Climate Change Envoy Warns Against Cutting Investment in Green Energy

The government's climate change envoy has warned that failure to take more action to invest in a low carbon economy is a threat to the future "prosperity and security" of the British people.

John Ashton, who has just stepped down from his post at the Foreign Office, told MPs that the UK was still considered an influential global player on climate change, but signalled that position was at risk as the country was falling behind on investment in energy efficiency and clean energy.

This in turn would make it harder to meet global targets to limit global warming to 2C - the level at which experts consider most countries will cope with the ensuing disruption to weather patterns.

"Failure to deal with climate change would amplify already dangerous stresses arising from food, water and energy insecurity," Ashton told the energy and climate change select committee. "This potentially unmanageable combination of stresses poses a systemic risk to the security and prosperity of our country."
In 2004 the government's then chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, made headlines around the world when he declared that climate change was "the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism".

However, the growing political consensus for tackling climate change, which culminated in the 2008 Climate Change Act committing the UK to binding emissions reductions, has appeared to be breaking down in the last two years as lack of economic growth and savage public spending cuts have eroded support for sometimes costly policies.

These issues came to a head in February when more than 100 Conservative MPs signed a letter to the prime minister, David Cameron, calling for an end to onshore windfarms.

Ashton, who left his six-year post two weeks ago, said he sympathised with concerns that UK efforts to combat climate change would be an expensive failure if other countries did not follow suit. However in a thinly-veiled warning about the damage done by draining political support for 'green' policies, he said the UK's diplomatic efforts to persuade other countries to reduce the world's reliance on oil and other fossil fuels "depends on what we are doing at home" and the "consensus across the political spectrum".

Ashton also told MPs that far from leading the world, the UK was falling behind important economic competitors such as Germany, Korea, China and Japan in some of the big future industries such as offshore wind energy and carbon capture and storage systems for gas and coal power stations.

"Internationally we must resolve the false choice, exacerbated by the current crisis, between economic security and climate security," said Ashton. "A rapid shift to low carbon growth is essential for security, competitiveness and prosperity, not an intolerable risk to competitiveness, jobs and growth."

"Politically we must address this not as a distraction from our current problems, but as part of the solution to them," he added.

Tory committee member Dr Phillip Lee challenged Ashton, however, suggesting that there were still hundreds of millions of people who wanted a better standard of living in developing countries like China, and in the UK during the recession, who would not support policies which pushed up the price of energy and so goods and services they wanted to buy.

"It's seen that going green is going to slow down the growth that we need," added Lee.

People's revolt looms on Australian carbon tax, Tony Abbott predicts

TONY Abbott has predicted a "people's revolt" over Julia Gillard's proposed carbon tax, saying the measure is a breach of faith with the Australian people and an assault on their standard of living.

The Prime Minister today announced Australia would have a carbon tax for three to five years before the introduction of a full emissions trading scheme.

But this afternoon Mr Abbott moved to suspend question time in parliament to censure Ms Gillard, saying she had broken a pre-election promise.

The Opposition leader said that under a $26-a-tonne carbon price, power bills would jump $300 a year and petrol prices would rise 6.5c a litre.

He said voters had believed Ms Gillard when she promised before the election that she would not introduce a carbon tax.

"Today's announcement is an utter betrayal of the Australia people," Mr Abbott said.

"We will fight this tax every second of every minute of every day of every of very month.

"I think there will be a people's revolt against this carbon tax and I don't think it will every happen because the Australian public will be so revolted by this breach of faith."

In a 2010 election-eve interview with The Australian, Ms Gillard said she would not introduce a carbon tax.

"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a carbon pollution reduction scheme, a market-based mechanism,'' she said then. "I rule out a carbon tax.''

Moving the censure motion, Mr Abbott asked whether it was the “real Julia” who made the pledge in the first place.

“Nothing is more fake than making a promise to the Australian people before the election and breaking it after the election,” Mr Abbott said.

Ms Gillard said Mr Abbott only wanted to “wreck”, comparing him unfavourably to former prime minister John Howard.

"He wanted to be remembered for the things he created, not the things he destroyed,'' the prime minister said.

She said Australia could not be left behind as the world moved to a low-carbon future.

A price will be put on carbon from July next year under a framework agreed with the Greens and key independents.

The carbon price will apply to the energy sector, transport, industrial emissions and waste. It will not hit the agricultural sector.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet today left the door open for fuel to be included in the cap-and-trade system.

"That is not a settled issue at this point in time, but it is an issue the committee will consider," he said.

Mr Combet said the committee would consider phasing in emissions trading for different sections of the economy.

A review one year before the end of the fixed price period would consider if there were any reasons to delay moving to a cap-and-trade scheme.

The starting carbon price, the length of the fixed period and assistance measures for affected individuals and firms are still to be determined.

The Prime Minister said Australia had to put a price on carbon because "history teaches us that the countries and economies that prosper are those that get in and shape and manage the change".

"I'm determined to price carbon," she told reporters. "The time is right and the time is now."

Ms Gillard predicted a tough fight ahead with Mr Abbott, saying he would wage a sustained fear campaign.

"Can I make it very clear that in the debate that will ensue I am not intending to take a backwards step," she said.

Ms Gillard made the announcement at Parliament House flanked by the Greens, Mr Combet and key independent MPs.

Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said the deal would not have occurred without the party's input.

"It's happening because we have shared power in Australia," she said.

"Majority governments would not have delivered this outcome. It is because the Greens are in balance of power working with the other parties to deliver not only the aspiration but the process to achieve it."

A climate change committee - comprising the government, Greens and independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott - has held four meetings since it was set up in September last year.

Ms Gillard said the government's emissions reduction target was unaltered at 5 per cent by 2020.

She said the system would not remain a simple carbon tax, as it was "hard wired" to shift to an emissions trading system.

Crossbenchers Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott will be crucial in securing a parliamentary agreement on a carbon price.

Mr Oakeshott endorsed the framework, declaring "I would vote for this tomorrow".

Mr Windsor was more circumspect, saying his support was not guaranteed.

"Please don't construe from my presence here that I will be supporting anything," he said.

He said there was "a whole range of unanswered questions" still to be answered.

Both independents welcomed the exclusion of agriculture from the framework agreement.

Australia to get carbon scheme by July 2012

Australia's minority Labor government has announced the country will have a carbon price by July 2012. The government has been working to reconstruct emissions trading policy after a dramatic failure under the former Labor prime minister, Kevin Rudd.

Some say the date is ambitious and leaves a multi-party parliamentary committee in a race against time to answer a list of hard questions. And the opposition has accused the prime minister of breaking a promise not impose such a tax.

MOTTRAM: Releasing a framework that sets the first of July next year as a date for setting a carbon price for Australia, Julia Gillard said now was the right time because the climate was changing as more people than ever produce more carbon than ever, but also because lingering would be bad for Australia's economy.

GILLARD: History teaches us that the countries and the economies who prosper at times of historic change are those who get in and shape and manage the change.

MOTTRAM: But a carbon price remains highly contentious in Australia. And Julia Gillard, who promised during last year's election campaign that there would not be a carbon price in this term of a Labor government, has had to work within the reality of being a minority government, courting Greens who will shortly have the balance of power in the senate, and independents who decide whether or not government measures get through parliament's lower house.

The political reality was in evidence as Ms Gillard made her announcement, flanked not only by her climate change minister, but two Greens senators and two of the lower house's four independent MPs who are part of a multi party committee that's working on how to price carbon. The Greens deputy leader, Christine Milne, made the political point.

MILNE: And it's happening because we have shared power in Australia. Majority governments would not have delivered this outcome, it is because the Greens are in balance of power working with the other parties to deliver not only the aspiration but the process to achieve it.

MOTTRAM: And with the opposition already calling it a breach of faith and an expensive one for consumers, it claims, the prime minister later conceded the point.

Politics aside, the framework sets a key goal, the July 2012 start date for a carbon price to establish an Australian market for tradeable carbon permits. It would be a two stage process. For the first three to five years, the carbon price will be fixed. Then it will shift to a flexible price, set by the market, pending a review of conditions, domestic and international, a year before that transition.

The committee says it gives business and industry what it wants now, certainty that there will be price on pollution where polluting is currently free.

But the framework is a long way from answering some key and very hard questions. Australia's climate change minister is Greg Combet.

COMBET: You will see that there has been no discussion to date of the starting price for the carbon price mechanism, or of the proposed household assistance measures that might obtain, or of the proposed measures for assisting industry for the transition to a clean energy future at this point in time. That is detailed work that of course we will have ahead of us in the weeks and months ahead. But nonetheless, the mechanism that has been outlined here is a very important step forward.

MOTTRAM: The mechanism also excludes agriculture and the status of transport is still under consideration. But one of the most contentious elements of former prime minister Kevin Rudd's failed attempt to introduce an emissions trading scheme will also likely dog this continuing negotiation - how much compensation should go to what are called emissions intensive, trade exposed industries - that is, big polluting companies like the coal fired power sector and the aluminium industry, which the Greens would want to see given as little help as possible.

Greens leader Bob Brown flagged his view.

BROWN: We are open to looking at the impact on the trade exposed industries but there is quite a deal of world experience in this now and we'll be looking at that experience because it doesn't back up some of the alarmist projections we've heard in the past.

MOTTRAM: Some of those alarmist projections included one that an emissions trading scheme would return Australians to the days of candles and horses and carts. The opposition leader, Tony Abbott, quickly flagged his continuing intense disagreement with a carbon price.

ABBOTT: We will fight this every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month. I don't believe it's going to happen because I think there will be a people's revolt - they will see this as an assault on their standard of living, which is exactly what it is.

MOTTRAM: So the government and its allies will be racing to embed a carbon trading scheme, aware that if they don't do so sooner rather than later, an election that delivered victory to Mr Abbott's side could see the scheme undone again. Ms Gillard can also anticipate a backlash from voters, if the claim that she's broken an election pledge not to have a carbon price takes hold.

Reporter: Linda Mottram, Canberra correspondent
Speakers: Julia Gillard, Australia prime minister; Christine Milne, deputy leader, Australian Greens Party; Greg Combet, Australian climate change minister; Bob Brown, leader, Australian Greens Party; Tony Abbott, Australian opposition leader

LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW

EU to ban China, India carbon credits trade

Europe is to ban a highly lucrative trade in polluting rights obtained by European-based companies under a UN scheme to favour environmentally-friendly industrial investment in the likes of China or India.

The Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, an international tool in the fight to tame global warming, gives firms from industrialised countries incentives to invest in greenhouse gas reduction projects in developing countries, traditionally huge polluters.

In return, these investments generate rights to emit gases which are said to trade at 78 times the cost of destroying by-product gases, but the European Union will remove them from its Emissions Trading System registries as of May 1, 2013, the European Commission said Friday.

The ban requires the European Parliament's assent over the next three months.

"These projects raise concerns relating to their environmental integrity, value-for-money and geographical distribution," said the EU's climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.

"Our aim is not to reduce the number of credits available but to ensure the international carbon market is based on a better quality and distribution of credits."

The ban will affect credits granted for destroying HFC-23 (a by-product of HFC-22) and N2O (nitrous oxide) gases, powerful greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change.

The commission partly wants to divert such investments to the world's least developed countries.

The EU executive said that "just 23 such industrial gas projects account for two-thirds of all the credits generated" through the CDM programme, leading to consistent accusations of major systemic abuse by powerful energy and industrial companies.

The vote comes a day after the theft of two million tonnes worth of polluting rights by hackers forced Brussels to close national carbon credits trading registries for at least seven days pending online security reinforcement.

Politicians looking at big picture on ETS Carbon Trading Scheme

I have come to realise there are two types of reality - there is the real world, in which you and I struggle to survive each day, and then there is the world inhabited by politicians and the vast industry that feeds on them.

The latest manifestation of the dynamics of these two worlds is the emissions trading scheme. The ETS is seen by one world as another unwanted tax and by the other as an international obligation.

The Government has tried to downplay the effects of the ETS on households, but frankly I do not believe it.

I am sure the flow-on effect of fuel and power rises on businesses will add up to more than the $3.17 a week costs increase we have been told to expect.

The fact is the voting public feels aggrieved. Even though these voters do not have a viable alternative to turn to on this issue, this is hardly desirable for the Government.

The ill-feeling over one policy could spread to others, who knows?

Behind the dissatisfaction with the ETS is the uncertainty around climate change. Is it real, or not? The public doesn't know what to think.

Conditioned to respect science, most people accepted the initial reports of doom and gloom. But it now appears they were too gloomy and contained flaws.

That is the voters' world. But in the politicians' world it is different.

Internationally, the decisions have been made. Climate change is real and a way has been found to deal with it.

The ETS has been formulated and is locked in place. We can't back out.

We could have waited, as Australia has, but we are different from other countries.

We depend on trade to survive and we have taken a strong marketing stance based on being "100 per cent pure". We have to be seen to be acting as our customers would want us to.

To keep making money from our exports, which pay for our standard of living, we have to accept a little pain. That's the reality the politicians would have us accept. And it is the one I believe is right.

But some interesting new research has made me re-examine that belief.

The researchers asked people in British supermarkets about their purchases - specifically, whether their decisions were made on where the food item originated.

Then they went out into the high street and asked people if food miles - the distance food has to travel - would stop them buying New Zealand produce.

The results were fascinating.

Of the shoppers, only 5.6 per cent nominated country of origin as one of the reasons for purchasing an item and only 3.6 per cent indicated they had consciously chosen British products for the reason that such produce was "less harmful for the environment".

view Full Article

Nick Smith faces anger at ETS meeting - Carbon Trading Scheme

There were fears for the safety of Climate Change Minister Nick Smith last night as he faced a barrage of abuse from mainly irate Southland farmers at a meeting to discuss the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

More than 300 people from across Clutha and Southland packed the Gore venue, where it was obvious even before the meeting began that opposition to the scheme was strong.

Farmer and businessman Richard King took the chance to have his say face-to-face with the minister before the start. Following a heated exchange, Mr King told nzherald.co.nz he had been a National Party member for more than 40 years. "I'm here to say 'to hell with it'."

Dr Smith struggled to give his 20-minute presentation as he was continually interrupted by hecklers. At one point it appeared the chairman, Invercargill MP Eric Roy, almost lost control of the meeting as he repeatedly yelled for order and had to stop one man from advancing toward Dr Smith.

A National Party insider told the Herald organisers were concerned people could become violent and had considered calling the police.

Dr Smith told the crowd it was the 32nd presentation he had made during his nationwide road show but the first where he had been repeatedly interrupted.

Order was finally restored when there was the opportunity for questions from the floor. Bruce McGill asked the minister why New Zealand wasn't following Portugal's lead and promoting soil carbon as a means of gaining credits.
Dr Smith said if the government had opted to include soil carbon in the scheme farmers would have had to take the up side with the down side. "It's true some farmers are building up their top soil, but the amount we are losing from erosion and storm means overall (our soil carbon) is negative."

He said the inclusion of agricultural emissions into the scheme had been deferred until 2015 and that it would only enter the ETS if New Zealand's trading partners made progress on tackling climate change.

Until then, farmers were no different from all other New Zealanders, who had to pay more for electricity and fuel as a result of the ETS, he said.

View Source