I'm not sure how we're supposed to believe that disposal of nuclear waste won't be a problem when we can't manage systems to properly deal with the waste we are creating now.

So.much for climate change :(

Ffs, Vote Green

>Australia has one of the lowest rates of people acknowledging that 'climate disruption' is caused by humans

Colour me not suprised

>Central to their concerns are how the IPCC predictions rely on a tool called the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI), which does not capture the full potential of future fires in drought and heatwave conditions.

>Bureau of Meteorology senior research scientist Mika Peace and independent study co-author Lachlan McCaw identified several variables missing from the IPCC report's fire predictions under climate change.

> > > Two states have banned native forest logging, but it’s still happening in the others. > >

> > > Last week, the Albanese government introduced legislation to create a new statutory body called Environment Information Australia. The bill is due for debate in parliament today. The government clearly expects the bill will pass, because the new body has already been allocated A$54 million over four years in the May budget. > > > > Why do we need it? Australia’s natural world is in steep decline – based on what we know. But there’s much we don’t know. > >

This report, titled Our Changing Snowscapes: Climate Change Impacts and Recommendations for the Australian Alps developed by the Australian Mountain Research Facility and ANU, commissioned by Protect Our Winters Australia, reviews the current state of climate change impacts on the Australian Alps and puts forward recommendations for a better path forward. POW Australia commissioned this report as we found that the information on climate impacts in the Australian Alps was fragmented and outdated, with significant focus on snowfall and ecological impacts, and limited research on the social and economic consequences of climate change.

In commissioning this report, we have brought together the current breadth of knowledge of climate impacts and projections on the Australian Alps, looking specifically at a wide range of economic, social and environmental impacts. The spectacular Australian Alps extend over 1.6 million hectares of public land contained in 11 national parks and nature reserves across New South Wales (NSW), Victoria (VIC), and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). They are home to nationally significant winter-tourism sectors, thriving and passionate regional communities and some of Australia's most unique and fragile landscapes.

For every dollar invested in clean energy companies, superannuation funds have five dollars invested in the expansion of fossil fuels, an index has found.

Australia’s top 30 super funds have more than $39 billion invested in the global expansion of gas, coal and oil, according to a report released on Tuesday by shareholder organisation Market Forces.

Retirement savings allocated across the Climate Wreckers Index – a group of 190 coal, oil and gas companies – have more than doubled in the two years to December 2023 in the largest or default investment options, based on the latest available disclosures.

Simultaneously, the amount allocated to listed clean energy companies has declined by half a billion dollars to a mere $7.7 billion despite the funds’ climate pledges.

Even as the market watchdog warns it is on the lookout for false green credentials, almost all of these super funds have signed up for net zero emissions by 2050 or acknowledge that climate change poses significant risks.

Yet the index showed no major trend of these super funds actively selling down stakes in “climate wrecker” companies.

Those most exposed to the expansion of fossil fuels were savers in UniSuper – Balanced, Commonwealth Super Corp – PSS Default, and MLC – MySuper Growth, according to the index.

Market Forces called for the super funds to do better if they are to avoid scrutiny from regulators or face legal action for greenwashing.

For the first time, researchers identified each fund’s share of emissions from the fossil fuel expansion plans of index members and fingered three companies as the biggest polluters.

Woodside Energy, gas giant Santos and Whitehaven Coal were found to be responsible for more than half (59 per cent) of index companies’ projected emissions attributable to expansion plans.

Woodside and Santos can no longer obtain project finance for new oil and gas field developments from Australia’s big four banks, according to Market Forces.

Now Australian super funds are being urged to clean up their members’ retirement accounts.

“Thousands of members are furious that large funds including AustralianSuper, Australian Retirement Trust and HESTA are failing to rein in the climate-wrecking business plans of companies like Woodside,” Market Forces spokesman Brett Morgan said.

The combined emissions from these expansion projects, totalling more than 129 gigatonnes, would eat up about half of the remaining global carbon budget for keeping global warming to 1.5C, according to the research.

Resources heavyweight BHP was called out as a “significant problem”, with the five biggest funds collectively owning nearly eight per cent of it across their dozens of investment options.

However, Vision Super’s chief investment officer Michael Wyrsch said there could be favourable outcomes for climate risk if BHP was successful in its attempted takeover of South African mining behemoth Anglo American.

BHP may close down some coal mines earlier than would be the case if Anglo American remained a stand-alone company, which would be good thing, he said.

Source: AAP

No surprises there I guess :(

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/9550904

In today's edition of no shit sherlock. So... solutions ? If only there was some solution, like... not flying... No? okay then, societal collapse it is.

Finally, after a devastating decade of climate and energy transition chaos, inaction and underinvestment under the LNP luddites, we appear to have a government that appreciates Australia’s comparative advantages.

Superabundant renewables, world-leading reserves of critical minerals and strategic metals, an advanced industrial base and strong human capital – are key to locking in our economic prosperity for decades to come.

On Tuesday night, the federal government announced $21.0 billion of new funding initiatives under the Future Made in Australia Act strategic framework in Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ 2024-2025 Federal Budget.

Adding to the around $45 billion of capital support in the 2023 budget, this is another substantial downpayment on the $100 billion of new capital and budget support needed this decade to drive investment in zero emissions industries of the future for Australia.

And notwithstanding last week’s travesty of a Gas Strategy that inexplicably centres methane in our energy mix for decades and decades to come, we can see the burgeoning pivot from our dig-and-ship petrostate to a fit for purpose economy gearing up for the opportunities of a post carbon world. Fortunately, there was no sign of any new support in the budget for methane.

Unlike our trade partners, preeminently the US with the $1tn Inflation Reduction Act’s ‘green new deal and South Korea’s US$313bn public financing of decarbonisation in March 2024, our government has taken a more careful, incremental approach to rolling out state investment in cleantech and renewables.

This is probably by virtue of political necessity given the fomenting of the climate wars and distraction and delay by the Federal opposition, which somewhat mutes the scale of what is being targeted. But now, in combination with the last Budget, we see real forward momentum.

Key initiatives in Budget 2024-25 include:

– A new $7bn Critical Minerals value-adding Production Tax Credit.

– $3.2bn additional funding for ARENA technology commercialisation.

– A $6.7bn Hydrogen Production Tax Incentive and $1.3bn of additional Hydrogen Headstart funding (we presume this will be domestic use oriented e.g. green iron).

– $209m into the Net Zero Economy Authority.

– $168m to prioritise approval decisions for renewable projects of national significance.

– $500m Battery Breakthrough Initiative.

– $179m in additional employment & skills supports for regions + $56m in Building Women’s Careers program + $91m to accelerate the development of the clean energy workforce & expanding the New Energy Apprenticeship Program.

– $777m for strong First Nations workforce participation and development.

The implementation of the Future Made in Australia Act (FMIA) will be guided by a framework comprising a ‘net zero transformation’ stream, where Australia has grounds to build enduring comparative advantage; and an ‘economic security and resilience’ stream, which will identify sectors that are critical to our resilience and vulnerable to supply disruptions.

Five industries are highlighted as aligned with the National Interest Framework: Renewable hydrogen; Critical minerals processing; Green metals; Low carbon liquid fuels; Clean energy manufacturing, including battery and solar panel supply chains.

The Government will establish a ‘new front door for investors’ with major, transformational investment proposals related to Future Made in Australia to make it simpler to invest in Australia and attract more global and domestic capital. This is a strategically important initiative – collaboration with global technology leaders is going to be key to FMIA’s success.

The development of the production tax credit (PTC) model for critical minerals and green hydrogen to incentivise onshore value-adding is a strong step forward, a clear acknowledgement that Australia can’t simply leave it to free markets when other countries have made such significant public interest interventions, undermining global trade.

Some question this over-emphasis on renewable hydrogen, but our read is this is capacity building for mostly domestic applications, including production of green iron for export, a key opportunity for Australia in future global trade.

This will also leverage Energy Minister Bowen’s 82% Renewables by 2030 initiative, turbocharged by the 32GW Capacity Investment Scheme which is driving the rollout of utility scale firmed renewables by underpinning and catalysing private investment, meaning Australia can power our new refineries and regional cleantech manufacturing precincts with renewables so as to export ‘embodied decarbonisation’.

The world is in a technology, trade and finance decarbonisation race to the top as the global energy transition speeds up. This is Australia’s biggest investment, employment, and export opportunity in a century to reorient from our fossil fuel reliant past.

We clearly needed this budget to respond strategically, proportionally and fast, which it has done.

The overall $9bn surplus announced demonstrates this government’s financial credentials and builds in a strong financial fiscal position for the second consecutive year, a marked contrast to the previous mob’s nine-year run of deficits. Now the Albanese government is also starting to show us the money, and invest in a more sustainable economic future for Australia.

It shows a government that understands both this imperative to act to transition Australia to its future as a clean, green superpower and the opportunity cost and risks of not moving to secure Australia’s place in the new net zero world economy.

However, while the budget is pleasing, we would encourage the government to consider more ambitious capital support in future budgets to massively accelerate renewable energy and electrify everything; stimulate value-adding onshore of our world leading critical mineral and metals resources; and rebuild our manufacturing base so we can make things here and secure our position in cleantech supply chain. This will attract an influx of private capital to energy transition.

Over the last year we have seen the allocation of some $45bn of mostly capital support for decarbonisation and reindustrialisation: $15bn to the National Reconstruction Fund; $20bn Rewiring the Nation funding (into the CEFC); the $4bn Critical Minerals Fund; $1.9bn into Powering the Regions; $1bn into the Solar Sunshot; $2bn into the Hydrogen Headstart.

We applaud the extra $3.2bn funding into ARENA.

We continue to call on the government to give the Future Fund a $20bn equity mandate for mining value-adding, to underpin majority Australian equity ownership.

CEF will continue to advocate for more patient, strategic capital support, in terms of debt, private equity, common user infrastructure and equity to derisk and crowd-in the $200-400bn of private capital needed over the coming decade or so.

We note the reference to leveraging Export Finance Australia’s National Interest Account, expanded to include support for projects where domestic capability is critical to protect our national security interests.

$3.5bn in new energy bill relief for households will help offset a fraction of the fossil fuel sector hyperinflation that has driven bill shock. The only permanent solution to the energy price crisis is firmed renewable energy.

On this point, and on the downside of this Budget, we particularly note the absence of any additional stimulus on ‘electrifying everything’, and only $28m of new funding to better integrate consumer energy resources into the grid.

This is disappointing when household electrification and grid modernisation is key to cheap, clean, secure energy for all Australians and a cornerstone opportunity that should be aligned and commensurate with the industrial stimulus that is the key feature of this Budget.

We also note that the expensive imported high emissions diesel fuel subsidy is set to rise to an average of $11bn annually over the forward estimates. This is a massive headwind to domestic energy security, decarbonisation and electrification. As CEF has previously argued, after 60 years, it is past time for this to be capped at $50m pa per corporation (which will leave 100% of our farmers unaffected).

We note there is $32m over the forward estimates for carbon capture and storage (CCS) funding of regional cooperation initiatives, but this looks like funding to build bilateral regulatory frameworks.

If Japan or South Korea want to pay >US$100/t for Australia to take liquified CO2 and sequester it, CEF can live with that – bring on a substantial, regulated carbon price in our major trade partners. They won’t pay for vapourware or years of serial underperformance like at Gorgon!

And there is still no update on the decade-long wait for multinational corporate tax reform to level the playing field currently tilted against Australian firms doing the right thing for Australia.

The $14m to strengthen high-quality critical minerals benchmarks with trade partners is a small step in the right direction. CEF hopes this underpins the massive effort required by Foreign Minister Penny Wong to build an international Asian collaboration with global technology leaders and our key trade partners, including international trade price signals e.g. a ‘green premium’ for minerals processed using renewables, or the development of an Asian carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to leverage the EU CBAM.

Australia must play the energy transition long game, but we must front-load it this decade, as the climate crisis heats up and as every other advanced economy in the world commits unprecedented investment into decarbonisation, foregrounding national and energy security and shoring up sovereign supply chains.

We are hopeful that this evening’s emphatic entry of Australia into the global race is a harbinger of the government’s intention to seize its once in a century opportunity to remake Australia as a zero-emissions trade and investment leader. This will reap the massive economic, employment and climate benefits for all Australians into the future.

Tim Buckley is director of Climate Energy Finance and AM Jonson is chief of staff. Blair Palese is founder of the Climate Capital Forum.

One of the world’s leading energy experts, and the man dubbed the “Einstein of energy efficiency” has debunked the claims that nuclear energy is essential to meet climate goals, saying that choosing nuclear over renewables and energy efficiency will make the climate crisis worse.

“Carbon-free power is necessary but not sufficient; we also need cheap and fast,” says Lovins, the co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, now known as RMI, and who has been advising governments and companies on energy efficiency for half a century.

“We therefore need to count carbon and cost and speed. At actual market prices and deployment speeds, new nuclear plants would save manyfold less carbon per dollar and per year than cheaper, faster efficiency or modern renewables, thus making climate change worse.

“The more urgent you think climate change is, the more vital it is to buy cheap, fast, proven solutions—not costly, slow, speculative ones.”

The comments by Lovins, made in a keynote presentation at the annual Energy Efficiency Summit in Sydney on Wednesday, are particularly relevant in Australia, where one side of politics is threatening to stop wind, solar and storage, and tear up Commonwealth contracts, and keep coal generators open until such time that nuclear can be built.

The federal Coalition, and its conservative boosters in the media and so called think tanks, argue that nuclear is the best way to get to net zero by 2050, ignoring the pleas and warnings from climate scientists who say that unless emissions cuts are accelerated, then the planet has little chance of keeping average global warming below 2.0° or even 2.5°c.

A common refrain from the Coalition, and conservative parties across the world for that matter, is that nuclear should be included as part of an “all of the above” strategy. To be fair, it is also used by Labor when justifying their infatuation with fossil gas and its proposed future beyond 2050.

“When someone says climate change is so urgent that we need “all of the above,” remember Peter Bradford’s reply: “We’re not picking and backing winners. They don’t need it. We’re picking and backing losers.”

“That makes climate change worse,” Lovins says,. No proposed changes in size, technology, or fuel cycle would change these conclusions: they’re intrinsic to all nuclear technologies.”

He noted that renewables add as much capacity every few days as global nuclear power adds in a whole year. “Nuclear is a climate non-solution (that) isn’t worth paying for, let alone extra.

“Nuclear power has no business case or operational need. It offers no benefits for grid reliability or resilience justifying special treatment. In fact, its inflexibility and ungraceful failures complicate modern grid operations, and it hogs grid and market space that cheaper renewables are barred from contesting.”

Lovins says that grids in Europe have shown that renewable dominated grids can be run with great reliability “like a conductor with a symphony orchestra” with comparatively little storage, and little is needed if politicians and grid operators embraced the full potential of energy efficient and demand site incentives.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/9363398

> I just used to accept the 7% increase per c figure but as indicated > > >This figure comes from research undertaken by the French engineer Sadi Carnot and published 200 years ago this year. > > Their work has shown it's much more > > >For Australia, we helped develop a comprehensive review of the latest climate science to guide preparedness for future floods. This showed the increase per degree of global warming was about 7–28% for hourly or shorter duration extreme rain, and 2–15% for daily or longer extreme rain. This is much higher than figures in the existing flood planning standards recommending a general increase of 5% per degree of warming. > > and they explain why > > >We now know there’s more to the story. Yes, a hotter atmosphere has the capacity to hold more moisture. But the condensation of water vapour to make rain droplets releases heat. This, in turn, can fuel stronger convection in thunderstorms, which can then dump substantially more rain. > > >This means that the intensity of extreme rainfall could increase by much more than 7% per degree of warming. What we’re seeing is that thunderstorms can likely dump about double or triple that rate – around 14–21% more rain for each degree of warming > >

Encountered this fellow during bushcare today. He was sitting right on top of the bridal veil roots we were pulling, looking suspiciously like a rock.

We probably shouldn't have handled him (I hope turtles don't get dizzy from being turned upside down). We put him back down and hid him under some other groundcover as a local Kookaburra was loitering.

! ! ! !

Another one on the way .... to extinction! Not one mention of climate change in the article :)

>the species was already facing many threats and the additional risk posed by high temperatures could have brought it to the brink of extinction without intervention.

>“The site data shows the temperatures this summer exceeded previous known maximums, she said.

Looks like they would have nearly all died, with GHG emissions still increasing, I can't see how were doing anything but kick the can down the road

https://archive.ph/ArJOi