Tag: Australia

The not-so-lucky country

Australia-Bondi-BeachThe New South Wales government has decided that Sydney’s current water restricions are going to be permanent, because climate change projections suggest long term reductions in rainfall [Daily Telegraph(AU), ABC]. Meanwhile, CSIRO has released a report suggesting that three of the city’s great beaches could be lost to sea level rise. The Daily Telegraph reports:

[Waverley mayor George] Newhouse launched a climate-change marker today at North Bondi Children’s Pool, which he said was forecast to be under water by 2030. The marker indicates to beach visitors the predicted water height by 2100. “At Bondi, Tamarama and Bronte, we will just lose the whole beach and at other beaches like Collaroy and Narrabeen (in Sydney’s north) we will see houses falling into the water,

Grape expectations

HanginggrapesWinemakers in Australia and South Africa are worried about the impact of warming on their wines. In Australia, a new report [Stuff] suggests that grape quality will be hit badly, unless the industry adapts by moving to cooler areas or by planting hot climate varieties. And Canada’s Globe & Mail reports on South African concerns:

It’s getting too hot, and too wet (at the wrong times) in the key wine-growing region, and the flagship but fragile sauvignon blanc has been the first, but not the last, to suffer. It’s a harsh blow, first, because after years of sanctions in the apartheid era, the country has gradually been winning more market share for its wines (just under 3 per cent globally, last year.) and its wines have garnered more critical acclaim as well.

Luckily, I planted some syrah…

[Added 10/8/07: Interesting perspective on changes in Spanish viticulture in response to climate change from National Public Radio in the USA.]

Howard’s carbon conversion

AusssiesmallThere’s an Australian federal election on the way, and – bless his cotton socks – John Howard has discovered there are votes in carbon policy. Over the last few days Howard has announced a national cap and trade programme for greenhouse gases as part of a new A$627 million climate change initiative, coupled with subsidies for solar hot water systems in schools, and an A$1,000 rebate for domestic installations. The carbon trading mechanism will not begin until 2011, covers only 55% of Australian emissions, and the administration has not announced how big the cap will be. Unsurprisingly, this has been criticised by environmental campaigners, as New Scientist reports:

Caroline Fitzpatrick, of Greenpeace Australia accuses Howard of yielding to pressure from another group – Australia’s powerful coal industry – by announcing what amounts to a delaying tactic in carbon trading, rather than an effective new carbon-reduction scheme.

No doubt NZ’s Greenhouse Policy Coalition will renew its calls for the government on this side of the Tasman to match Howard’s cautious approach. Meanwhile, the Australia Institute has released a paper (press release, full paper [both PDF]), that calculates Australia’s emissions budget for the 21st century based on a “contract and converge

Aussie carbon trading: big bikkies for grandad?

John Howard’s Task Group on Emissions Trading has produced its report [PDF]. It concludes that an emissions trading regime is the way forward for Australia, but fails to suggest targets. It’s a very useful overview of how carbon trading mechanisms might be made to work, but has clearly been hamstrung by the current political realities in Australia. It remains to be seen how John Howard, with his noted aversion to targets for greenhouse gas reductions will handle setting up a trading scheme if re-elected – or how he will be able to ignore section 7.2.1.

Adopting a credible long-term aspirational goal for national emissions reduction is critical. It sets the framework for Australia’s overall abatement efforts. Such a goal could be described in terms of the percentage reduction in emissions from a particular point in time, or in terms of the maximum number of tonnes of CO2-e that Australia is aiming to emit by a particular year.

Some Aussie press coverage here and here. Science Alert commentary here. The Australian Stock Exchange is slavering at the bit.

The scope for handouts to industry through grandfathering, as has effectively happened in Europe, is huge. BBC Radio 4’s File On Four claims that the EU’s carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies and failed to cut greenhouse gases:

Power generators received their allowances free of charge but were allowed to reflect the value of those in increased prices to customers, as if the companies had actually had to buy the allowances. Energywatch believes this increased electricity bills by about 7% in 2005. And according to one government estimate, that delivered windfall profits of up to £1.3bn to the generators in that year – higher than environmental campaigners had claimed last year.

No Right Turn has an interesting post on how this problem might be addressed in NZ, warning that badly set up emissions trading schemes amount to taxpayer handouts to emitters.