Climate Tasmania

A Tasmanian take on the thorniest global issue since the dinosaurs. Based on Peter Boyer’s newspaper column in the Hobart Mercury.

Have your say

I’ve fixed my spam problem (I hope). To leave a comment, just go to the bottom of the main text.

How the suits use denial as a tool

Fossil fuel interests and their apologists are relying on circular arguments to justify inaction on emissions. [18 June 2013 | Peter Boyer]

Bill McKibben provides some free investment advice to a sceptical Michael Stutchbury. ABC-TV Q&A

Earth’s climate story is full of tipping points — times when there’s a discernable shift from one state to another. We may be going through one right now.

There are tipping points elsewhere, too. Our human story is pock-marked with moments of portent, when history hung in the balance before plunging off in a radically new direction.

Historical tipping points can be anticipated, but we tend to remember them as unexpected events, like a military attack, the toppling of a government, or the bursting of a stock or property bubble.

Surprises are part of the deal. Societies build defences against change, whether it’s armies and secret police or things like welfare systems and tariffs, but all of them carry the seeds of their own demise. The more we come to rely on them, the bigger the shock when they fail.

This applies to everyone, because we all have something to lose. People depending on welfare have a tough time when they lose it, but they’re rarely able or willing to make a fuss about their loss. But it’s another matter entirely when people higher up the pecking order see their protection threatened.

Money, power and status go hand in hand in our acquisitive society. The more you have of them, the more you have to lose, and the more vigorously you’ll fight to protect them. That’s a fact of life.

In defence of their holdings the well-heeled have many weapons at their disposal, but in the eternal debate over who should have what, there’s no argument more widely used than this: My well-being is your well-being, and if I go down, the rest of you will go down with me.

If such warnings are intended to cause nervousness in the wider community, they usually succeed. The threat can be as simple as the loss of a regular client at a fancy local eatery, or as complex as a proposed resources project failing to get approval.

Cases like the latter bring the suits out of the boardrooms into the spotlight to complain long and hard that rejection of their proposal will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. Their protests are picked up by news media and echoed loudly by union officials.

All seem oblivious of the fact that no jobs have been lost by such an approval decision because no-one has yet been employed by the companies concerned. But governments listen. It seems that to them all lost jobs, even imaginary ones, mean lost votes.

We are embedded in a system driven not by physical reality but by perception, a truth brought home to Australians this month by the US climate writer and advocate, Bill McKibben.

McKibben, who wrote the 1989 classic The End of Nature, told public audiences in eastern capitals (relayed by video-link to Hobart, Adelaide and Perth) that the disjunct between perception and reality over climate was driven by fossil fuel interests.

“Even people like George Bush or the CEO of Exxon are saying that global warming is real,” McKibben told ABC-TV Q&A viewers. “The only people who don’t say this any more are people with powerful financial ties to the fossil fuel industry.”

McKibben and others have calculated that realising currently-proven (and committed) fossil fuel reserves — burning all the oil, coal and gas taken from them — will produce five times more carbon dioxide than is needed to push global temperatures beyond safe limits.

By McKibben’s reckoning, untapped Australian coal reserves would fill about 30 per cent of the world carbon budget. He believes currently worked coal, oil and gas deposits may continue to be mined, but says people should take their money out of companies seeking to develop new reserves.

No-one has disputed McKibben’s arithmetic, including two fellow Q&A panellists, Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi and Australian Financial Review editor-in-chief, Michael Stutchbury.

But his divestment campaign is another matter. On Q&A, Bernardi saw it as “sheer folly”; to Stutchbury it was “verging on madness”, “a very big blow to the Australian economy and to the living standards of everyone here.”

To McKibben’s response that “madness is what we’re doing right now,” risking our future at a huge economic cost, Stutchbury said the science might be wrong, while Bernardi said bluntly that it was.

If you want to look serious, it pays to wear a suit with a tie. The Bernardi and Stutchbury suits contrasted with McKinnon’s more casual outfit, and may have lent gravitas to Stutchbury’s assertion that without coal mining, we’re gone. But appearances don’t change the facts.

The men in suits use an internal logic independent of external reality, which goes like this: Money is our life-blood, so to cease any lawful money-making activity is madness. All arguments against it are intrinsically false, and proponents of such arguments are morally inferior.

To reassign Bernardi’s words, “sheer folly” is to wilfully ignore physical reality. Against all evidence, Bernardi asserts that “thousands of scientists” doubt human-induced warming. In truth, all but a handful of scientists hold the contrary position.

McKibben is right. We won’t contain dangerous climate change without a concerted global effort to scale down extraction of coal, gas and oil. It will ultimately mean accepting a change of state, where a fossil-fuelled economy has been replaced by a viable one.

Moving through that particular tipping point is already is already proving hugely difficult in the face of powerful opposing interests. But it’s one heck of a lot less difficult than the alternative.

• World-leading atmospheric scientist and Climate Commissioner Prof Will Steffen will address two Hobart public meetings on Saturday. From 9.45 am at Clarence Uniting Church, Cambridge Road, Bellerive, he will discuss “angry summers of our future” (click here for more information) and at 7.30 pm at the University Centenary Lecture Theatre, Grosvenor Street, he will deliver the 2013 Richard Jones Memorial Lecture, “The Critical Decade” (rsvp utas.events@utas.edu.au).

 

Rooftop solar: more than just electricity

To see the true value of rooftop solar we have to go beyond the figures [11 June 2013 | Peter Boyer]

Installing solar panels on a commercial rooftop. PHOTO econews.com.au

If there was only one country in the world ready-made for solar energy, it would have to be Australia.

We see a lot of the sun. Averaged across the country, a square metre of Australian land receives well over five kilowatt-hours of solar energy a day. Even Tasmania, for all its cloudy weather, gets about four kilowatt-hours a square metre.

To put Tasmania’s figure in perspective, it’s about on a par with the average in China and the US and well ahead of the UK, France and the global leader in installed solar panel systems, Germany, where ground-level solar energy is around three kilowatt-hours a day for each square metre.

We can harness solar energy by using its heat, as in solar hot water heaters, which have proven their worth for many a Tasmanian household. Concentrated solar electricity (“solar thermal”) is a large-scale use of the sun’s heat, which is used to boil water to drive a steam turbine.

But when most of us think solar, we think of arrays of grey panels on home rooftops. Photovoltaic solar — solar PV for short — is the technology now in use around the world for converting sunlight directly into electricity.

Solar PV has its detractors. One complaint is that Tasmania has below-average sunlight, which is easily dispelled by solar data. It’s been harder to counter the argument that it produces too little power for too much cost, but this scene is evolving rapidly.

Last year the US Department of Energy found that since PV went on the market in 1976 prices have declined by about 95 per cent — around 20 per cent for each doubling of the number of units installed. The first solar panels cost about $60 for each watt of power at maximum output; in 2010 panels cost just $2 per watt generated.

Predictions have proven spectacularly wrong. In 1996 the World Bank estimated that China would have 500 megawatts of solar PV by 2020, but China had doubled that mark by 2011. A prominent analyst’s 2002 predictions for the global PV market in 2010 turned out to be 17 times too small.

The trend shows no sign of slowing. The International Energy Agency says that annual growth of the PV market since 2002 is 50 per cent and rising. A huge increase in Chinese PV production has dropped prices to the point where prospective solar purchasers no longer need the carrot of a government subsidy.

Take-up of solar PV in Tasmania — around six per cent of all homes — has been lower than even the modest solar penetration elsewhere in the country. It’s most popular south of Hobart (the part of Tasmania farthest from the equator) and least popular in the northwest.

Solar PV has been said to be for rich people, but in Tasmania solar households are slightly below the median income. Energy consultant Chris Harries points out that while low-income places have very few rooftop systems (they can’t afford it), there’s a similar dearth in wealthy suburbs (there’s no money in it).

This is the backdrop for a fraught public debate in Tasmania about how much solar households should be paid for the electricity they export to the grid. Right now, and for three years to come, it’s the same as the retail rate for electricity from the grid — 27 cents per kilowatt-hour.

With the decreasing cost of installing solar, Treasury is effectively asking whether the feed-in tariff is now too high. The coming sale of Aurora prior to full retail competition has raised the prospect that the rate might drop to around 8 cents a kilowatt-hour, around the level in some other states.

Tasmania differs from other states in that its feed-in tariffs aren’t mandated by government regulation, protecting long-term investments, but are private agreements with Aurora Energy. A new energy retailer could unilaterally change the rate of payment for exported solar energy.

Solar advocates point out that a May 16 issues paper on feed-in tariffs wrongly assumes that power produced on site can be used to run “Tariff 41” devices such as water storage heaters. They say it badly over-estimates the percentage of PV power that is used by the household that generates it.

They also point to transmission savings from the rising amount of locally-generated and consumed electricity, or distributed energy — a significant contribution by solar PV to the network

Solar PV people “lack confidence in Treasury’s ability to understand the benefits to Tasmania of a growing solar industry,” says Jack Gilding, of the advocacy group Save Solar Tasmania.

“On all the available evidence, we expect Treasury to promote a very narrow view of the role of solar PV in our electricity system. The Minister has a responsibility to take into account the wider benefits to Tasmania of a vibrant decentralised electricity system.”

This is getting to the nub of the problem. Ordinary citizens have limited options in the battle to reduce emissions. For those who aren’t turned on by walking more or growing vegetables, generating renewable energy at home can be the way to get engaged with the low-carbon challenge.

Judging the solar PV feed-in tariff in purely financial terms is missing the main point. In our battle to cut emissions, actions count. They count not just because of their end impact, but because people need to feel empowered — to feel that they can make a difference.

Solar PV and solar hot water are two ways that average Tasmanians — and remember, the average income of people who install these systems is below the median — can reduce our consumption of grid electricity to free up more hydro power for export.

Tasmania’s political and administrative leaders need to take the big picture position on feed-in tariffs. The success of solar power matters to us all.

Behind the bustle, a wall of silence

Tasmania’s major parties have a huge responsibility to implement effective climate policy, but leadership is sadly absent. [4 June 2013 | Peter Boyer]

Lara Giddings hears Rick Leighton describe his ultra-efficient low-energy home, which she opened last week.

If being busy is any guide, climate change is all the rage in Tasmania. Here’s a snapshot of some events, working backwards from early July.

On 5 July students from around Australia will converge on Launceston for a national youth climate gathering. A fortnight earlier scientist Will Steffen from the Climate Commission will address a public climate action forum in Bellerive, organised by Climate Action Hobart.

The 21st of June marks the deadline for public comment on the Tasmanian government’s recently-released “Low Carbon Tasmania” issues paper, while submissions on another paper on feed-in tariffs in a competitive retail electricity market are due by Friday this week, June 7.

Tomorrow night in Hobart (7:30pm at UTas Centenary Lecture Theatre) there’s to be a live broadcast from Canberra of US activist Bill McKibben on his “Do the Math” Australian tour. Last week, climate events were wall-to-wall.

On Thursday a Hobart public forum heard the case for retaining a full feed-in tariff for rooftop solar electricity, and on Wednesday Premier Lara Giddings opened a nine-star home by Hobart’s champion of energy-efficient housing, Rick Leighton.

On Tuesday a Launceston meeting chaired by deputy mayor Jeremy Ball heard from Climate Commissioner Lesley Hughes about how a changing climate would affect northern Tasmania.

The previous day Hughes chaired the Tasmanian Climate Action Council, and a day before that presented the TCAC “Blueprint for Action” to Climate Change Minister Cassy O’Connor. This followed closely on O’Connor’s release of “Low Carbon Tasmania”.

There’s obviously a lot happening here, but to what end? The question commonly comes from those who claim humans don’t affect climate. It’s time the rest of us asked it too.

Don’t misunderstand me. The gatherings express a genuine and valid concern held by many people about the future, and the various climate-related documents deal with matters of high public import. What we lack is a common focus, a sense of direction, and leadership.

The TCAC Blueprint is a start, offering a broad-brush guide to how Tasmania’s government and people should respond to climate change over coming decades.

It envisages that by 2020, Tasmania will be “a renewable energy powerhouse” with “widespread adoption of energy efficient technologies and practices” and increasingly-competitive high-value farm produce in world markets resulting from applied research into low-carbon agriculture.

In pursuit of Tasmania’s legislated 2050 emissions target of 60 per cent below 1990 levels, the Blueprint identifies renewable energy, energy efficiency and agriculture as the three priorities for action up to 2020. For each there are key goals and opportunities to feed off other initiatives.

Identifying these focal points will help us work out a direction, and to clarify thinking about the many possibilities raised in the “Low Carbon Tasmania” issues paper, whose multiple options need to converge if we’re to have a clear plan of action. Which brings us to leadership, the final and most elusive piece in the climate action puzzle.

Lara Giddings’s speech to open a nine-star home in South Hobart last week — a huge step forward in Tasmanian housing — was the first time I’d heard her speak at length and with conviction about how energy-efficient homes contribute to a better future.

Better late than never, but she needs to take another crucial step. She must make the link between using less energy and reducing the risk of dangerous climate change, leaving no doubt that this is the most fundamental challenge facing all governments, at all levels.

I don’t have any illusions about this. Dealing with climate change is as tough an assignment as what the leaders of the world’s democracies faced at the onset of the Second World War. It’s actually tougher in at least one way, in that there’s no visible, tangible enemy.

National leadership would help, as would a bipartisan local scene. But in Canberra we have a stand-off in the lead-up to a likely change of government and massive changes in climate policy, and here the opposition seems to have no interest in the matter.

Last week the Tasmanian Liberals released a detailed alternative budget for 2013-14. The title “Change for a brighter future” might suggest an interest in changing climate, but though I found things to like in the plan, climate policy wasn’t one of them.

The plan contains a handful of disparate energy and agriculture policies that have a connection with climate change, but there’s not even a hint of a directed, holistic response — except for one thing. The Liberals would disband the TCAC and have public servants do its monitoring work.

The TCAC is cheap by any measure, so the Liberals are saving a pittance. Their proposal shows that they either don’t know or don’t care what the TCAC does, and that they have no sense of the wide consultation that’s needed for an effective response to climate change.

Could it be that the Liberals think climate change is something to leave to Canberra — not their problem? Worse, do they not even see it as a problem at all? I’ve sought a meeting with opposition leader Will Hodgman to discuss this further, and will report on any outcome.

As for Giddings, she needs to take up on Tasmania’s behalf what she was encouraging ordinary citizens to do in her speech in South Hobart last week — to “do our bit” and “have an impact at an individual level”. She’s chosen to stay out of that space, but that’s not good enough.

This is what it comes down to. Before the 2014 state election, can Giddings or Hodgman find the strength and courage to declare that Tasmania should and can be a climate policy leader, and commit themselves and their parties to a plan that can achieve that?

The citizenry is out and about, but leadership is absent. We await a response.

• There are four days left for public comment on the Tasmanian government’s issues paper on payment for power from rooftop solar systems. You can get further information on this development at the Solar Citizens (Tasmania) website.