The Australian government will begin imposing a tax on carbon emissions in mid-2012. But large giveaways to industry mean Australia’s scheme doesn’t go nearly far enough in reducing the nation’s CO2 emissions or providing economic stimulus.

Another global climate conference has come and gone with little action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which makes efforts to combat climate change at the national or local level all the more important. After years of bitter debate and haggling, we in Australia last month finally decided to follow Europe in putting a price on carbon. Unfortunately, Australia’s plan, like Europe’s, gave away far too much to major emitters of CO2 and does far too little to reduce emissions, aiming for a 5 percent cut in carbon by 2020, with uncertainty as to how deep the cuts may be beyond then.

Countries that wish to use market-based mechanisms to tackle climate change can learn much from Australia’s example. Unfortunately, most of the lessons relate to what not to do. The final incarnation of Australia’s scheme could have been both economically and environmentally superior had the politics not been so poorly handled. A review of the blunders and miscalculations is instructive.

The price on carbon is too low to transform the way Australia produces or consumes energy.

While the Labor government was initially highly ambitious about the scope of its scheme and the depth of the emission reductions, the longer the debate dragged on, the more watered-down the scheme became. In the end, entire sectors of business, industry, or agriculture were either largely or entirely exempted from needing CO2 emissions permits in the coming eight years. The plan — a hybrid between a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme — sets the price of CO2 emissions at a fixed level of $23 Australian per ton for the first three years, too low to drive substantial transformation of the way that Australia produces and consumes energy. Prime Minister Julia Gillard says CO2 emissions will be cut by 160 million tons over the next eight years, but that remains to be seen.

After the three-year fixed-price period ends in 2015, market forces will set the cost of pollution permits. However, price caps and ceilings will exist for an additional five years to provide some degree of ongoing price stability. Only about 500 big polluters — those responsible for releasing more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year — will be required to purchase pollution permits under the scheme. That sounds fair enough, until you realize that many major CO2 polluters were largely let off the hook for the near future.

For example, agricultural emissions were exempted entirely from the scheme. Big sectors like passenger transport were effectively removed. And Australian exporters were given a huge break, after fervently arguing that the introduction of a carbon price would make them uncompetitive and result in jobs being transferred offshore. Despite the evidence that these concerns were largely exaggerated, the so-called “emissions-intensive trade-exposed” industries succeeded in winning their demands that they be largely exempted from the carbon price. Indeed, these big polluters will not have to pay the carbon price on 94.5 percent of their emissions for the first three years. While the carbon price legislation includes provisions for future review of these generous entitlements to free permits, in practice it will take at least five years to make any real reductions.

This highlights a key lesson from the Australian debate. The giveaway of so many CO2 emissions permits should have been presented to the public for what it is: lost revenue and a gift to the biggest polluters. Instead, export industries framed the debate as an essential step to protect domestic industry. The tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue associated with the provision of large amounts of free permits is money that the government could have been spent on investing in renewable energy, giving tax cuts to employees, funding targeted cuts in corporate taxes, or providing investment allowances to targeted industries. Such use of carbon tax revenues would have helped create stronger support among segments of business.

As it was, most businesses that were not big polluters were relatively silent about both the desirability of introducing a carbon price and the enormous cost of providing the free emissions permits. Unfortunately, the consequences of providing so many free permits were not usually discussed in such terms — a major mistake.

While there is an economic argument for providing some compensation for some industries, there were no strong economic arguments for providing anything like the level of free permits given to the biggest polluters in Australia. The generosity of the assistance appears to be wildly out of step with the meager compromises made by the polluters. Put simply, if compensation is the price you are willing to pay to get what you want, the Australian taxpayer was willing to pay a lot to achieve very little.

Australia’s carbon scheme will also provide generous compensation to low- and middle- income households; the lowest income earners will receive more than 100 percent compensation for the likely impact of higher energy prices on their household budgets. That said, despite the enormous political outcry about putting a price on carbon, the price impact is likely to be less than one percent, or $9.00 per week, for an average household. Only the highest-income earners will miss out on compensation, but again the price impact is likely to be modest; a household earning $100,000 is likely to experience energy and other price rises of less than $1,000 per year.

Never underestimate the ease with which opponents can attack the details in any scheme.

Critics derided the idea of taking money away from Australian households with one hand, in the form of a price on carbon, and giving it back to them with another, labeling it a “great big money-go-round.” But this is one aspect of the carbon legislation that makes sense. With a price on carbon, those who can change their behavior and use fewer fossil fuels will be better off when they receive compensation from the government. Those who can’t change their behavior need be no worse off.

Another valuable lesson from Australia is to never underestimate the ease with which opponents can attack the details of any scheme — the more complex, the harder it is to sell. When proponents start putting effort into explaining a specific scheme, then by definition they must put less energy into talking about the gravity of the problem it is designed to solve.

Both the Australian government and the Australian environmental movement spent nearly four years talking about the details of an incredibly complex piece of policy, and in so doing virtually stopped talking about the scientific and economic cases for tackling climate change. The abandonment of this terrain enabled the climate and economic skeptics to promote a wide range of entirely misleading — but highly effective — messages, many focused on overstated claims of economic disaster. (A similar tactic was used to kill climate legislation in the U.S. Senate.) Opponents also frequently shifted ground, at first denying there was evidence of global warming, then accepting that there might be warming but repudiating the link to human activity. Some finally accepted that humans might be causing the planet to heat up, but then maintained that Australia is too small to make a difference.

To other countries contemplating a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme, I would offer the following advice: Be less ambitious at the beginning of the project and more determined at the end. Don’t try to take on all the polluters simultaneously, but approach different sectors in different ways at different times. They should be played off against each other on specific issues, rather than united in their hostility toward a general principle.

So where do things stand? The design of the legislation and the determination of the government to provide certainty to industry means it is highly unlikely that there will be any chance to broaden the scope of the scheme — and give it real teeth — before 2020. The debate about the scientific need to tackle climate change has been removed from the political agenda, replaced with economic arguments about whether the compensation is adequate or not.

Meanwhile, as Australia moves ahead with a watered-down plan that ignores scientific evidence about the depth of cuts required to help prevent global warming, the nation’s coal industry — the world’s largest exporter of coal — is experiencing a boom. Australia’s coal exports are expected to double in the coming decade, much of it heading to China, where the emissions will further foul the air of Beijing and Shanghai and add to the heat-trapping gases rapidly accumulating in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Article by Richard Denniss, appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Australia Unveils Plans to Tax Carbon Emissions by Next Summer
• Australians Want Renewable Energy
• Australia Brightens Up with New Solar Energy Plants
• Greener Aviation Industry Deemed Feasible for Australia and Region
• Australia Got a Boost of Alternative Energy in 2010

Green activists, take note – for Australia fully to embrace solar power, Canberra would have to spend $100 billion, with photovoltaic cells to generate the electricity covering an area twice the size of Sydney in order to replace Australia’s indigenous inexpensive coal-fired power plants with renewable energy sources.

This is not an insignificant figure, as Australian coal currently generates 80 percent of Australia’s electrical energy output.

The grim statistic was contained in the recent report, “Keeping the Home Fires Burning,” issued by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

So, who is the Australian Strategic Policy Institute? Tree-hugging, wallaby and kangaroo friendly ecological leftists or energy company flacks?

Uh, no.

According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute website, “ASPI is an independent, non-partisan policy institute. It has been set up by the government to provide fresh ideas on Australia’s defense and strategic policy choices… It aims to help Australians understand the critical strategic choices which our country will face over the coming years, and will help government make better-informed decisions.”

Accordingly ASPI’s conclusions cannot be seen as either energy industry shills nor environmental advocates, which makes them accordingly worth careful consideration.

The report starts ominously, “Australia, like all modern economies, needs an assured supply of energy to function effectively. As a net exporter of energy, Australia is well placed in most respects. But we are still reliant on external sources of oil.”

Authors Andrew Davies and Edward Mortimer pull no punches, first noting that Australia’s massive indigenous energy reserves of coal and natural gas would shield it from political disruptions in the Middle East before adding, ”The energy security policy challenges of the next 20 years are likely to pale into insignificance compared to those that will arise when the availability of fossil fuels declines significantly. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like renewable sources of energy will be able to provide adequate substitutes, at least based on current technology. Developing countries are even less likely to be able to adopt alternative energy sources on a large scale. As a result, any large reduction in fossil fuel usage will most likely be due to scarcity and price rather than choice. The timescale is decades rather than years, and the decline of existing fuel stocks will be gradual rather than precipitous, so there’s scope for technological advances to come to the rescue – but there are no obvious solutions at the moment.”

So, solar power to the rescue? According to the authors, ”The requirement (to generate solar power per capita) can also be expressed as 200 square meters of panel per person, or about four times the average amount of roof area per person in Australia today.” As for the country weaning itself off fossil fuel power and diverting to solar power generation, the authors conclude, “As a rough estimate, if the cost per panel could be halved (due to economies of scale), the total cost would be around $100 billion.”

What to do?

Davies and Mortimer suggest that in conjunction with neighbors New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Island countries Australia develop a strategic oil reserve to maintain transport and industry if and when Middle East disruptions imperil supplies.

For a government sponsored institute providing “fresh ideas,” ASPI seems stuck in a “business as usual” rut, looking at the immediate bottom line versus the long-term picture.

As for establishing an oil strategic reserve, the rising tensions in the Middle East over Iran’s nuclear programs could change the dynamics of Persian Gulf oil exports to East Asia long before strategic reserves could be established.

Australia does indeed have significant reserves of coal as well as access to natural gas, including the offshore Sunrise natural gas field, shared with Timor Leste and estimated to contain 5.1 trillion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas and 226 million barrels of condensate, the largest petroleum resource in the Timor Sea. Development of the field with Timor Leste has been blocked by disputes with the Timorese government for the last nine years.

Charming as the idea of boring holes in the ground and pumping Middle Eastern oil down them for a rainy day, would it not be in Australia’s interest to negotiate fairly with Timor Leste over the Sunrise field? Even if solar power gives Canberra sticker shock, it seems preferable to make local arrangements for more environmentally friendly fuels such as natural gas rather than continuing to import hydrocarbons from the Middle East or burning local coal. Best then, at the end of the day, it’s an economic issue, with quality of life considerations coming second.

But if Canberra has to give its energy import policies hostage to fortune, Timor Leste is a lot closer than the Persian Gulf.

Article by John C.K. Daly, appearing courtesy Oilprice.com

Related posts:

• Australia Brightens Up with New Solar Energy Plants
• Australia Got a Boost of Alternative Energy in 2010
• Australia Introduces Plan To Build World’s Largest Solar Plant
• Australia Unveils Plans to Tax Carbon Emissions by Next Summer
• Greener Aviation Industry Deemed Feasible for Australia and Region

Sydney is the largest and most populated city in all of Australia. It is also the capital of New South Wales. Sydney is known as a global center for the arts, culture, fashion, commerce, music, entertainment, tourism, and education. It was home to the 2000 Olympic summer games and the 2003 Rugby World Cup final match. While it is known for so much, many people also know this thriving metropolitan city as a center for clean technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainability. Here are just a few of the highlights of what Sydney has to offer the clean technology industry.

1 ) Sydney Energy Cooperative. As a not-for-profit environmental organization, Sydney Energy Cooperative looks to involve the community in all activities related to energy. The cooperative was created as public awareness regarding energy and environmental issues became the forefront of many discussions. However, with all the talk, there has been little action and the Sydney Energy Cooperative seeks to take those actions. It was established in 2007 by students studying photovoltaic and renewable energy engineering at the University of New South Wales. There are three main areas of activity – education, joint purchase of solar panels, and lighting installations.

2 ) BlueGreen Engineering. BlueGreen Engineering is well known company in Australia dealing with energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable design. Their mission is “To provide cost-effective innovative solutions which reduce energy consumption and cost.” BlueGreen Engineering has been involved in a number of products to assist in reducing energy consumption, including solar systems, lighting, and HVAC systems.

3 ) EcoSave. EcoSave was established in 2002 in Sydney and is one of the largest water and energy conservation companies in the country. Today, EcoSave works with a number of metropolitan and rural communities in Australia as well as New Zealand to provide water and energy saving solutions. For example, their efficient lighting solutions include lighting control systems, light fitting replacements, light fitting refurbishment, and voltage reduction units for fluorescent lighting. Water saving solutions include flow control for taps, water recycling, water efficient showers, cistern retro-fits, leak identification, and water and energy metering consolidation.

4 ) Energy Efficient Building Sydney. For homes in Sydney that are interested in becoming more energy efficient, Energy Efficient Building Sydney, is the best company to call. They provide everything from energy audits to eco-friendly products, energy saving products, heating and cooling, insulation, hot water services, landscaping, water harvesting, geothermal capabilities, and even information about how to get in contact with architects and designers that are able to build energy efficient homes.

5 ) First Electric Vehicle Charging Station in Sydney. In May of 2010, Australian-based company Chargepoint launched the first electric vehicle charging station in Sydney. This charging station is located in Derby Place, Glebe and is able to fully charge an electric vehicle battery in approximately three hours. With this being the first charging station, Chargepoint is now looking to create other stations in various other capital cities, including Perth and Melbourne. However, before these stations are created, the one in Sydney will be used as a “test subject” to see what the public response is like along with energy usage.

6 ) BP Australia. BP Australia is involved with the exploration and production of natural gas, oil, and liquefied natural gas, as well as the refining, transportation, and marketing of petroleum. However, BP Australia also has a long history of looking for measures that address current climate change, and therefore is always looking into the development of much cleaner fuels as well as low-carbon alternatives when it comes to power generation. For example, BP Australia has completed over 170 solar power systems for New South Wales schools and there are currently plans underway for another 75.

7 ) Easy Being Green. With so many Australians worried about the effects of climate change, Easy Being Green looks to help residents in Sydney attach the negative climate changes through a number of easy energy saving methods. Easy Being Green has been able to put a cap on over four million tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, which is roughly equivalent to removing around one million cars from the roads. Some of the solutions offered include solar photovoltaic, solar hot water, and heat pumps for all residential homes.

8 ) Sydney Water’s Pledge to Renewable Energy. Sydney Water recently created their own Renewable Energy Generation Program to assist in its pledge to become a carbon neutral company by the year 2020. The objective of this program is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 54,000 tons annually. Through this project, Sydney Water installed five biogas cogeneration facilities, along with three hydro-electric generators at wastewater treatment plants and pipelines throughout Sydney.

9 ) 2010 Multi-Million Dollar Smart Grid Project. EnergyAustralia in June of 2010 rolled out a $100 million trial of a smart grid project known as Smart Grid, Smart City across 50,000 homes in New South Wales, including Sydney. This is the first commercial-scale smart grid in all of Australia. Around 15,000 homes involved in the project will also have in-house displays and websites to allow them to track their utility use as well as their emissions levels.

10 ) Sydney Opera House Becomes More Energy Efficient. The Sydney Opera House, a multi-venue performance center that is easily one of the most recognizable landmarks in all of Australia, is looking to go green by installing a number of energy efficient measures. For example, the opera house replaced all the pumps of their air conditioning system with more efficient ones and changed the way in which seawater cooling is utilized in the air conditioning system to allow the equipment to work much more efficiently. Not only that, but the opera house is also starting to replace all their lighting with much more energy efficient lighting, including the utilization of LEDs.

Article by Shawn Lesser, Co-founder & Managing Partner of Atlanta-based Watershed Capital Group – an investment bank assisting sustainable fund and companies raise capital, perform acquisitions, and in other strategic financial decisions. He is also a Co-founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association ”The Global Voice of Cleantech”. He writes for various cleantech publications and is known as the David Letterman of Cleantech for his “Top 10″ series. He can be reached at shawn@watershedcapital.com

Related posts:

• Australians Want Renewable Energy
• Top Ten Highlights of Cleantech Australia
• Australia Aims for Zero Emissions by 2020
• Australia Unveils Plans to Tax Carbon Emissions by Next Summer
• Greener Aviation Industry Deemed Feasible for Australia and Region

Parliament OKs plan to cut carbon to 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2020

Under a controversial plan passed today in the Australian parliament, Australia’s 500 biggest greenhouse gas emitters will pay $23* for every ton of carbon they emit. The carbon pricing scheme, which will go into effect next July after the Senate’s likely nod in November, has been a political hot button for the Australian government and for prime minister Julia Gillard.

Even though packed with “sweeteners” that pull in political support but dampen its likely effect, the bill is considered by many as a huge step for Australia, the world’s largest exporter of coal and a top leader in greenhouse gas emissions per capita.

The Government estimates the carbon price will cost Australian households an additional $10 per week. But the bill passed today will also return more than half of the revenue raised to people via tax credits and direct payments, producing payments to individuals and households that should be more than enough to cover rising commodity and energy prices.

By making burning fossil fuels more expensive and thereby encouraging efficiency, efficient technologies and renewables, the bill, according to Labor estimates, will reduce Australia’s carbon emissions by 159 million tons by 2020, cutting at least 5 percent from the country’s emissions by 2020. By directly investing millions of dollars in renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development, the Government hopes those cuts could run even deeper as the clean tech sector develops and matures — a possibility that pleased environmentalists, industrialists and labor unions alike.

The legislation will “unleash $14.8 billion of opportunity,” said Australian Manufacturing Workers Union national secretary Dave Oliver.

A narrow margin
The issue of taxing carbon certainly has been a divisive and contentious one among the public and Australian politicians, as was exemplified by today’s 74-72 narrow passage of the 18-bill package. The bills are expected to pass in the Australian Senate next month, but not without the help of independent senators and the Australian Greens.

The plan is a political gamble for Gillard, whose popularity in public opinion polls fell precipitously after introducing the carbon tax in July. An ambitious carbon tax was previously considered in Australia under the Labor-led government of Kevin Rudd. But it never went anywhere. The biggest difference between the Rudd plan and the Gillard plan is that Rudd never brought his plan up for a vote, a move that infuriated many party loyalists and ultimately, many believe, led to his stepping down.

In the new plan, the Gillard government recognized the need to balance ambition with political practicality, including in it exemptions for agriculture, tax credits and direct payments to Australian households, and financial support to the tune of $9 billion to the heavy-polluting steel and aluminum industries, as well as the country’s booming liquified natural gas industry.

Conservatives vow repeal
Federal Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has promised to ditch the tax if he wins office. “We can repeal the tax, we will repeal the tax, we must repeal the tax,” Abbott said after Wednesday’s final vote. “I am giving you the most definite commitment any politician can give that this tax will go,” Abbott promised, calling his words “a pledge in blood.”

After the first three years of the program—if Abbot and conservatives haven’t wrestled control of the government from Labor by then—the carbon tax will evolve into an emissions trading scheme: a policy mechanism once known in the U.S. as “cap and trade.”

*All $ figures are quoted in Australian dollars which are roughly equivalent to US dollars (AUS$1=US$0.99)

Article by Timothy Hurst, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Australia Unveils Plans to Tax Carbon Emissions by Next Summer
• Australians Want Renewable Energy
• Australia Brightens Up with New Solar Energy Plants
• Greener Aviation Industry Deemed Feasible for Australia and Region
• Australia Got a Boost of Alternative Energy in 2010

In the summer of 2009, U.S. and Australian climate politics had a similar look and feel. The lower houses of legislature in each country had passed carbon trading schemes and were waiting on their respective senates to act. While the U.S. House’s wide-ranging cap-and-trade bill didn’t stand much of a chance in the Senate, many believed at the time that conservatives in the Australian Senate were on the verge of giving the go-ahead to an equally ambitious carbon plan. But after an internal leadership challenge in the opposition Liberal Party, conservatives reversed their official position on the climate plan, changing the course of climate legislation in Australia and putting it back on track with what was happening in Washington. After twice failing on votes in the Senate, in 2010, Prime Minister Rudd backed away from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which had been a core component of the Labor Party policy agenda. Many cite the move as leading to his demise as prime minister.

But a climate bill is again on the table in Australia after Prime Minister Julia Gillard Sunday outlined a plan to reduce the country’s annual carbon emissions by 159 million tons 2020. “We are moving from the days of words to deeds,” Gillard said, in a subtle reference to her former boss Kevin Rudd’s failure to stick with the carbon reduction scheme in 2010.

As prime ministers go in Australia, Gillard is not exactly popular. And bringing forward an ambitious and controversial bill is politically daring to say the least. But Gillard and her Labor Party colleagues learned a few lessons the last time they pushed a climate bill and have this time brought forward a plan that emphasizes simplicity, certainty and viability. And while the Obama administration has no intention of moving on a carbon cap any time soon, U.S. lawmakers who hope to revisit the climate issue one day might consider taking a page from their Australian colleagues’ playbooks

What the U.S. can learn from Australia: Lessons in simplicity, certainty and viability

The nearly fifteen hundred-page Waxman-Markey bill was anything but simple. Economists love the idea of simplicity in taxation because it can have a more direct impact on behavior. Want people to smoke less? Tax cigarettes. Want companies to emit less carbon? Tax carbon. But too many taxes and too confusing a code can muck up a well-intentioned bill. Although it is officially being referred to as a fixed-price carbon trading scheme, for the first three years of the plan, it will operate basically like a simple carbon tax. Under the plan, starting in 2012, facilities generating 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, provided they are not in the excluded agricultural or forestry sectors, will pay a fixed price of roughly $25 per ton of carbon emitted. Simple.

And what carbon taxes have been lauded for by liberals and libertarians alike is their financial certainty. Businesses like knowing how much taxes are going to be and what regulations they must follow so they can plan and budget for the future. Talk to any industry likely to be hit hard by climate legislation in the U.S., the one thing they all clamor for is certainty. The fixed price will rise 2.5 percent over the two following years before switching to a market-based pricing system in 2015. Companies will still be able to trade pollution permits in the first phase of the program, but the real trading and market opportunities won’t really take root until the government releases control of the carbon price. The fixed price at the outset of the Australian plan provides the kind of financial certainty that business interests are always asking for. Putting all your eggs into a marketbasket with a free-floating price from the outset can be dangerous. Just ask the Europeans, or Matt Taibbi.

Recognizing that they have no chance of passing a bill in Australia without helping the constituencies likely to be hit hardest by it, the Labor Party made several changes to the plan to boost its political viability. First of all, it made the plan smaller. Some 500 companies are estimated to fall under the Gillard carbon reduction plan, roughly half the number of companies that would have been covered by the even more ambitious Rudd plan.

And what did Labor do to deal with the powerful agricultural interests that certainly killed the bill last time in the Australian Senate? It exempted agriculture from the new plan. And to score some support from the general public, more than half of the revenue raised by the scheme will be returned to lower and middle income Australians via tax credits and direct payments as a buffer against rising cost of energy and other commodities. Another $9 billion in funds will also be directed to help heavy polluting steel and aluminum industries and help the country’s booming liquified natural gas industry adjust to the price increases. The danger, of course, is that sweetening the bill with so much viability can make it ineffective as policy. It can also backfire and turn off the very constituencies who supported the bill in the first place.

But good policy sometimes requires good politics.

Article by Timothy Hurst, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Australia Unveils Plans to Tax Carbon Emissions by Next Summer
• Australians Want Renewable Energy
• Australia Brightens Up with New Solar Energy Plants
• Greener Aviation Industry Deemed Feasible for Australia and Region
• Australia Got a Boost of Alternative Energy in 2010

The Australian government has unveiled a proposal to tax its heaviest carbon dioxide emitters as of July 2012, a plan that would make Australia the first nation to put a price on carbon.

The plan, which is expected to pass both houses of parliament before the end of the year, would require the nation’s 500 biggest CO2 emitters to pay $24.60 (AU$23) per ton of carbon dioxide, with that price increasing by 2.5 percent annually until July, 2015.

At that point, an emissions trading scheme will be introduced. By 2020, government officials say, the carbon tax would reduce Australia’s carbon emissions 5 percent below 2000 levels; by 2050, the plan will reduce emissions by 80 percent, officials said.

About AU$10 billion of the anticipated revenue will be funneled into energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

“Failing to do so means that we would be passing on lower living standards to our children and grandchildren,” said Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

With a population of about 22.6 million, Australia produces about 1.3 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Europe Unveils Plans for Single Energy Market Within 10 Years
• Australia Brightens Up with New Solar Energy Plants
• Greener Aviation Industry Deemed Feasible for Australia and Region
• Australia Introduces Plan To Build World’s Largest Solar Plant
• South Africa Will Use Solar Power to Fight Climate Change

If the public could have its way, Australia would be 100 per cent powered with alternative energy.

This is the main finding of a recent survey carried out by campaigners who interviewed 14,000 people across the country.

They found that 86 per cent of Australians want renewable energy and 91 per cent of them would like to see the government leading the shift. 75 per cent of respondents said they would be happy with a price on carbon.

“They’re sending a very strong signal to those of us who are in the negotiations to get on with it, get a carbon price,” Deputy Australian Greens leader Christine Milne told the press in Canberra, according to an AAP report.

Wind accounts for most of the large-scale renewable energy projects in this country. Milne says more action is necessary to bring solar and thermal projects online.

Currently there’s a political discussion going on in the country about the price of carbon, which is set to be unveiled in July.

Australia’s energy consumption is heavily dependent on coal, which makes it one of the highest emitters per capita in the world. Renewables such as wind, hydro and solar power, account for roughly five per cent of the total.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• Australian Parliament Adopts 20 Percent Renewables Standard By 2020
• Australia Aims for Zero Emissions by 2020
• Australians Start Banning Water Bottles – Is the G8 Next..?!
• Australia Going Solar – Gonna Cost Ya, Mate
• Water Sector Startups Innovate Efficient Use And Supply

The creation of a sustainable, “bio-derived” aviation industry for Australia and New Zealand can be achieved within two decades, a report by Australia’s top science agency says.

According to the report by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), the region has enough sources of non-food biomass — including crop and forestry residue, municipal waste, and algae — to support a local jet fuel industry and make the region less reliant on imported aviation fuels.

In addition to cutting aviation-related greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent, the report projects that in Australia the amount spent spent annually on imported fossil fuels could be slashed by $2 billion.

By 2050, the report predicts, about 50 percent of an airline’s fuels could come from biofuels.

But while the bio-derived industry will ultimately be commercially independent, the report says government support will be critical in establishing a supportive market structure and the development of refining plants.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Lufthansa: Biofuels Could Be Aviation’s Standard in Five Years
• Scaling Biofuels for Aviation ‘Not so difficult,’ Branson Says
• Qantas to Produce the World’s Second Commercial Biofuel Plant
• Energy Harvesting at Small Scale
• Aviation Boom in Asia Intensifies Global Competition for Fuel

Cleantech in Australia has been growing by leaps and bounds. Australian Cleantech provides numerous services, including the development of different policy initiatives that would stimulate future cleantech investments. Through Cleantech Australia, many topics have been covered, including renewable energy, low emission technologies, recycling, low emissions transport technologies, water and wastewater treatment and reuse technologies, and demand side management for water, energy, and various other resources.

1) Waste Management Association of Australia. In Australia, one of the largest things concentrated on is waste management. The Waste Management Association of Australia, or WMAA, participates in the complete development of the industry of waste management. WMAA positions itself to meet the ongoing demands of the global market that requires environmental and economic sustainable solutions. They assist different businesses and companies in deducing the most effective ways to deal with their waste into sustainable solutions.

2) The National Association of Forest Industries. The vision of the National Association of Forest Industries, or NAFI, is to create an Australian society that is ecologically sustainable and based on an international forest industry that is competitive. Australia has over 150 hectares in forests, which is more than 20% of the entire continent. The renewable, sustainable commercial forests in Australia are following the highest environmental standards throughout the world. Since 2009, NAFI has commenced a project that will take three years to finish. It is to increase the ability of the forest industry to decrease the harmful effects of the changing client.

3) Energy Supply Association of Australia. Established in 2004, Energy Supply Association of Australia, or ESAA looks at the factors that affect the energy supply sector of Australia. They are dedicated to achieve policies, market reforms, and regulatory arrangements that will contribute to the energy future of Australia. ESAA supports the constant development and implementation of emissions trading schemes to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

4) Cleantech Ventures. Sitting in Melbourne is Cleantech Ventures, a venture capital company known for investing in the cleantech sector. In their current portfolio, companies included are responsible for developing technologies that are presently targeting water, energy, and advanced materials sectors. Some companies they are investing in including OceanLinx, a company producing wave energy converter systems, Ecoult, a company creating technology for a hybrid battery, Ember Technologies, a company that developed and implemented a new controlling and power-sensing technology that will actually eliminate standby power consumption in many offices and homes throughout Australia.

5) BP Solar Australia. BP Solar opened an office recently in Australia. BP is now looking into solar power as a renewable and clean energy source that will assist individuals and businesses in not only saving money, but protecting the environment as well. BP Solar has long recognized the challenges posed by the current climate change and are, therefore, looking at the sun as a cleaner, sustainable technology. A key section of the BP Solar Australia strategy is to focus on harnessing the energy of the sun to produce electricity from solar power. BP Solar Australia is currently manufacturing numerous solar electricity systems for the market for not just businesses and governments, but also homeowners, schools, and developing communities.

6) Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator. The Australian government created the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator to look over the implementation of small scale renewable energy schemes (SRES) and large scale renewable energy targets (LRET). The SRES provides financial incentives for business owners to install small scale solar water systems or wind systems. LRET provides financial incentives to large-scale renewable power stations, including hydro-electric, wind, and solar, by offering a mechanism for the production of large scale generation certificates according to the amount of renewable energy electricity produced by them.

7) Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The Australian government also created the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. This is the main vehicle the government is using to lower carbon pollution to Kyoto Protocol levels, which is by 108% of the levels recorded in 1990. The government understands that it has a responsibility toward future generations and wants to create a future that is low in carbon pollution. Their Renewable Energy Target assists in the research and development of clean energy, and assists in measuring businesses, communities, households, and regions transition to a future low in carbon pollution. The climate change policy has three distinct pillars – to reduce overall emissions, adapt to the climate change that cannot be avoided, and shapre a new global solution.

8 ) Australian Greenhouse Office. Australia created the world’s first official government agency dedicated to reducing total greenhouse gas emissions. The Australian Greenhouse Office, or AGO, was created in 1998 to provide a new approach to the rising greenhouse gas emissions problem. The AGO is responsible for a number of mandatory programs for buildings, industrial equipment, and domestic appliance, including Energy Star and Energy Rating.

9) Australian Center for Renewable Energy. Through the Clean Energy Initiative, the Australian Center for Renewable Energy was created. The objective as such is for the promotion of the development, deployment, and commercialization of renewable energy, enabling technologies, and improving the overall competitiveness throughout Australia. The Australian Center for Renewable Energy is currently becoming the Australian government’s central contact point for its ongoing support in the field of renewable energy. Some of the objectives of the Australian Center for Renewable Energy include the development and implementation of a funding strategy able to support different innovative projects, and providing advice and support to the government, industry, as well as community on renewable energies and enabling various technologies, strategies, and various related issues when requested.

10) The Australian Solar Energy Society. The Australian Solar Energy Society, or AuSES, is one of the main providers of solar energy information within Australia. The members of AuSES include architects, academics, engineers, students, tradesmen, and solar energy companies. The objectives of AuSES includes promoting research, adoption, and development of solar energy low emission technologies, promote viable research on the use of solar energy, and to advocate the implementation of appropriate government policies and programs to endorse the use of solar energy.

Article by Shawn Lesser, president and founder of Atlanta-based Sustainable World Capital, which is focused on fund-raising for private equity cleantech/sustainable funds, as well as private cleantech companies and M&A. He is also a co- founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association, and can be reached at shawn.lesser@sworldcap.com

Related posts:

• Australia Unveils Plans to Tax Carbon Emissions by Next Summer
• Greener Aviation Industry Deemed Feasible for Australia and Region
• Australia Got a Boost of Alternative Energy in 2010
• Top Ten Cleantech Highlights of Sydney, Australia
• Coming Attractions: CleanTechies Events Highlights

(Reuters) – Australia’s government launched a third attempt on Thursday to make carbon polluters pay for their emissions, unveiling plans for a fixed-price scheme from 2012 and vowing not to surrender this time in the face of fierce opposition.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, whose predecessor was dumped last year after two failed attempts to address climate change, said polluters would pay a yet-to-be-determined fixed price from July 2012, then move to a market-based system within five years.

“This is an essential economic reform, and it is the right thing to do,” Gillard told a news conference, describing man-made climate as a national threat — just weeks after the country endured record floods and a massive cyclone.

“Can I make it very clear that in the debate that will ensue, I am not intending to take a backwards step,” she added.

The ruling Labor party came to power in 2007 vowing to cut carbon emissions, but its efforts foundered in parliament where it lacked sufficient support in the upper house Senate, leading last year to the dumping of then prime minister Kevin Rudd.

Gillard may yet succeed where Rudd failed. Thursday’s framework deal already has the support of her minority government’s political partners, including the Greens party which opposed the previous schemes for being too weak.

But crucial details, such as the actual starting price and the level of compensation to be paid to affected industries or households, have yet to be agreed with the Greens. Gillard said no decision had yet been made on any of these issues.

Some Australian electricity prices jumped after the announcement, but most futures contracts for 2012 were untraded, reflecting deep skepticism within the industry, which accounts for almost 40 percent of national emissions.

“This represents progress but there’s disagreement in parliament about the level of ambition for the carbon price and that translates into uncertainty,” said Deutsche Bank carbon analyst Tim Jordan.

“For any investor looking to take a long view on the carbon price, they need absolute clarity on the rules for the transition.”

Australia, the world’s biggest exporter of coal, is one of the highest per-capita carbon emitters in the rich world due to a reliance on coal for 80 percent of electricity generation.

Opposition urges “People’s Revolt”
The plan still faces strong political hostility from the conservative opposition parties, who describe any move to price carbon as a “great big new tax.”

“We will fight this tax every second of every minute of every day of every week of every month,” opposition leader Tony Abbott. “I think there will be a people’s revolt against this carbon tax. I don’t believe it will ever happen.”

But the new deal has sufficient support to pass the lower house of parliament and should find an easier passage through the Senate, where the Greens will also be influential.

The government and Greens will have the numbers to pass laws through the Senate from July 1, 2011, when new senators elected in a ballot held last August will take up their seats.

The real battle is likely to happen in parliamentary back rooms, between Gillard and her minor partners: the Greens and three independent MPs whose support she needs to stay in power.

The Greens will push the government to set stronger emissions targets than its existing promise to cut emissions by five percent below 2000 levels by 2020. They also want a strong carbon price and a limit on compensation for coal mines and coal-fired generators.

Key lower house independent Tony Windsor said he backed the idea of moving from a fixed price to an emissions trading scheme, but needed to see the detail before pledging his vote.

“This is very much the start of the process in my view,” Windsor told reporters. “There’s a lot of discussion to take place on this issue. What we’ve established today is a framework to attempt to work within. That doesn’t mean the game is over.”

Uncertainty Continues
Outside Canberra, polluters have become frustrated by the continuing uncertainty, which in some cases is impinging on their talks with borrowers. Many of them realize a carbon price is inevitable and are calling for a clear, workable plan.

Origin Energy, one of the country’s biggest retailers and investors in renewable energy, said a carbon price should be set at $25 a metric ton or above to make any difference.

In the world’s largest carbon market, the European Union emissions trading scheme, pollution permits ended on Wednesday at 15.29 euros ($21). Each represents a tonne of carbon emissions.

Another power retailer, TRUenergy, a unit of Hong Kong-listed CLP Holdings, also called for more clarity, though it preferred a market-based mechanism.

“That has not changed and we are still waiting to see the details of the framework,” said spokesman Carl Kitchen.

While some businesses favor market-based pricing, mining firms generally oppose carbon trading, saying it would lift costs and take projects offshore. Mining giant BHP Billiton recently came out in favor of a fixed price.

Article by James Grubel; Edited by Ed Davies and David Fogarty; Appearing courtesy Reuters.

Related posts:

• Australia Unveils Plans to Tax Carbon Emissions by Next Summer
• Australians Want Renewable Energy
• Australia Brightens Up with New Solar Energy Plants
• Australia Passes Landmark Carbon Tax
• What the US Can Learn from Australia Going All-In on Carbon Tax