“The Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Bill 2010 formally set out the Government commitment to carbon neutrality by 2060 and peaking in per capita emissions by 2013. In addition, it:

• prescribes regular reporting to the Legislative Assembly on the ACT’s greenhouse gas emissions trends;
• establishes a Climate Change Council, which will provide independent advice on climate change issues as they effect business and the wider community; and
• encourages private entities to take action through voluntary sector agreements with Government.”

The setting of targets is relatively easy.  In fact, target-setting is about the only carbon-related achievement of the Rudd government (Australia has a national target to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020 from 2000 levels).  Of course, the hard part is in the planning and execution of the projects required to actually achieve the targets.  How will the ACT achieve such an aggressive target?  A possible action plan has been mapped out by consultancy Kinesis in a separate report, available here.

By contracting to purchase so much energy for so long, we’re giving the developer of the wind farm financial certainty to build additional clean energy projects. The inability of renewable energy developers to obtain financing has been a significant inhibitor to the expansion of renewable energy. We’ve been excited about this deal because taking 114 megawatts of wind power off the market for so long means producers have the incentive and means to build more renewable energy capacity for other customers.

In this case, we’re buying renewable energy directly from its source – the wind farm. We cannot use this energy directly, so we’re reselling it back to the grid in the regional spot market – but retiring the RECs associated with the power. By obtaining RECs through the purchase of green power, our deal has a greater impact on the renewable industry than simply buying “naked” RECs from third parties; our long-term commitment directly frees up capital for the developer to build more wind projects.

The tax puts a price on carbon emissions.   In 2008 it started at $10 per tonne, it is currently $20 per tonne, and it continues to rise annually by $5.  All revenues are returned to individuals and businesses through reductions in personal and corporate income taxes, as well as tax credits to offset low-income individuals.

After two years, the BC economy is still one of the strongest in North America.  Growth is above average, unemployment is below average, and the people like it.   The Ottawa Citizen reports,

The carbon tax has obvious moral appeal. By tying the pollution tax to reduced income taxes, B.C. has shifted from taxing “goods,” like working and entrepreneurship, to taxing “bads,” like pollution.

At UBC, for example, the tax provides a $43-million incentive to reduce fossil fuel consumption; enough money to justify a major investment in ground source heat pumps, high efficiency windows, and other energy efficiency retrofits.

How much CO2 has it abated, you ask?  Well, we don’t know yet because Canada has not yet released 2009 emissions figures.

In comparison with Australia’s CPRS, the BC Carbon Tax is refreshingly simple.  People can easily understand how it works.  The Liberal Government which introduced this tax in Canada was re-elected in 2009 on a larger majority than the previous election.

The Australian Greens are using the Federal election to renew their push for the introduction of a carbon tax.  We know the Greens are paying attention, but what about the other parties?

The global financial crisis proved that the Australian economy is one of the most robust in the world.  We avoided a recession, and we even experienced a mini-boom earlier this year before the current slowdown.  The Australian Government has just announced that the budget will return to surplus.

Contrast this with Europe.  They had a severe recession and they are fighting off a double-dip.  In 2009, 62% of all new generation capacity built in Europe was renewable.  Last month EU member states submitted plans to Brussels “affirming their intention to install plenty more [renewable generation] to meet targets set last year under the E.U.’s Renewable Energy Directive, which would boost Europe’s use of renewables from 8.5 percent of total energy consumption to 20 percent by 2020.”

Here we have two economies going from around 9% today to 20% by 2020, and two completely different approaches to achieve that goal.

The WA government is essentially saying that “to meet our renewable target, we prefer to pay other Australian States to build extra renewable generators so they can sell us their surplus RECs.  Sure, we have world-class solar and wind resources, but we can’t build renewable capacity fast enough or cheap enough.  We’ll stick with coal for the next 30-40 years.”

At HAC we have engaged with many of these same government agencies on energy use and greenhouse gas management.  A few have achieved impressive energy efficiency improvements, while others have not.  Key success-factors seem to include a very clear commitment to energy efficiency at the Director-General or CEO level and a willingness/ability to invest when presented with a strong business case.

The Auditor General found that there was a lack of incentives to achieve the targets, and a lack of consequences for inaction.  “There were no consequences for failing to achieve expected results.”  There was no carrot, and there was no stick.

It seems that saving money is not a sufficient incentive in and of itself.  In fact, our analysis shows that in the absence of urgent action, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and especially energy expenditure will continue to rise sharply.  We estimate that due to inaction by Government, more than $2 million is being wasted each month and that cost effective energy savings of between 20% and 40% are possible.  For perspective, a 20% energy reduction will save taxpayers over $30 million per annum, year after year.

The report states that “a lack of effective strategic management and accountability also contributed to the failure to achieve overall program goals.”

The document can be downloaded from the following links:

While there is no shortage of positive actions a City can take – including GreenPower, local renewable energy projects, efficiency projects, plant and equipment upgrades and more – it has been difficult to compare these apples and oranges, especially in light of:

• the financial and operational impacts of various options, on Council and others;
• the different timing of when costs would be incurred and benefits experienced;
• the distinctive community and social impacts;
• the technical, financial and operational risk profiles;
• the wider benefits, to the State and nationally, of the various options; and
• the effects of national actions including renewable energy targets and incentives, energy efficiency programs, carbon pricing and higher future energy prices.

For the City of Cockburn, HAC used a multi-criteria analysis tool that provided decision-makers with a way to weight, score and visualise the greenhouse gas, economic and social/community aspects of the options being considered.

The analysis showed that there are indeed many actions that local government could take which provide more desirable environmental, economic and social outcomes than GreenPower, however the analysis also showed that careful strategic planning and well-timed investments will be required if these abatement options are to achieve an emissions reduction target within a given timeframe.

The City of Sydney, which achieved carbon-neutral status in 2008, also found that it may be preferrable to transfer funds from GreenPower to local projects.  A recent council recommendation stated that “… GreenPower has served the council well, but greater priority should be given to more transformative, local actions.”

HAC’s presentation to the Sustainability Officers Networking Group can be downloaded here.

If drilling a hole in deep water is very difficult, then fixing any problem that might occur down there is extremely difficult.  An industry which has just recently figured out how to conduct oil extraction operations in 5000 feet of water now has to figure how to stop a gushing leak down there.

The ‘top kill’ is the latest method which BP is using to attempt to stop the leak.  They began executing the top kill operation on Wednesday, and it is apparently working, although we won’t know for sure whether it has been a success for another day or two.

An excellent explanation of how the top kill works, including some flashy animations and graphics from BP, was published on The Oil Drum.

This is a serious disaster, “but that hasn’t stopped satirists and pranksters from dredging some dark humor out of the whole debacle.”  Click here for Tree Hugger’s article, “BP gets punked”.

“A golden age for domestic gas consumption was being predicted for in the late 1990s, but by 2002 it was clear these projections would not be met”, he said.

A carbon price of $40 per tonne is required for gas to compete with coal for new-build generation plants. This is well above the forecast carbon price under the CPRS, if it were passed. Without a dramatic change in the economics of energy and carbon, coal will continue to provide Australia’s baseload power for decades into the future.

Lord May of Oxford unleashed some harsh words against the Greens at a Lowy Institute lunch on Wednesday.  He said they “mixed their genuine concerns with an overriding desire to feel good about themselves so that they actually obstructed useful legislation because it’s not perfect”.  He went on to say that “there is a real challenge for the social sciences to try and understand how people can behave so stupidly”.

The audio from the lunch can be downloaded from the Lowy Institute website.

The Greens are now urging the Government to  negotiate on their proposal of a carbon levy.  Bob Brown said “Kevin Rudd should have another look at the simplicity of this alternative which was recommended to him by Professor Ross Garnaut”.

Back in 2007, Lord May delivered an excellent and entertaining lecture for the 2007 Lowy Lecture on Australia in the World, in which he focused on our ecological footprint, population growth, climate change and the problems and paradoxes these issues present.

The lectures cover buildings, industry, transportation, implementation and implications.

The videos can be viewed on Google Video and transcripts can be downloaded from the RMI website.