Liberal climate change divisions mirror world climate change divisions

According to a report in The Australian former Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says: “…the Liberal Party is ‘divided’ on the issue of climate change and is calling for a policy that will create ‘regulatory certainty’.”

AIP director Graham Young agrees, but says the situation is not limited to the Liberal Party, and arises from poor analysis of power and emission issues leading to “solutions” which are incapable of implementation.

“The election of Donald Trump, the “gilets jaunes” in France, and the investment in fossil fuel generation around the world by the Chinese, Indian and many other governments, are just a few demonstrations that emissions policies not only aren’t working, but are heavily contested.

“It is a sign of a lack of critical thinking in the Labor Party, combined with overly-rigid political discipline, that there aren’t also splits there.”

Mr Young said there were many contributing factors to the problem, but poor analysis by national and international authorities meant it was impossible to come up with a compromise solution which would keep both sides of climate and energy policy happy.

“The Paris Accord is a deeply flawed document, which even on its own terms, will reduce global temperatures by no more than 0.05 degrees in 80 years’ time, if all signatories keep their promises.

“It should be scrapped and the world needs to start again.”

Mr Young said that some of the issues in the current system are:

1. Emissions are calculated on a consumption rather than production basis.
   1. At the moment manufacturing is being shifted from low emission countries to high emission countries with no effect on overall emissions. In some cases this may even lead to an increase in emissions as efficient plants in developed countries are closed in favour of less efficient plants in developing countries.
   2. Similar issues occur in Australia between low emissions states like South Australia, and high emissions states like New South Wales.
   3. Australia is being asked to curtail agricultural development although much of it will be for export. Consumption rather than production would allow us to continue to develop agriculture for export, a sensible outcome in a land-constrained world.
2. The IPCC policy summaries exaggerate the speed and effects of climate change, the costs of mitigation and includes wrong attribution of causes. It needs to be broadened so that dissenting views form parts of the executive summaries.
   1. The IPCC reports carry a range of views in the working papers, but far too high a degree of certainty in the executive summaries, leading to overestimates of the speed with which the world may need to change emissions. For example, it is now apparent that the climate models overestimate warming, and fail simple prediction tests.
   2. This means that the world has time to ensure it gets energy generation solutions right.
   3. It also means that the cost of delay has been over-estimated.
3. Nuclear energy has to be counted as a zero emissions technology
   1. Currently the IPCC does not count nuclear as a zero emissions technology, despite the fact that it is the only zero emissions form of baseload power available. As a result countries are adopting expensive, intermittent wind and solar power generation solutions which are more expensive than nuclear and require conventional power backup.
4. In Australia intermittent power generators wishing to sell power to the grid should be required to enter into firming contracts with backup sources of power.
   1. The problem with the NEG was that it required retailers to enter into the firming arrangements. This is the wrong end of the supply chain because it allows intermittent generators to enter the grid without being firmed.
5. The government needs to withdraw subsidies from all types of electricity generation.
   
   1. Intermittent power generation is being connected to the grid in a chaotic way, freezing out firmed power, and increasing the cost of electricity, because it is subsidised. Withdrawal of subsidies, combined with inclusion of a full-range of alternate generation sources, and mandatory firming of intermittents will lead to the lowest cost, most reliable generation.
6. Government and opposition need to stop the pretence that lower emissions can be achieved at no cost to the public.
   1. Coal-fired power is the cheapest form of generation, and requires no back-up. Nuclear is more expensive, and also requires no back-up. Intermittent power is the most expensive once it is firmed, because firming involves multiple redundancies, including, ultimately, fossil-fuel for the occasional times when batteries and pumped hydro are exhausted.

“Current energy debate is being conducted everywhere on the basis that wishing emissions away is possible and cost-free. Neither is true.

“The split occurs because of reality, not ill-will. Diplomacy and politics won’t cure heal it unless firmly based in the real world.”

For further information contact Graham Young 0411 104 801.