Australia announces the date for its cliff-hanger election between the party led by recently returned Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott’s Liberals who want to turn back the clock on climate change action and the carbon pricing. This week, Beyond Zero Emissions releases its landmark report on how commercial and residential buildings in Australia can cut their energy use in half. It can be done without political involvement and it will save money – and energy -  boost the economy and create jobs. Read More

Giles Parkinson on upcoming election and Sophie Vorrath on the release of the Zero Carbon Australia Building Plan

RenewEconomy (4 August 2013):

The date for the 2013 Federal election has been called, and set for September 7. For the next five weeks Australians will be assaulted with assurances by the leaders of the mainstream parties, Labor’s Kevin Rudd and the Coalition’s Tony Abbott , that they are best able to lead the nation.

It’s too much to hope for another hung parliament, which finally delivered a carbon price and some critical infrastructure such as a green bank and a “reserve bank” of carbon. But the polls have narrowed and the policy details of each mainstream party are about to held up to intense scrutiny.

On some key issues, such as refugees and education, it will be difficult to spot the difference. Superficially this could also be true of climate and clean energy: Both mainstream parties have committed to reducing Australia’s emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, and both mainstream parties say they are committed to the minimum 20 per cent renewable energy target, and its current expression as a fixed target of 41,000 gigawatt hours.

But that’s where the similarities end.

After being forced into action by the hung parliament and the bargain with the Greens and the country independents, Labor now appears comfortable with its climate change policy settings. It is committed to a carbon price, although Rudd has vowed to bring the traded (and less costly) version forward by a year. It says it will be advised on future reduction targets by the independent Climate Change Authority. Its main challenge is to convince votes that this is not a policy of convenience, and it won’t simply use climate and clean energy as a wedge to drive through the Coalition – as it did in the last Rudd government – however, tempting that might be.

The Coalition’s challenge is to show that its policy has credibility. Or more fundamentally, that it actually has a policy. After more than three years, it still can’t explain how Direct Action will work, or how it will achieve higher abatement targets. Is it a reverse auction, or a baseline and credit scheme? No one seems to know, least of all the Coalition, which promises a White Paper if elected.

The Coalition has vowed to repeal a carbon price, but its ability to do so is seriously question by the narrowing of the polls. It has also promised to disband the CCA and bring its advice “in house”. And suspicions that the Coalition does not take climate change seriously are sharpened by Abbott’s continued use of skeptic talking points to dismiss emissions trading, and the Coalition’s reliance on people more widely dismissed as apologists for fossil fuels to endorse Direct Action.The Skeptic rump that pushed Abbott into power is still influential.

One thing seems certain. The 5% bipartisan target seems certain to be made redundant within a year. The CCA is likely to recommend a 15 per cent reduction target at the very least – taking into account the latest science, the IPCC reports that are soon to be released, the cost, and the extent of international action. At least with an emissions trading scheme, this ambition is easily scalable.

Few people believe Direct Action could achieve a 5 per cent reduction target, let alone a more ambitious one. The Coalition does not appear to have the stomach to implement the sort of biting Direct Action imposed by the Obama administration in the US, with its strict emissions and energy efficiency targets. The recent Galaxy poll suggest even the voters find the Coalition’s claims dubious. Rudd is rated as having more credible climate policies by 45 per cent of voters, versus 31 per cent for Abbott.

The bipartisan support for the RET is also a mirage. The CCA last December dismissed the complaints of some of the big utilities, incumbent generators and conservative state governments, and said that the fixed 41,000GWh renewables target for 2020 should stand.

Labor has endorsed that, and has vowed to enact the other key CCA recommendation – to set the next review of the RET for 2016 –  if re-elected (although it is not entirely clear why they haven’t already done that). The Coalition say they support the 41,000GWh target, but, crucially, they want it reviewed again in 2014 – even though the last review was only completed in December.

This uncertainty has brought the $20 billion renewable energy industry to a virtual standstill, because bankers and utilities are convinced that the Coalition will weaken the target, given that they will disband the CCA, the independent body that has shown it can break through the appeals of the vested interests.

The Coalition knows the impact of their position. As the former, and likely future energy minister Ian Macfarlane said in 2010: “We understand, dare I say better that than those who sit opposite because we have actually done it, the importance of getting a scheme in place where there is certainty, particularly for wind farms.”

The other crucial element of the transition to a low carbon economy is the Clean Energy Finance Corp – another product of the Greens and the country independents and their negotiations with the Gillard government. The CEFC is considered crucial to greasing the wheels for companies to adopt clean energy technologies – be it energy efficiency, capturing waste gas from landfills and coal mines, refinancing renewable projects, or providing support for new technologies such as solar PV farms and concentrated solar power.

Labor says it will support the CEFC, but the Coalition says it will disband it as quickly as it can.

The Greens will not be in government, but their role will be crucial. The Greens want the emissions reductions to reflect the science, and have called for an emissions reduction target of between 25 per cent and 40 per cent by 2020, and for a 90 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. The fact that such goals are often dismissed as extreme says more about the level of political debate in this country, and the stranglehold on the discourse by vested interests, than it does about the Greens climate and clean energy policies.

Much is often said about The Greens refusal to endorse Rudd’s CPRS, and the impact that had on his political future, and the course of carbon pricing. Given what’s happened in Europe since then, it seems a moot point. But it should not be forgotten that the two most crucial institutions introduced with the Clean Energy Future package – the CCA and the CEFC – are there thanks to the Greens and the country independents, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott.

The independents are going, so the role of the Greens in protecting those institutions, along with the carbon price, the RET, and the impending issue of small scale solar, will be critical in coming years.

The Climate Institute gave the Greens 5/5 for climate policies in its “pollute-o-metre” assessment. Labor got a score of 2.5 and the Coalition just 1.5. Just as crucially, the climate and clean energy policies of the independents that could influence a tight parliament – Nick Xenophon, Bob Katter and Clive Palmer – fair even worse.

Energy Savings for Buildings

By Sophie Vorrath in Reneweconomy  (6 August 2013)

A nationwide plan to transform Australia’s existing building stock into models of energy efficiency and renewable power generation has found that residential and commercial energy use could be cut in half, and could reach zero emissions from their operations, within 10 years.

Launched on Tuesday, the The Zero Carbon Australia Buildings Plan – a joint effort from climate think-tank Beyond Zero Emissions and The University of Melbourne Energy Institute – sets out a strategy to retrofit Australia’s buildings, to reduce energy bills, generate renewable energy, increase comfort levels, and make workplaces more productive.

The plan finds the residential building sector would be able to achieve a 53 per cent energy use reduction overall, with some typical home categories seeing over 70 per cent reduction. Commercial buildings are estimated to be able to reduce energy use by 44 per cent overall.

A key element of the plan involves buildings going gas-free, with gas appliances deemed “too inefficient and polluting” compared to modern electric appliances which can replace them – namely heat pumps, or split-system airconditioners, as they are more commonly known.

Solar also features heavily in the plan, which says Australian households could effectively be transformed into renewable energy power stations, able to generate more than their whole annual demand from rooftop PV panels.

The report – which is slated as the next step in the Zero Carbon Australia transition first outlined in BZE’s Stationary Energy Plan, from 2010 – says that Australia’s existing buildings are not adequately designed to meet many of the challenges we face today – often being unnecessarily cold in winter, hot in summer, and expensive to run.

“We now have the technologies and know-how to make our buildings far more comfortable, while protecting us from rising electricity and gas bills,” the report says. “This plan contains detailed bottom-up research, modelling and analysis into Australia’s existing buildings and energy consumption. We have collaborated extensively with industry, ensuring our recommended suite of retrofit measures is practical and widely applicable.”

Under the plan:

– Residential energy use is halved. The measures in this plan will, together, reduce the residential sector’s annual energy usage by 53%.

– Homes become renewable energy power stations. There is enough solar exposed roof space on residential buildings to install 31 GW of rooftop solar photovoltaics. This installation will allow the average Australian home to generate more electricity than it uses over a year.

– Australian buildings go gas free. The use of fossil gas (conventional fossil gas, coal seam gas, shale gas & others) is completely removed from the buildings sector. Fossil gas appliances are replaced with higher- efficiency electric alternatives, eliminating gas bills and leading to significant reductions in energy use while avoiding the climate and environmental damage caused by gas.

– Households save money. Households currently spend approximately $15 billion per year on electricity and gas bills. The ZCA Buildings Plan will eliminate gas bills while significantly reducing electricity costs. The full upgrade can save $40 billion over the next 30 years.

– Non-residential energy use nearly halved. The energy used in non-residential buildings, on average, can be reduced by 44%. 2.5 GW of rooftop solar photovoltaics can be installed on non-residential buildings and the total cost is equivalent to business as usual over 30 years.

– Energy freedom is achievable. The plan shows that with the above actions, households and businesses can achieve energy freedom by generating more energy than they use and removing gas as an energy source.

– Tens of thousands of jobs will be created. From residential retrofits alone, around fifty thousand jobs can be created in the trades sector employing people to fix Australia’s buildings.

– The transition to 100% Renewable Energy is now $37 Billion cheaper and 15% more achievable. By detailed testing of the assumptions used in the ZCA Stationary Energy Plan, we show we need 15% less (excluding rooftop solar contribution) stationary renewable energy. By rolling out energy saving measures and rooftop solar we can make the transition to 100% renewable energy for Australia easier and cheaper.

Source: www.reneweconomy.com.au and  www.bze.org.au