The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
In a move similar to the one that plunged Ohio to the end of the line among U.S. states when it comes to moving toward renewable energy, Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott is signaling his plans to scale back or eliminate that country's Renewable Energy Target (RET).
The Australian Financial Review reported on Monday in a story "Abbott's Plan to Axe RET" that Abbott has asked businessman Dick Warburton, whom Abbott charged following his election last fall with reviewing RET, to take a closer look at ending the target entirely rather than scaling it down as Warburton had proposed.
The federal government is moving towards abolishing the Renewable Energy Target rather than scaling it back in a move that will cost almost $11 billion in proposed investment and which is at odds with the views of its own environment minister.
Sources said environment minister Greg Hunt, who advocated scaling back the RET as a compromise, has been sidelined from the process and is understood to be unhappy. They said Mr. Abbott, treasurer Joe Hockey and finance minister Mathias Cormann are pushing the issue now. A government source said when the government announced its decision, possibly before the end of this month, it was now “more likely’’ the RET will be abolished under a so-called “closed to new entrants scenario’’ in which existing contracts only would be honoured.
Australia's renewable energy standards were first enacted in 2001, then expanded in 2010 to mandate a target of 20 percent of electricity coming from renewal sources. Although in 2012 74 percent of Australia's electricity came from coal, the growth of its renewables sector, especially wind generation, had it on track to far exceed RET.
Apparently, that's got some companies in the fossil fuel business worried. The Australian Financial Review said, "The Abbott government has been lobbied heavily by the business and energy sectors to abolish or water it down as renewable energy gained a larger than expected share of the electricity market."
And it's clear that some in the government are already not friends of renewables. The paper quotes treasurer Joe Hockey saying back in May, "I find those wind turbines around Lake George to be utterly offensive. I think they're a blight on the landscape."
A study, also released on Monday, commissioned by three Australian environmental groups The Climate Institute, Australian Conservation Foundation and WWF-Australia, suggested what's really behind the Abbott government's push to move out of renewables.
The study, "Big power company profits—the real outcome of an changes to the Renewable Energy Target," found that if the RET is eliminated, coal-fired power generation companies could increase their profits by as much as $25 billion between 2015 and 2030. It said that axing or watering down RET "would benefit owners of polluting coal plants at the expense of households and small business" and that energy prices for consumers would not only go down but could actually increase somewhat. Meanwhile, it said, jettisoning RET would add as much carbon pollution as four million new cars on the road and have additional pollution costs of over $14 billion.
Climate Institute CEO John Connor said:
This modelling highlights the cynical self-interest behind power companies’ calls to weaken the Renewable Energy Target. Companies like Origin and EnergyAustralia are pushing to weaken the target not, as they like to claim, because that would be good for customers, but because a weaker target is better for their bottom line. The RET is a bipartisan policy that is effectively reducing carbon pollution from the electricity sector and building our nation’s renewable energy industry. Both these objectives are vital—they help avoid dangerous climate change and sensibly position Australia’s economy to remain competitive in a world moving to clean energy sources.
YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Charli Shield
At unsettling times like the coronavirus outbreak, it might feel like things are very much out of your control. Most routines have been thrown into disarray and the future, as far as the experts tell us, is far from certain.
By Elizabeth Henderson
Farmworkers, farmers and their organizations around the country have been singing the same tune for years on the urgent need for immigration reform. That harmony turns to discord as soon as you get down to details on how to get it done, what to include and what compromises you are willing to make. Case in point: the Farm Workforce Modernization Act (H.R. 5038), which passed in the House of Representatives on Dec. 11, 2019, by a vote of 260-165. The Senate received the bill the next day and referred it to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it remains. Two hundred and fifty agriculture and labor groups signed on to the United Farm Workers' (UFW) call for support for H.R. 5038. UFW President Arturo Rodriguez rejoiced:
By Julia Conley
A council representing more than 800,000 doctors across the U.S. signed a letter Friday imploring President Donald Trump to reverse his call for businesses to reopen by April 12, warning that the president's flouting of the guidance of public health experts could jeopardize the health of millions of Americans and throw hospitals into even more chaos as they fight the coronavirus pandemic.
By Melissa Kravitz Hoeffner
Over six gallons of water are required to produce one gallon of wine. "Irrigation, sprays, and frost protection all [used in winemaking] require a lot of water," explained winemaker and sommelier Keith Wallace, who's also a professor and the founder of the Wine School of Philadelphia, the largest independent wine school in the U.S. And water waste is just the start of the climate-ruining inefficiencies commonplace in the wine industry. Sustainably speaking, climate change could be problematic for your favorite glass of wine.