Extract from The Guardian website:
Surely climate change means rainfall patterns are changing and that also means changes in what can be farmed, and where
It seems obvious, but apparently it isn’t. If you remove the reality
of climate change from government decision-making you risk making the
wrong decisions.
Obviously the drought is causing extreme hardship for farmers in parts of New South Wales and Queensland and the government is about to announce a package of short-term measures to assist them.
But surely long-term drought policy needs to take into account the evidence that climate change means rainfall patterns are changing and that also means changes in what can be farmed, and where.
Asked about this on Monday, prime minister Tony Abbott appeared to suggest it did not.
He said records going back 150 years showed there had always been “good times and bad times”, that there had been “droughts since the beginning of settlement”.
In other words, just as the government refused to accept climate change might lead to an increased frequency of bushfire weather, it also appears to reject the idea that climate change might have a bearing on the frequency or location of drought, or on the long-term farming conditions of particular farming areas.
President Barack Obama sees the link between US weather patterns, farming and climate change. Meeting drought-stricken farmers in California on Friday he foreshadowed a $1bn “climate resilience fund”.
And before the Abbott government abolished it, the independent climate commission in its Critical Decade report suggested Australia was facing similar pressures.
It said that “changing rainfall patterns, the increasing risk of extreme heat and bushfire weather present challenges for Australian agriculture. Production of temperature and water sensitive broad acre crops, fruit, vegetables and wine grapes need to adapt to these changing growing conditions or move to locations where growing conditions are more amenable to their production.”
Similarly, the just-announced review of the renewable energy target is asking the right questions but seems to be driven more by some exaggerated assessments of the impact of the RET on power bills and less by why it could be a good idea to continue to encourage the use of more renewable energy.
After recent cabinet divisions about who should do the review and how far it should go, Abbott told Alan Jones on Monday morning the government was “very close” to announcing it, and that it would report within months.
Asked by Jones, “how can we justify providing subsidies to solar energy and wind power with borrowed money when many of those companies are foreign companies, Thai companies for example?”, Abbott replied, “well, that is a very fair point, Alan, and that is why we are very close to announcing a review into this which will report in a matter of months and then the government will have more to say because just as the carbon tax is massively boosting power prices, the renewable energy targets are also having an impact on prices. Not as great, but still not insignificant. What this government wants to do is bear down on prices.”
Last December, Abbott described the price impact of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) as “pretty significant”.
According to the Australian Energy Market Commission in 2013-14 the RET was responsible for around 4% of the average household bill, falling to a likely 3.1% in 2014-15.
Other estimates, from the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal and the Queensland Competition Authority, fall within a range of between 3% and 5% of retail electricity bills.
But because the RET is already providing ongoing subsidies to existing renewable energy projects, reducing or removing it will not translate into an immediate removal of the small price impact it has had so far.
Modelling for the climate change authority by Sinclair Knight Merz found removing the RET altogether would reduce an average household bill by just $15 a year.
And the climate change authority, when it last reviewed the RET in December 2012, found there was a good case to keep it to continue to encourage investment in renewable power.
Of course if it hadn’t factored in the impact of climate change or the long-term need to change Australia’s fossil fuel use in response to it, it would have come up with a very different calculation.
Obviously the drought is causing extreme hardship for farmers in parts of New South Wales and Queensland and the government is about to announce a package of short-term measures to assist them.
But surely long-term drought policy needs to take into account the evidence that climate change means rainfall patterns are changing and that also means changes in what can be farmed, and where.
Asked about this on Monday, prime minister Tony Abbott appeared to suggest it did not.
He said records going back 150 years showed there had always been “good times and bad times”, that there had been “droughts since the beginning of settlement”.
In other words, just as the government refused to accept climate change might lead to an increased frequency of bushfire weather, it also appears to reject the idea that climate change might have a bearing on the frequency or location of drought, or on the long-term farming conditions of particular farming areas.
President Barack Obama sees the link between US weather patterns, farming and climate change. Meeting drought-stricken farmers in California on Friday he foreshadowed a $1bn “climate resilience fund”.
And before the Abbott government abolished it, the independent climate commission in its Critical Decade report suggested Australia was facing similar pressures.
It said that “changing rainfall patterns, the increasing risk of extreme heat and bushfire weather present challenges for Australian agriculture. Production of temperature and water sensitive broad acre crops, fruit, vegetables and wine grapes need to adapt to these changing growing conditions or move to locations where growing conditions are more amenable to their production.”
Similarly, the just-announced review of the renewable energy target is asking the right questions but seems to be driven more by some exaggerated assessments of the impact of the RET on power bills and less by why it could be a good idea to continue to encourage the use of more renewable energy.
After recent cabinet divisions about who should do the review and how far it should go, Abbott told Alan Jones on Monday morning the government was “very close” to announcing it, and that it would report within months.
Asked by Jones, “how can we justify providing subsidies to solar energy and wind power with borrowed money when many of those companies are foreign companies, Thai companies for example?”, Abbott replied, “well, that is a very fair point, Alan, and that is why we are very close to announcing a review into this which will report in a matter of months and then the government will have more to say because just as the carbon tax is massively boosting power prices, the renewable energy targets are also having an impact on prices. Not as great, but still not insignificant. What this government wants to do is bear down on prices.”
Last December, Abbott described the price impact of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) as “pretty significant”.
According to the Australian Energy Market Commission in 2013-14 the RET was responsible for around 4% of the average household bill, falling to a likely 3.1% in 2014-15.
Other estimates, from the New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal and the Queensland Competition Authority, fall within a range of between 3% and 5% of retail electricity bills.
But because the RET is already providing ongoing subsidies to existing renewable energy projects, reducing or removing it will not translate into an immediate removal of the small price impact it has had so far.
Modelling for the climate change authority by Sinclair Knight Merz found removing the RET altogether would reduce an average household bill by just $15 a year.
And the climate change authority, when it last reviewed the RET in December 2012, found there was a good case to keep it to continue to encourage investment in renewable power.
Of course if it hadn’t factored in the impact of climate change or the long-term need to change Australia’s fossil fuel use in response to it, it would have come up with a very different calculation.
No comments:
Post a Comment