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.

Carbon Tax 'alarmism' Doesn't fit Facts, Scientists Warn

SCIENTISTS from around the world, including the former head of Australia's National Climate Centre, are calling for calm on global warming, saying alarmist rhetoric is not backed by evidence and is being used to increase taxes.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, the 16 scientists say a "large and growing number" of scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic action on global warming is needed. "The number of scientific 'heretics' is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts," they say. "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now."

Like Carbon News on Facebook

Like Carbon News (Carbon tax News) on Facebook for all the latest news and information about Carbon Tax in Australia and the push to implement the tax scheme (a carbon price worldwide).

Qld Taxpayers Warned about Carbon Tax

Queensland taxpayers will pay the price for state-owned power generators being devalued by the federal carbon tax, a Senate committee has been warned.

A committee scrutinising the proposed federal tax sat in Brisbane on Monday, where Queensland Resources Council chief Michael Roche argued Australia should not adopt a tax ahead of its international competitors.

The Bligh government has estimated the asset value of state-owned generators will decrease by around $1.7 billion.

Mr Roche said Queenslanders would likely have to prop up the generators after write-downs, although Premier Anna Bligh later told reporters that was a "furphy".

"In the case of government-owned generators, there's only one source of equity and it's the Queensland Treasury, it's the Queensland taxpayer," Mr Roche told the committee.

"Or other programs will be cut to fund the injection into the government-owned generators."

Mr Roche said the carbon tax was expected to comprise up to half of the operating costs of the state-owned generators.

But Labor senator Doug Cameron attacked the ACIL Tasman modelling Mr Roche quoted, saying it had proven unreliable.

The other potential impact on taxpayers was a predicted $1 billion loss in coal royalties to the Queensland government by 2020 due to the premature closure of mines, Mr Roche said.

"I would have thought that the Queensland government would see the risk for their single largest source of revenues outside of grants from the federal government," he said.

But Ms Bligh told reporters the industry had a "very strong future", with almost $60 billion worth of mining applications in the pipeline.

She said federal treasury modelling showed an expected 47 per cent growth by 2020 would only drop to a 45 per cent growth at worst.

"Let's be realistic here, the Queensland coal industry has taken some 40 years to get to where they are now and they expect to increase by almost 50 per cent in the next eight years," she said.

"I think the bigger question frankly is whether the industry itself, with or without changes in federal government regulations, is capable of that sort of expansion."

The committee heard Queensland Chamber of Commerce polling shows the tax will make 10 per cent of the state's small to medium-sized businesses unviable by raising power, transport and supply costs.

"Anybody with a power point, with an engine, with a gantry crane, a mig welder, will pay more for what they do," the chamber's David Goodwin said.

"Right across our economy we feel very, very exposed.

"We're not an economy which sits with a lot of head offices, sitting in buildings, working on computers.

"We are an economy which actually does stuff, and because of that we will be in the eye of the storm."

Senator Cameron ridiculed the chamber for relying on its own surveys rather than Queensland Treasury estimates, which predict strong growth after the recovery from summer's floods and cyclone.

"You're the Tony Abbott of the business community, you're the weathervane, are you?" he said.

Costs of Climate Tax 'Could Drive Farmers From the Land'

Carbon tax costs could push farmers off the land and raise the price of agricultural productivity, a Senate committee has been told.

Sitting in Brisbane, the Senate select committee on the scrutiny of new taxes heard that the Queensland government would forgo $1 billion in royalties in the coming decade because of the tax.

Queensland Farmers Federation chief executive Dan Galligan said the extra costs would put more pressure on farm profits, and called for industry-specific economic modelling.

"The analysis is too broad to give us a clear understanding of how many farmers this will affect to a point where they may well leave the industry," he said. "That may well happen for many farmers -- that loss in profit margins, associated with a number of other issues, will be enough reason for them to leave the farm."

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Under questioning from Labor senators, Mr Galligan acknowledged the government exemptions on agriculture emissions and fuel were helpful. He said the Coalition's direct-action plan to pay $10 a tonne of soil carbon abatement would be insufficient.

But he said the Gillard government's carbon reduction scheme could have the "perverse effect" of stalling farm productivity because improvements relied on power use, which would be more expensive under the carbon tax.

"The mitigation options under the carbon farming initiatives may in fact further constrain a farmer's ability to increase productivity, which would be their usual mechanism to fight against a reduction in margins," he said.

Also appearing before the Coalition-dominated committee, Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche said taxpayers could be forced to compensate the $1.7 billion asset writedown in state-owned coal-fired power generators.

He queried why the Bligh government had not highlighted an estimated $1bn in lost coal royalties between 2012 and 2021. "I would have thought the Queensland government would see the risk for their single largest source of revenue outside of grants from the federal government," he said.

But Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said the coal industry had a "very strong future", with almost $60bn worth of mining applications in the pipeline.

Next week, the committee will visit the northern NSW town of Tamworth, in Tony Windsor's federal electorate, before moving to the Queensland coalmining centre of Bowen.

Carbon tax: Heat rises as voters reject Julia Gillard's plan

ANGRY Australians have vowed to vote Julia Gillard from office at the next election after yesterday's controversial carbon tax announcement.

Scores of voters rejected the plan soon after details of the $24.5 billion package to tackle climate change were revealed, with more than 80 per cent who voted in a national News Limited online poll saying Australia shouldn't have a carbon tax.

Almost 100,000 people voted across four polls in the national plebiscite by 5pm yesterday, with 87.1 per cent saying they planned to change their vote at the next election in light of the tax.

More than 70 per cent of voters, or 15,866 people, said they now planned to vote for the Coalition at the next election while just 8.51 per cent said they would support a Labor government.

Just 13 per cent of voters said they wouldn't change their vote at the next election.

Despite government claims that 90 per cent of Australians would receive compensation, and that 40 per cent of households would be overcompensated, voters said Julia Gillard had signer her fate at the polls.

"They're calling it 'Carbon Sunday' but I like to refer to today as 'Suicide Sunday' for a PM and three independents,'' one reader wrote.

"I cannot wait until the next election. The Labor Party the Greens and the Independants will answer to the Australian people for what they are inflicting upon us. Revenge is a dish best served cold,'' wrote another.

Eighty per cent of voters described the tax as "disgraceful'' while others said it was "inadequate''.

Just eight per cent of voters said they were confident it wouldn't affect their hip pocket.

An anti-carbon tax group said its website crashed after being overwhelmed with people trying to sign up to a campaign rejecting the tax.

The organisers of the site, no-carbon-tax.org, said the site crashed because of the "sheer numbers of people signing up.''

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.

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.

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