Australia Needs to Recognise the Power of Energy Efficiency

Low income households have the most to lose from rising electricity prices and the most to gain from energy efficiency as they spend a higher proportion of their income on energy bills. A national energy efficiency initiative provides the opportunity for the certainty industry needs to invest in energy efficiency. Despite all the media attention on the impact of a carbon price on households, there has been surprisingly little attention to the major cause of electricity price rises – increased network costs associated with increased demand and peak load.

Don’t discount the power of efficiency

John Thwaites & Rob Murray-Leach in Climate Spectator (26 May 2011):

Low income households have the most to lose from rising electricity prices and the most to gain from energy efficiency as they spend a higher proportion of their income on energy bills. A national energy efficiency initiative provides the opportunity to assist these households, streamline programs and provide the certainty industry needs to invest in energy efficiency.

Energy prices are rising much faster than incomes and the CPI. The main contributor to this price rise is increased network costs associated with increased demand and peak load. A carbon price will have a much smaller impact on energy bills than network costs, which means that even though many households will be compensated for carbon price impacts, they won’t be compensated for the other factors driving up energy costs. Energy efficiency could help households manage price rises from all these factors as well as reducing the need for some of the expensive infrastructure that is driving up electricity bills in the first place.

A coalition of welfare, business, research, and union groups –  including ACOSS, Brotherhood of St Laurence, ACTU, Clean Energy Council, Energy Efficiency Council, Property Council, the Climate Institute and ClimateWorks Australia – have released a statement calling on the federal government to implement a national energy efficiency program to assist household energy affordability.

These policies are important both for households and for the sustainable growth of the industry, ensuring Australia’s smooth transition to a low-carbon economy.

This coalition recommends a two-track strategy to increase the uptake of energy efficiency and help low income households manage energy bills.

The first involves targeted support for high-needs households, funded through carbon pollution price revenue. The program would target individual households at risk (e.g. households that are having difficulty paying their energy bills, or with very high electricity use) or high-risk communities (e.g. high electricity charges, no access to gas, high transport costs at urban fringe). The program should commence with an initial establishment, research and evaluation phase to ensure the most effective delivery. It could then be scaled up to reach between 250,000 to 500,000 homes by 2020.

The second involves a National Energy Saving Initiative (NESI) – as recommended by the Prime Minister’s Task Group on Energy Efficiency – that builds on and harmonises existing state-based schemes in NSW, Victoria and South Australia. This would place a requirement on energy retailers to pursue and facilitate energy efficiency projects in households, businesses and industry, and include a specific obligation to achieve a proportion of savings in low-income households.

Currently, the three existing state-based schemes operate differently. This means energy retailers are subject to additional transaction costs of operating in three different states and eligible energy efficiency products must go through separate and differing approval processes, again adding costs and inefficiency.

A NESI could directly accommodate these schemes in a nationally consistent framework and deliver economies of scale and lower compliance costs.

A NESI would provide benefits for households and businesses, including lower overall electricity costs – and even lower costs for individual households and companies that participate. For example, the Prime Minister’s Task Group estimated that the initiative would reduce average annual household expenditure on electricity by $87-$180 in 2020 and by up to $296 for households implementing two energy savings technologies.

Most importantly, a NESI would start to do something about rising network and generation costs driven by demand. It would reduce the need for new network and generation investment, reduce wholesale electricity costs and lower scheme costs by integrating state-based schemes into one national scheme.

A NESI ensures there is a long-term framework for the delivery of energy efficiency measures, rather than the on-again off-again policy schemes that have operated in this area in the past. It also has the advantage of being a scheme without direct government program delivery, providing certainty for the industry.

Barriers exist to low-income households participating in energy efficiency schemes such as a NESI. The NESI should therefore be designed to ensure greater uptake of energy efficiency by low-income and financially stressed households. It should also facilitate efficiency, innovation and equity by, for example, ensuring multi-sector coverage and facilitating energy efficiency projects by placing the obligation to find savings on holders of electricity and gas retail licenses.

Considerable effort will need to go into detailed design of a NESI. It would be sensible for the government to commit to a process allowing time to properly design the NESI while commencing it within this term.

Despite all the media attention on the impact of a carbon price on households, there has been surprisingly little attention to the major cause of electricity price rises – increased network costs associated with increased demand and peak load. The energy efficiency initiatives outlined provide the opportunity to reduce these costs, help households and contribute to Australia’s carbon pollution challenge.

John Thwaites is chair of Brotherhood of St Laurence, Climate Change and Equity program. Rob Murray-Leach is CEO of the Energy Efficiency Council.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Green with Envy: Low Carbon Economic Growth Creates Jobs

A move to a low carbon, clean energy economy leads to the creation of green jobs. It is happening elsewhere. When the South Korean Government committed to invest in green infrastructure, renewable energy technologies and sustainable design, the $A32.5 billion programme was expected to create one million green jobs. In 2011, Germany accounts for 2.3 million green jobs. With a carbon price and a renewed emissions reduction commitment in Australia, there will be more jobs and they will be green.

The Australian carbon price and its green jobs potential

by Julien Lacave

How many jobs can the new green economy create in Australia and, conversely, how many jobs will be lost in traditional sectors because of the internalisation of the pollution costs created by a carbon price?

What is a ‘green job’?

If we consider that green jobs are only those in the renewable energy sector, then the industry currently employs 2.3 million people worldwide . A broader definition is that a green job is a position where at least some of the responsibilities and objectives are environmentally driven or oriented. 

In other words, green jobs would include work in sustainability, resources management, green building, green transport systems, sustainable agriculture, energy efficiency, recycling and waste management, eco tourism, and ethical finance and not just renewable energy technologies.

Can a carbon tax create green jobs in Australia?

In an ideal economy, a carbon tax would effectively redirect investments from energy intensive industries to low or zero carbon technologies without impacting on traditional local sectors or triggering what some specialists have already called ‘carbon leakage,’ which is the relocation of energy intensive industries (and jobs) to less environmentally-regulated markets, such as South East Asia.

In essence, carbon leakage is exactly what we seek to avoid. Australia needs to protect its carbon intensive economy and make the transition fast, efficient and the least damaging as possible for traditional sectors.      

In 2008, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Australian Conservation Foundation released the Green Gold Rush Report which had the key message that Australia could become a world-leader in creating green industries generating up to a million green collar jobs by 2030 and multi-billion dollar export opportunities in green technology.

Similarly, in March 2011 the Climate Institute launched the website Clean Energy Jobs in Regional Australia, with the support of Independent MP Tony Windsor. The Clean Energy Jobs in Regional Australia report also re-affirms the potential of job creation.

A carbon tax would surely facilitate the creation of green jobs in existing and new sectors and technologies. Innovation drives growth and growth creates jobs; this is the world that we live in.

Green job creation across the globe

During the global financial crisis, the South Korean Government directed most of their Government bail-out plan towards green infrastructure, renewable energy technologies and sustainable design. In 2009, the government announced a $A32.5 billion program to create one million green jobs. Time will tell if they succeed, but the country will probably get close to this figure.

Germany is an interesting case study too. From 2004–06, Germany doubled the number of green jobs from 160,000 to 250,000 . In 2011, Germany also accounted for 2.3 millions green jobs.

The United States Government invested $A696 billion to rescue Wall Street after the global financial crisis, which had no guarantee of success. However, with $A347 billion investment, some say the Government could retrofit and repower the nation using clean energy and create millions of new jobs in the process.

The New Apollo Program from the United States’ Apollo Alliance (a coalition of business, labour and community leaders who promote a clean energy transition) estimates that the investment of $A497 billion in the clean energy economy over the next three years could create more than five million high-quality green-collar jobs in the US alone. Australia can do this too, on its own scale.

According to the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian clean energy economy is currently estimated at $A15.4 billion and is employing 112,000 people through the industries of renewable energy, water, biomaterials, green building, and recycling. 

The report says that this could grow by 2030 to a value of $A241 billion and employ 847,000 people. Australia can specifically succeed in renewable energy power generation, energy efficiency in buildings, sustainable water systems, biomaterials and waste, but also sustainable agriculture and eco-tourism.  

Overall, pricing carbon is not just about creating green jobs; it is about reducing Australia’s carbon emissions through the creation of market conditions that allow large investments in clean technologies. Green jobs creation will be a direct consequence of this.

Nuclear is not the answer

Some experts say that Australia would face major adjustment costs in achieving our 60 per cent clean technology target by 2050 if we do not have nuclear power or coal sequestration options. 

These opinions may have been revised on the matter since the devastating earthquake in Japan in March 2011. Nuclear is a heavily subsided industry, with high risks and low job creation ratio compared to renewable energies. Renewable energies will create more jobs and will enable regional Australia to benefit from those investments. Prime Minister Julia Gillard also recently re-emphasised that there will be no nuclear program under her leadership.  

Time is of the essence

The world economy needs an urgent transformation in order to avoid dangerous climate change. Our international relations are now being reshaped by the necessity to co-operate together in response to climatic events and natural disasters. More investments and jobs are also needed in climate change adaptation in Australia, not just in mitigation.   

This seems to be a case of ‘the sooner the better’, for both Australia’s economic competitiveness and climate. But to effect this, you need to price carbon so that certainty is here for investors. After all, Australia’s greatest resource may not be coal or uranium, but its people.

Julien Lacave is a Senior Consultant in Energy & Carbon at the Bradman Recruitment Group. From 200 to 2009 Julien managed the Australian Solar Energy Society to promote the use of renewable energy technologies in Australia and New Zealand.  In 2003 – 2004 Julien worked in Paris in a leading renewable energy consulting think tank for the European Intelligent Energy Agency.  Julien holds a Master Degree in International Relations & Geopolitics from La Sorbonne University (Paris) with Specialty in Asia Pacific  and a final dissertation on Climate Change International Negotiations & Sustainability in Business (2001). He also holds a Bachelor Degree in Economics and an Advanced Technical Diploma in International Business & Marketing. 

Source: www.bradmanrecruitment.com

Famous Last Words: ABC versus ABC

Dear Readers

First, I must apologise to the ABC – that’s the Australian Broadcasting Corporation – for an apparent breach of copyright. In the last issue of abc carbon express I used as part of the profile on Mike Hulme, a piece written by Sara Phillips from the ABC’s Environment Online portal.

I’m sorry ABC and I won’t do it again.

Sara – as an ABC employee – is only doing her job (and doing it well). But I should explain to one and all – including the ABC – the process I go through with the fortnightly e-newsletter – which I must emphasise, is produced and distributed freely (without charge) to all readers around the world.

This is the first time in more than three years of producing abc carbon express – which started in March 2008 – that any person or organisation has formally objected to the use of an article in this way. (This is the 144th issue, so I estimate that I have utilised in this way approximately 3000 articles from hundreds of different media – print, broadcasting and online – in that time.

To put this in context, I share with our loyal readers an email I received from Sara, who I know is a very dedicated supporter of clean, green and all things environmental:

Hello Ken,

I’m sorry to have to raise this with you again, but if you are going to use my pieces you need to seek permission.

ABC content is subject to copyright. Our terms are outlined here http://www.abc.net.au/conditions.htm and here http://www.abc.net.au/copyright.htm

Here’s the relevant part: “6.2 The right to “copy” always remains with the owner of the material. Unless expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy or republish anything you find on the internet without the copyright owner’s permission.”

As I have discussed with you previously, I am happy for you to publish a headline and introduction to any of my pieces, provided you link through to ABC Environment for the remainder of the article. In this case you have republished the entirety of the article with an incorrect attribution link. It should have been: http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/05/05//3207844.htm

I’m pleased that you use ABC Environment as a source of news and I’m flattered that you wanted to republish my piece on Mike Hulme, but your reuse of our material is not acceptable.

Could I request an apology in your next newsletter and the attribution link corrected.

Best regards,

Sara

Sara Phillips

Editor, ABC Environment Online

Sara – as an ABC employee – is only doing her job (and doing it well). But I should explain to one and all – including the ABC – the process I go through with the fortnightly e-newsletter – which I must emphasise, is produced and distributed freely (without charge) to all readers around the world.

This is the first time in more than three years of producing abc carbon express – which started in March 2008 – that any person or organisation has formally objected to the use of an article in this way. (This is the 144th issue, so I estimate that I have utilised in this way approximately 3000 articles from hundreds of different media – print, broadcasting and online – in that time.

I should point out that what I have done with ABC articles is exactly what I do with articles from all sources.  A short introduction with headline appears in the body of the email newsletter. It doesn’t always mention the original source of the article there, but by clicking on Read More, the reader is taken to my website www.abccarbon.com  where the complete article (or articles) can be accessed.

There the article is fully attributed with the name of the author, the publication, the date, website  and clearly sourced. I do not always provide the direct link to the original article but abbreviate that the website of the relevant media – e.g.Source:  www.abc.net.au

I store the correctly sourced articles, so the reader can access the article and also go to the source for more information. Often I find that the source itself does not always keep articles in its own archive and make them accessible, for as long as I do. I am storing/archiving all articles which have appeared in abc carbon express from Issue 75 (September 2009).

So in the spirit of conciliation and not aggravation, could I – as one ABC to another – suggest that the public broadcaster needs to get on board the reality of the digital communication age. I receive by email on a daily basis hundreds of articles from dozens of sources – Making Environmental News, Wotnews, Google, Green Biz, Climate Spectator, among others. I read through as many of them as I can and select a few – usually a total of between 12 – 20 per issue – to draw attention to and use in my newsletter, in this way.

I selectively source subjects and articles which I think should interest my readers. The ABC should be honoured (as Sara obviously was) to have one of its articles selected (out of thousands I see in any fortnightly period).

I should also remind readers, the ABC and all other providers of news and content, that I do not ask anyone to pay to receive the newsletter – it is freely emailed to anyone who wants it or who provides me with a business card or email address. Neither do I receive income from advertising or any other source directly for the production and distribution of abc carbon express. It is a free service.

I should also remind the ABC that I have been a regular contributor to its programmes over the years. I have on many occasions been called in to be interviewed on ABC radio, to provide my views, opinions, and to add content to their programmes. I have not once received any payment from the ABC, or any other media for that matter, for contributing content in these ways.

I have also freely provided large extracts from my book “The ABC of Carbon” to be freely used by relevant online media. More than that, the complete book – all 188,000 words – can be viewed online with Amazon Kindle. You can also buy an e-book version!

So I will say that abc carbon express – produced and distributed as a free online services to people in Australia, Singapore and around the world – will continue to draw attention to and refer to articles from many media and other sources, and put them on my website, with adequate attribution and by providing a link to the original source website.

To avoid upsetting anyone again, I will undertake not to use any original content from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in my newsletter or website. And I will also be conveniently unavailable next time I am asked to contribute to any ABC programme. That’s only fair.

One final word: While we do try to run this as part of a commercial business, we will continue to freely accept and “publish” articles and releases from businesses and NGOs. We are also ready, willing and able to accept paid advertising, sponsorship or any other commercial arrangement, if in our humble opinion, the product, service or organisation is appropriate to abc carbon express.

As we say on our masthead, we provide a fortnightly  e-newsletter on “climate change issues and opportunities: clean technologies, energy efficiency, renewable energy, water, waste, environment management & sustainability”.

Source: www.abccarbon.com

Late again with this issue! But it has been a busy couple of weeks in Singapore with visitors from abroad – Aaron George, Tim Lebbon, David Solsky, Lewis Tyndall, Jochen Kleef, among others – plus a host of events small and large. The National Energy Efficiency Conference was a major one for us as Sustain Ability Showcase Asia was a “supporting organisation”. Meeting and greeting was the order of the day – days! – so we also attended Green Drinks, to hear of fascinating projects in South East Asia. Then to cap it off, I was the guest speaker at the Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore (SEAS) AGM. The subject of my talk was “Does Sustainability Make Business Sense?” and set about to demonstrate that it is more than the triple bottom line. There are, in fact, four E’s to sustainability. I promise to turn it into an article one day, but if anyone is interested in a pdf of the presentation, email me.