Sky News Australia published August 19, 2022: 'Hey presto, it's back again': Labor's 'new' carbon tax on cars.
Sky News host Chris Kenny says the so-called "fuel efficiency standard" will see the government tell car companies what to sell, and will try to force everyday Australians out of petrol and diesel cars into electric ones.
"Great, bugger what car you want to buy, bugger your assessment of value for money. The government believes it knows what cars are right for you and at what price, and it doesn't like what you're buying at the moment," he said.
Sky News host Chris Kenny mentions Spain energy crisis in this story. I typed a snippit of what he said, "Doesn't this seem odd to you? A country that apparently doesn't rely on Russian gas rationing energy in order to help out other countries that do rely on Russian gas. It makes no sense at all does it? Did you like me wonder why the ABC never bothered to explain anything about the Spainish energy system? Or examine why Spain light on for energy? Ah what a pity . Perhaps the reporter's battery was flat. Because a few minutes on Google, and he would have discover that recently Spain has shut down almost all of its coal-fired generation. In fact, as this report frames it, 'the Spanish government committed to making its electricity system 100% renewable by the middle of the century, banning all new coal, oil, and gas extraction, ending all fossil fuel subsidies and making all new vehicles emission-free by 2040.' Not only does it all sound so familiar, it also suddenly makes sense. Spain like us has deliberately made itself energy poor in pursuit of climate action. Just like us. This is what they've been doing to the coal-fired power stations. (he shows a video of them exploding several working coal-fired power stations) Yep, they blew that one up just last year and now they are rationing power. (wow, I didn't know that was happening in Spain.) I reckon people around the world will eventually revolt against governments committing these heinous acts against the interest of their own people." (emphasis mine)
Sky News Australia published Jan 26, 2023: NSW Drivers being able to pay to offset emissions is an ‘interesting kind of announcement’.
NSW Shadow Energy Minister Jihad Dib says the state Government’s plan to allow drivers to pay to offset emissions was an “interesting kind of announcement”.
“Effectively what the minister here seems to not be thinking about is the fact that we’re actually in a cost of living crisis, people are really struggling,” he told Sky News Australia.
“Then you’re saying, hey, if you want to make more of a contribution, this is what you can do.
"I think there’s other things ... namely, trying to be able to get through day-to-day as a result of very high energy prices.”
Sky News Australia published Jan 11, 2023 'Labor is back and so is the carbon tax': O'Brien.
Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien says Labor is “back, and so is the carbon tax” with a “sneaky” safeguard mechanism.
“Albanese’s carbon tax is three times bigger than Julia Gillard’s carbon tax,” Mr O’Brien told Sky News host James Morrow.
“Let’s not forget, Labor promised to get power prices down; they are going up, and now welcome to 2023, we have a new tax for you.”
Sky News Australia published January 11, 2023: Australian consumers 'will pay through the nose' for PM's new carbon caps.
Sky News host Liz Storer says Australian consumers “will pay through the nose” for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s new carbon and energy price caps.
“The agenda is very clear and that is to make fossil fuels, any energy created by fossil fuels, absolutely unaffordable,” Ms Storer told Sky News host Caleb Bond.
“Why they are doing this at a time when there is no alternative? Renewables are unable to generate the base power load we need to run as a nation.”
ABC.net.au, Australia local
written by David Claughton and Michael Condon, ABC Rural
Thursday Janaury 12, 2023
As the dust settles on the Chubb review of Australia's carbon credit system, farmers and the big polluters relying on them for offsets are weighing up what it all means.
Despite whistleblower claims that the system is being rorted, Professor Ian Chubb said it was "fundamentally well designed" and he did not share the view that the level of abatement had been overstated.
However, he recommended some changes to the scheme, including a halt on further approvals for one key methodology used to offset emissions and tighter rules for others.
The scheme works by giving a carbon credit — known as an Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) — for every tonne of greenhouse gases avoided or stored by registered projects.
These credits are bought by the government, which uses them to help meet emissions reduction targets. Some, however, are sold into a private marketplace to businesses wanting to offset their own emissions.
Avoided deforestation under fire
The Chubb review has recommended that no more carbon credits be issued for "avoided deforestation".
This method allows farmers who had a permit to clear their land in north-west NSW to obtain a credit for not clearing it.
Professor Chubb said the clearing permits were now so old that it would be hard to establish an 'intent to clear land'.
It is a significant change because one in five credits issued in Australia is for projects based on this method.
Together with human-induced regeneration of native forests in the dry rangelands of Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, and the combustion of methane from landfills, they make up three-quarters of all credits.
That figure is based on research by Professor Andrew Macintosh, a leading expert on environmental markets who chaired the Integrity Committee of the Emissions Reduction Fund.
He published a paper with colleagues that described some of these schemes as an "environmental and taxpayer fraud", and he supplied the review with what he described as a "mountain of evidence" about that.
While Professor Chubb is closing the door on projects based on the "avoided deforestation" method, he thinks new rules could be developed that allow more approvals in future.
Human-induced regeneration
Rules governing another controversial methodology — human-induced regeneration — have been tightened up.
Professor Chubb has recommended a five-yearly check on regeneration projects and wants the energy regulator to publish the outcomes of each assessment.
He wants all future projects to meet the expectations of the scheme, which is to turn farmland into native forest that can permanently store carbon.
Professor Chubb dismissed concerns about the variability of carbon sequestration based on rainfall.
Richard Eckard is professor of sustainable agriculture at the University of Melbourne and director of the Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre.
He warned that carbon levels would increase in years of good rainfall and decline again during drought but said some projects were basing their claims on three years of good rainfall.
"What happens when El Nino comes back, and we have three dry years in a row, and the carbon barrels back out of the soil?" he asked.
Doubts remain for farm group
Peter Holding farms at Harden in NSW and is a community outreach officer for the Farmers For Climate Action group .
He is disappointed by Professor Chubb's findings, but he is pleased to see the rules around avoided deforestation projects have been tightened up.
"I don't think a lot of the country would have been cleared anyway, and that's the problem with additionality.
And he wants farmers to focus on how they will reduce their own emissions from farm equipment reliant on diesel.
"It might be with ammonia, it might be with hydrogen, it might be with EVs (electric vehicles), who knows, but pretending we don't have to worry about it isn't the answer."
"We need to stop these fake ideas and start dealing with the real issues about how you're going to transition your machinery into the new world in under 10 years."
Clear signal to market
John Connor, from the Carbon Market Initiative, an independent, member-based organisation dedicated to the transition to net-zero emissions, welcomed the review's finding that the effectiveness of Australia's carbon credit system had not been overstated.
And said that, together with changes to the Safeguard Mechanism, had delivered a clear signal to the market.
He said that landholders involved in those projects were safe, as none of the changes were retrospective, and the establishment of the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee should improve confidence in the system.
The price of Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs, has remained steady despite the big changes in policies.
Sky News Australia published October 15, 2022: Net zero emissions a ‘massive plot’ by China to 'de-industrialise' the West.
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan says net zero emissions is a “massive plot” by China to de-industrialise and “weaken” the West.
It was confirmed BMW will relocate production of the electric Mini from the United Kingdom to China.
“They’ve convinced all these gullible people in the West that yeah we should shut down our industry, we should no longer produce reliable power, everything will be great, the planet will cool and we’ll turn back the tides,” he told Sky News Australia.
“All that happens is you take all those jobs, you transfer all the jobs from the West to other countries that mean to do us harm.”
All of these climate policies governments are implementing are anti-human. Can you see that? These climate policies have nothing to do with saving the planet or protecting the environment. It's all leading to control of the human population. (emphasis mine)
Phys.org
written by Andrew Macintosh and Don Butler, The Conversation
Monday January 9, 2023
An independent review of Australia's controversial carbon credit system released today concluded the scheme is essentially sound. But key questions remain unaddressed—a fact that will continue to undermine confidence in Australia's central climate policy.
The review, led by former chief scientist Ian Chubb, followed concerns raised by our research team that the scheme lacked integrity and was not delivering genuine reductions in greenhouses gas emissions. The review panel, however, says it does "not share this view".
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen on Monday said the government would implement all 16 of the review panel's recommendations.
But more must be done to ensure the Albanese government truly delivers the emissions reductions it has promised.
Carbon credits underpin our climate policy
Australia's carbon credit system is central to reaching the federal government goal of 43% emissions reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050.
The scheme provides carbon credits to projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions using a number of approved methods, such as avoiding deforestation. These credits can be sold on the carbon market to entities that want to offset their emissions.
In March last year, our research team raised serious concerns about the scheme. In a series of papers, we outlined systemic flaws in the way carbon credits were issued.
We concluded Australia's Emissions Reduction Fund—under which the scheme operates—has serious governance flaws, has issued a large number of low integrity credits and is wasting billions of dollars in taxpayers' money.
Our analysis focused on three of the fund's most popular methods—avoiding deforestation, human-induced regeneration of native forests and combusting methane from landfills. These account for 75% of the credits issued under the scheme.
We found that more than 70% of the credits issued under these methods do not represent genuine emissions abatement.
Following that criticism, in July last year, the Albanese government commissioned an independent review of the scheme. Those findings were released today.
The panel concluded the carbon credit arrangements are largely sound. How the panel reached this conclusion is hard to fathom.
Discussion of the rules governing human-induced regeneration, landfill gas and avoided deforestation projects spans less than six pages.
The report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions, and includes very little analysis to support its findings. And importantly, the panel does not address key questions around the integrity of the scheme's rules.
Bewilderingly, in its assessment of the methods, the panel does not refer to the findings of a review it commissioned from the Australian Academy of Science to inform its considerations.
The academy reviewed the three main methods my research team analyzed and a fourth, concerning carbon capture and storage.
It found numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes. For example, consistent with our analysis, it found a risk the human-induced regeneration method is crediting vegetation change brought on by rainfall, rather than project activities.
The academy also found problems with the landfill gas method—namely, that so-called "baselines" used to calculate carbon abatement don't adequately account for other financial and regulatory incentives offered to operators for capturing and combusting methane.
This means credits are sometimes issued for actions the industry would take anyway. As I wrote in The Conversation in September last year, so great are the problems with the landfill gas method that several large companies profiting from it have called for changes to the system.
The academy is not alone in recognizing these problems. The CSIRO [consult.dcceew.gov.au/independ … /submission/view/150] and Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists also found problems with the rules governing the issuance of credits.
The review panel acknowledged the scientific evidence criticizing the carbon credit scheme, but says "it was also provided with evidence to the contrary." Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists.
Please CLICK HERE to read the entire detailed article...
No comments:
Post a Comment