also recommends that Australia commit to phasing out all fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, which the Australia Institute estimates total $11.6bn a year, in order to “even the playing field for new and emerging zero and low emissions technologies”.

In order to manage climate adaptation and resilience, the report also recommends a standing advisory group be formed with government and the private sector to develop opportunities to co-fund resilience and adaptation investment.

The IGCC is also backing in the need for national and regional transition authorities to support a “just and orderly transition” which would advise government and develop frameworks for regionally specific just transition plans.

These would be particularly important for key fossil fuel production regions such as the Upper Hunter, Latrobe Valley and Bowen Basin given their immediate exposure to transition risks, with planning for the transition needed immediately.

[Holden Fourth]

The one issue which is virtually never addressed in this ongoing debate on 'climate change' is the effectiveness of renewables, the cost of producing them and the cost to the planet of retiring them.


I have struggled to find an online, university peer reviewed research project on the cost of producing and running a wind turbine - which might suggest that this hasn't been done. Many sites quote a figure of between 1 and 1.3 million dollars but I have no way of validating that.

The other thing I cannot find is the total amount of renewable energy resources (wind farms, solar panels, etc) needed to meet all of Australia's energy needs. The sheer amount needed might shock and surprise yet governments, bullied and harrassed by both the media and 'interest groups', commit to something that they have done no planning for and don't even know if it's feasible.

This might give pause for thought

https://www.unisa.edu.au/media-centre/R ... ne-blades/

[Belle]

I don't think it will give pause for thought to hardened ideologues. It's their religion and religion is not dependant upon facts.

We are currently on a trajectory to reduce 43% of 1.3%. Wow. That's significant; it represents a fortnight's carbon emissions from China!! So dumb that it takes your breath away. The renewables investment cohort is running this debate; if it were housing development the Left would be screeching like a stuck pig. Hypocrisy. Again.

[jserraglio]

We are currently on a trajectory to reduce 43% of 1.3%.

It has become axiomatic, dear Belle, that if you repeat a lie often enough it takes on the aura of truth. Well, congratulations, your repetitions of this lie no longer inspire confidence in anybody who looks at the raw materials Australia exports.
_____________________
“The smear campaign against critical race theory is almost certainly the start of an attempt to subject education in general to rule by the right-wing thought police.” (Dr. Paul Krugman)
"Alternative facts aren't facts, they are falsehoods.” (Chuck Todd, NBC News)
“If you believe that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you denounced as a communist 75 years ago, a socialist 50 years ago, and a Lefty radical today.” (Die Entführung aus dem Serail)

[jserraglio]

The one issue which is virtually never addressed in this ongoing debate on 'climate change' is the effectiveness of renewables, the cost of producing them and the cost to the planet of retiring them.

I have struggled to find an online, university peer reviewed research project on the cost of producing and running a wind turbine - which might suggest that this hasn't been done. Many sites quote a figure of between 1 and 1.3 million dollars but I have no way of validating that.

The other thing I cannot find is the total amount of renewable energy resources (wind farms, solar panels, etc) needed to meet all of Australia's energy needs. The sheer amount needed might shock and surprise yet governments, bullied and harrassed by both the media and 'interest groups', commit to something that they have done no planning for and don't even know if it's feasible.

This might give pause for thought

https://www.unisa.edu.au/media-centre/R ... ne-blades/

Yes, of course there is a significant cost to producing renewables. That is no argument, in and of itself, against pursuing alternative energy technologies.

And it is hardly a revelation to argue that such machines have a limited useful life span and must be disposed of thereafter. So do the byproducts of non-renewable resources, as well as their extractive, transportive and storage machinery. Can you name one thing that lasts forever and doesn't have significant costs associated with its retirement? After all, last time I checked, we were still living in the material world.

No, the real issue to ponder is what benefits accrue from spending a lot of money on renewable energy. And to me the benefits appear so obvious, I do not have to wait for academics to detail them in their very expensive-to-produce, prohibitively costly-to-buy, peer-reviewed journals with their all-too-brief useful life spans.

Here is an example.

Lincoln Electric, the premier manufacturer of welding equipment and supplies in the world ever since the Great Depression, and the largest employer in Euclid, Ohio, the decidedly working-class town I grew up in, installed in 2011 a very, very expensive wind turbine some 450 feet tall, German-made, the largest such urban-based wind tower in North America. And the cost? Not the measly $1 million to $1.3 million you saw quoted for other turbines, but $5.9 million, the total cost in 2011 dollars from private and public sources! I doubt these ADMIRABLE ECHT CAPITALISTS, folks more attuned to acting than estimating the height or depth of their belly buttons, waited upon a peer-reviewed study from The Ohio State University before doing so.

Enough for Lincoln that building this tower promised to cut their energy costs significantly, not to mention the fact that this massive structure also held the promise of becoming emblematic of the company itself. I am quite sure Lincoln felt that as a PR vehicle alone, it would be well worth the expense, a helluva lot less costly in fact than financing an iconic company HQ in Manhattan or Chicago. In fact, where in the world could Lincoln build a headquarters for the $4.55 million it had to pay out of its own pocket for that wind turbine? Instead, Lincoln's modest offices adjoin its factory complex in Euclid and are low rise. Its white-collar workers have been known to transfer to the factory floor and do piecework so they can make real money.

But in fact the Lincoln Electric wind turbine, besides inspiring the tens of thousands who see it every day from I-90, has knocked 10% off the company's electric bill every month.

Now this tower does not supply ALL of the company’s energy, as you stipulated for Australia’s renewable industry, although if that could be done with 9 more turbines situated offshore at let’s say $10 million dollars apiece, it would seem dirt cheap given the benefit.

Setting that aside for now, welding and welding supplies, I am sure you know, require a veritable shitload of electricity. And paying a mere pittance to secure even 10% of that using technology already more than a decade old ain’t (as they say) peanuts.

A thing of beauty. Majestic, simple and elegant. And noiseless: I have stood in silent wonderment in the footprint of this Mobile of the Material World.

Free advertising plus 2.5 megawatts per diem of free electricity.

Who says capitalism at its best can't produce something at once artistic, inventive and visionary?

[Holden Fourth]

I value the points you make and agree that renewable energy is a great idea, it's the efficiency of current renewables that concerns me.


The stated problem is 'carbon emissions' and this is the driving force behind the renewable energy push. To produce any renewable you have to use raw materials and some of those are going to be in short supply.


Lets look at electric cars. Their batteries are made using aluminium, copper, nickel and some plastics. However, the issue is two very important materials - lithium which is the main power source and cobalt which prevents the battery from catching fire. Neither of those two metals are really in plentiful supply and will run out very quickly. This leaves EV designers with a huge problem as it's been calculated that over 2 billion batteries will have to be produced to reach 'net zero'. Then, of course, as the current EV batteries only have an 8-10 year life span that 2 billion will have to be produced again and we don't have the lithium to do it. Cobalt will also run out and even modern batteries are barely more efficient than those made over 50 years ago.


To me, the only way ahead at this point in time is to run our cars on something that has an almost endless supply - hydrogen. Sadly, this technology is well behind anything else and probably because there's not any money to be made out of it.

[jserraglio]

I agree with you, that every new technology presents a host of new problems that need to be addressed. There are no perfect solutions.

As for electric cars, their batteries are already catching fire. I will not be purchasing one. Instead, I drive a 2007 gas-powered vehicle, maintain it regularly, and use it only when I have to.

But if we continue on the path we are on, the world will become unlivable. My eight-year-old grandson, without any prompting from us, frets about that already.

[Holden Fourth]

After some research I found this article from a reputable site. It sort of sums up my point of view and the fact that without the likes of China and India on board, any international agreement on climate action is like having a toothless tiger. It's easier to attack Australia because we do actually care whereas the two countries mentioned above patently don't. I fact checked much of this information before posting it here and found it to be valid.


My name is Terence Cardwell. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle.Terence says this about Coal fired power plants:

First, coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.

The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.We have, like the USA , coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me, no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence. The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.


Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It currently doesn't exist. Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% - 65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.


The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only a small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (the ultimate power generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro-electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.


Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types.Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal Power Generation.


So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, - not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies).We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner.


Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;If you had a room 3.7 x 3.7 x 2.1 metres (287.5 cubic metres) the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25 x .25 x .17m (.01 cubic metres) or the size of a large packet of cereal.


Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20% or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world's total CO2 emissions.What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by - .004%.Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008%. (Getting confusing - but stay with me!).Of that, because we only contribute 1%, our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008%.Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments want to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.That would equate to an area in the same room as mentioned above, as the size of a small pin.


For that, they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology, Renewable Energy, etc, etc.How ridiculous it that?The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous and cripple, even closing some smaller businesses.T. L. Cardwell


My name is Terence Cardwell. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.

[jserraglio]

After some research I found this article from a reputable site. It sort of sums up my point of view and the fact that without the likes of China and India on board, any international agreement on climate action is like having a toothless tiger. It's easier to attack Australia because we do actually care whereas the two countries mentioned above patently don't.

It is fair, in my view, to hold Australia to account because she enables India’s and China’s coal fired plants with her raw materials, in the process reaping huge profits off their sale.

It is not a question of what percentage of the globe’s carbon dioxide a mere 26 million odd Australians emit, although, per capita, they still rank among the worst polluters in the world. The real issue is how Australia deploys her resources to permit, indeed, even to encourage others, particularly India and China, to befoul the environment. She has leverage with her customers, she can help to get China and India on board, so her failure to do so makes her accountable for how they use her coal. She cannot just wash her hands of it and shirk responsibility.

Absent definitive action, all the protestations of caring and concern from Oz ring hollow. And they seemed to have rung especially hollow with Aussie voters on May 21 when they tossed ScoMo and his cronies out on their bulliform butts in large part because they hadn’t done a bloomin’ thing about climate change.