Extract from The Guardian
Renewable Energy Agency axing prompts fears renewable energy projects may be forced overseas for funding
The government has been accused of breaking its word by cutting key
clean energy and conservation programs in the budget, amid fears that
renewable energy projects will be forced to go overseas for funding or
perish.
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena), which helps drive research and investment in clean energy, is to be wound up and merged into the Department of Industry, saving $1.3bn. The Coalition had pledged its support for Arena before the election.
Arena’s chief executive, Ivor Frischknecht, said he wasn’t surprised by the decision of treasurer Joe Hockey, who recently labeled a wind farm “utterly offensive”.
“Arena accelerates our transition to cheap, clean energy, but that acceleration won’t happen now,” he told Guardian Australia. “I’m disappointed by this and so are our stakeholders, who want to invest in renewables but now can’t do so.
“We don’t have long-term bipartisan agreement on what to do in this [renewables] space yet, unlike in Europe. The unfortunate reality is that the government needs the funding for other areas.”
Frischknecht said the clean energy sector “can’t be faulted” for thinking the government is ideologically opposed to it. The government’s alternative climate policies would not properly replace Arena, he said.
A total of 181 Arena-funded projects, worth close to $1bn, will continue. But Frischknecht said a further 190 proposed projects, worth about $7.7bn, probably would not.
The deputy chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, Kane Thornton, said axing Arena would force clean energy firms to look overseas for funding.
“There are a bunch of companies who rely on the support given by Arena and there is now no future for them in Australia,” he told Guardian Australia. “This decision is disappointing, particularly given the Coalition’s long-standing support for Arena.”
The budget had no funding for a Coalition election pledge to provide solar energy to an additional 1m households. The apparent antipathy towards anything deemed clean, green or renewable was further highlighted by the decision to change the name of the Clean Energy Supplement to the Energy Supplement.
The Landcare program has also been radically pared back, despite a commitment from the Coalition before the election not to cut its funding. The scheme, which works on regeneration of landscapes, will be merged with the Caring for our Country initiative to create the National Landcare Program. This will result in a $483.8m funding cut over five years.
Some of the duties of Landcare will be taken up by the $525m “Green Army”, which will put 15,000 mostly young people to work on regeneration projects by 2018. The initiative has been criticised for paying participants as little as half the minimum wage.
The chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O’Shanassy, said the broken Landcare promise was a “slap in the face for conservation heroes in the bush, in cities and on the coast”.
“The Green Army initiative is a useful land restoration program that ACF welcomes, but it is in no way an answer to the massive problem of climate change and its impact on Australia,” she said.
The budget confirmed the $2.55bn funding to establish the emissions reduction fund, which will be the centrepiece of the Coalition’s Direct Action climate policy, to replace carbon pricing.
However, the money will be spread out over 10 years, instead of the four years as previously promised, casting further doubt on whether it will be enough to achieve the goal of a 5% emissions cut by on 2000 levels by 2020.
Other cuts include $2.8m stripped from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority over four years, while the Bureau of Meteorology will have its budget slashed by $10m over this period. CSIRO’s budget has been reduced by $111m.
A merger of environment and climate change research programs into the new National Environmental Science Program will save $21.7m, while funding for biofuels and algal technology – an innovation often promoted by environment minister Greg Hunt – has been cut by $5m.
Offsetting this, $40m will go towards tackling the threats faced by the Great Barrier Reef and $300,000 will be given to Melbourne Zoo to facilitate the release of 60 orangutans back into the wild in Indonesia.
The BoM will get a new “supercomputer” and the government will buy a new icebreaking ship to support Australia’s Antarctic research stations.
“A new icebreaker is long overdue and the previous government had been negligent in failing to put aside the required funding,” Hunt said.
Hunt said the budget showed the protection of the Great Barrier Reef was a “top priority” of the government and predicted the Green Army would make a “real difference to the environment and local communities” through its projects, which will be announced soon.
Labor’s environment spokesman, Mark Butler, said: “Tony Abbott’s destruction of Australia’s environment protection system ruins any chance Australia has to prepare for the environmental challenges of the future.
“This budget takes the Abbott government’s assault on the environment and climate to a new level, and shows a disdain for science and research that threatens decades of investment and innovation.”
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena), which helps drive research and investment in clean energy, is to be wound up and merged into the Department of Industry, saving $1.3bn. The Coalition had pledged its support for Arena before the election.
Arena’s chief executive, Ivor Frischknecht, said he wasn’t surprised by the decision of treasurer Joe Hockey, who recently labeled a wind farm “utterly offensive”.
“Arena accelerates our transition to cheap, clean energy, but that acceleration won’t happen now,” he told Guardian Australia. “I’m disappointed by this and so are our stakeholders, who want to invest in renewables but now can’t do so.
“We don’t have long-term bipartisan agreement on what to do in this [renewables] space yet, unlike in Europe. The unfortunate reality is that the government needs the funding for other areas.”
Frischknecht said the clean energy sector “can’t be faulted” for thinking the government is ideologically opposed to it. The government’s alternative climate policies would not properly replace Arena, he said.
A total of 181 Arena-funded projects, worth close to $1bn, will continue. But Frischknecht said a further 190 proposed projects, worth about $7.7bn, probably would not.
The deputy chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, Kane Thornton, said axing Arena would force clean energy firms to look overseas for funding.
“There are a bunch of companies who rely on the support given by Arena and there is now no future for them in Australia,” he told Guardian Australia. “This decision is disappointing, particularly given the Coalition’s long-standing support for Arena.”
The budget had no funding for a Coalition election pledge to provide solar energy to an additional 1m households. The apparent antipathy towards anything deemed clean, green or renewable was further highlighted by the decision to change the name of the Clean Energy Supplement to the Energy Supplement.
The Landcare program has also been radically pared back, despite a commitment from the Coalition before the election not to cut its funding. The scheme, which works on regeneration of landscapes, will be merged with the Caring for our Country initiative to create the National Landcare Program. This will result in a $483.8m funding cut over five years.
Some of the duties of Landcare will be taken up by the $525m “Green Army”, which will put 15,000 mostly young people to work on regeneration projects by 2018. The initiative has been criticised for paying participants as little as half the minimum wage.
The chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kelly O’Shanassy, said the broken Landcare promise was a “slap in the face for conservation heroes in the bush, in cities and on the coast”.
“The Green Army initiative is a useful land restoration program that ACF welcomes, but it is in no way an answer to the massive problem of climate change and its impact on Australia,” she said.
The budget confirmed the $2.55bn funding to establish the emissions reduction fund, which will be the centrepiece of the Coalition’s Direct Action climate policy, to replace carbon pricing.
However, the money will be spread out over 10 years, instead of the four years as previously promised, casting further doubt on whether it will be enough to achieve the goal of a 5% emissions cut by on 2000 levels by 2020.
Other cuts include $2.8m stripped from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority over four years, while the Bureau of Meteorology will have its budget slashed by $10m over this period. CSIRO’s budget has been reduced by $111m.
A merger of environment and climate change research programs into the new National Environmental Science Program will save $21.7m, while funding for biofuels and algal technology – an innovation often promoted by environment minister Greg Hunt – has been cut by $5m.
Offsetting this, $40m will go towards tackling the threats faced by the Great Barrier Reef and $300,000 will be given to Melbourne Zoo to facilitate the release of 60 orangutans back into the wild in Indonesia.
The BoM will get a new “supercomputer” and the government will buy a new icebreaking ship to support Australia’s Antarctic research stations.
“A new icebreaker is long overdue and the previous government had been negligent in failing to put aside the required funding,” Hunt said.
Hunt said the budget showed the protection of the Great Barrier Reef was a “top priority” of the government and predicted the Green Army would make a “real difference to the environment and local communities” through its projects, which will be announced soon.
Labor’s environment spokesman, Mark Butler, said: “Tony Abbott’s destruction of Australia’s environment protection system ruins any chance Australia has to prepare for the environmental challenges of the future.
“This budget takes the Abbott government’s assault on the environment and climate to a new level, and shows a disdain for science and research that threatens decades of investment and innovation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment