New research has shown the Clean Energy Target (CET) recommended by Australia’s chief scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, will not deliver Australia’s obligations under the United Nations sponsored Paris Agreement on climate change.
The research, conducted by the analysts RepuTex, also shows that as a result the electricity industry will only transfer pressure to other sectors of the economy to reduce their emissions.
RepuTex said weak CET would shift the emissions reduction burden away from the electricity sector, undermine investor certainty, and potentially leave power stations pumping out pollution into the next century.
In modelling commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), RepuTex examined the effect of a CET to cut 2005-level emissions from the electricity industry by 28 per cent by 2030, as outlined by the Finkel review into energy security.
The consultancy found that goal, in line with Australia’s Paris Agreement climate undertakings, was far short of what could be achieved by the power sector.
It urged the CET have a higher rate of at least 45 per cent.
“The electricity sector is a critical sector for decarbonisation,” Bret Harper, RepuTex’s director of research, said.
“The technologies are certainly available to reduce carbon emissions, even to go to zero.”
Against this backdrop, the ACF and other environmental groups are urging the government to aim for a more aggressive CET than outlined by Dr Finkel as the notional goal in his report.
Left with a 28 per cent CET, power plants would deliver only a fifth of the national abatement required by 2030, well short of its current pollution share of about 35 per cent, RepuTex said.
The new research comes as the conservative Liberal-National government’s difficult internal deliberations over Dr Finkel’s review are set to resume, with a report due from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) about the dispatchable power requirements of the electricity grid after the closure of two ageing coal-fired power stations.
It comes as the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, today holds a second meeting with Australia’s major energy retailers in an attempt to make it easier for consumers to switch their power provider, a response to acute political pressure over rising electricity bills.
While some government MPs oppose the central recommendation of Dr Finkel’s review, a 28 per cent CET, on the basis it is too ambitious, and will lock too much renewable energy into the system, the new modelling from Reputex said the central problem was the emissions reduction trajectory was too weak.
The modelling said Dr Finkel’s trajectory would see Australia’s electricity emissions being phased out between 2095-2101, a timeframe that is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement of limiting warming to two degrees Celsius, and of reaching carbon neutrality by mid-century.
It also points out that if the electricity sector does comparatively less of the heavy lifting on emissions reductions, the burden will fall more heavily on other sectors, with the largest reductions then falling on high emissions growth sectors, rather than the sectors with the largest share of total national emissions.
The Reputex report said that, under a uniform 28 per cent reduction trajectory, the oil, gas and transport sectors would be accountable for reductions of 51 million to 52m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 31-32 per cent of the national abatement task, despite making up between 17 per cent and 18 per cent of total emissions in the economy.
Electricity, by contrast, would deliver a 44m tonnes of CO2 equivalent reduction, contributing only 20 per cent of the national abatement task, despite being the largest emitting sector.
The report said a 45 per cent clean energy target would deliver zero emissions from electricity by 2045, which is similar to the Paris Agreement timetable.
Diving even deeper, a 63 per cent CET would phase out electricity sector emissions by 2035, and supply 60 per cent of the Paris abatement.
“Any Clean Energy Target must be ambitious, help Australia meet its international commitments and ensure we are making a swift transition from dirty to clean energy so that we can protect and enjoy a safe and liveable planet,” Kelly O’Shanassy, ACF’s Chief Executive, said.
“A weak and dirty target is none of these things. Instead it would continue to see dirty fossil fuel plants polluting for another 80 years.”
“But a 28 per cent CET is clearly not in line with our Paris agreement,” Mr Harper said.
“So there would still be some uncertainty with a target that’s not compatible with the international agreements, especially when there are no other policies to get there either.”
One Response
Caused by the usual coal corruption in the form of political donations and jobs for the boys. Let alone media interests with coal investments.