Tag: Victoria

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

November 10, 1994 – “profit or planet – choose one” (Victorian electricity)

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 10th, 1994,

Victorians should not rely on the state’s new competitive electricity companies to meet environmental aims, a senior power industry official has warned.

In a paper to be delivered in Sydney today, Dr Harry Schaap says the competitive system that Victoria and Australia are entering will no longer be able to devote so many resources to environmental challenges.

Dr Schaap is the manager of environmental affairs for Generation Victoria, owner of the state’s power stations, and one of two electricity industry representatives on the Council of Australian Governments’ National Greenhouse Advisory Panel. He will speak today at the annual conference of the Electricity Supply Association of Australia.

His comments may focus renewed attention on the possible environmental costs of Victoria’s electricity reforms and coming privatisation.

1994 Walker, D. 1994. Environment May Suffer In New Power Climate – Expert. The Age, 10 November, p.5.

[Faulkner too – see below]

The Federal Minister for the Environment, John Faulkner, has warned the electricity industry that its strides towards greater competitiveness may be working against a better environment, with cheaper prices encouraging consumers to use and waste more energy.

He also raised the threat of environmental levies — which could include a carbon tax — as a method of ensuring the industry cleans up its act.

Senator Faulkner’s speech to the Electricity Supply Association of Australia conference in Sydney on Thursday [10th November] came on the same day as a court challenge by Greenpeace over the construction of a new power station in the Hunter Valley was rejected.

Chamberlin, S. 1994. Danger in cheap power. Canberra Times, 13 November, p.6.

AND

1994 Redbank decision! Greenpeace Australia Limited v Redbank Power Company Pty Limited and Singleton Council, Decision on development application, [1994] NSWLEC 178, ILDC 985 (AU 1994), 10th November 1994, Land and Environment Court

Redbank gets waved through….

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia had ratified the UNFCCC treaty, which was to have its first meeting in Berlin in March of the following year (1995). Federal Environment minister John Faulkner was hoping he could go and boast about a carbon tax. Meanwhile, the electricity system was being privatised, and environmental regulations and goals were being stripped out of the privatisation plans. Of course.

What I think we can learn from this Today’s failures are consequences of failures thirty years previous. Cheerful thought, eh?

What happened next We failed. The carbon tax failed. The electricity system was privatised and emissions from it stayed sky high. Policy did not drive a rapid decarbonisation, which is what was required.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

November 10, 1988 – Activists demand even steeper emissions cuts than “Toronto.” Ignored, obvs. But were right…

November 10, 1995 – moronic “Leipzig Declaration” by moronic denialists

November 10, 1995 – Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni executed

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 18, 2004 – Australian States back ETS plan

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 18th, 2004, the Melbourne Age had the following report on page 3

The Victorian Government and other states are close to finalising a plan for a groundbreaking greenhouse gas emissions trading system to curb pollution caused by industry.

Flagging a major Government focus on the environment, renewable energy and sustainability over the next five years, Premier Steve Bracks said Victoria would take a leadership role in pushing the model.

While the plan is yet to be finalised, it is likely that it would cap companies’ greenhouse gases. If companies exceeded their cap, they would have to buy credits from other companies….

Gray, D. 2004. States Push Emissions Trading Plan. The Age, 18 September, p. 3

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the defeat of a straightforward Carbon Tax in 1995, attention had turned to various emissions trading schemes, which had the added benefit of helping banks get rich. And economists could argue about which particular iteration was the most “efficient”, all the while ignoring the fact that these systems will be gamed. There’ll be loopholes, there will be grandfathering clauses, etc. Anyway, there have been two efforts to get the federal Emissions Trading Scheme and Prime Minister John Howard had successfully defeated two proposals for an emissions trading scheme. In 2000, Nick Minchin had been his point man, and then 2003 he had done it literally all by himself. So it was fairly obvious that if you wanted an emissions trading scheme, you’re gonna have to do it so-called “bottom up” with each state, coming up with its own, but then there being transferability and interoperability. And one of the champions for this was Bob Carr, who was still the New South Wales premier (had been since 1995). And here, they were saying that they were going to make it happen. [I don’t know why they didn’t. Did the Federales step in and tell them to go up themselves? That would be a good question to try and answer.] 

What we learn is that good ideas and semi-good ideas and wretched ideas are hard to kill off. Especially if they go with the grain of neoliberalism and are going to make some people very rich.

What happened next. The states’ scheme came to nothing. Kevin Rudd, as Labor Opposition Leader, started talking up an ETS, forcing Howard to do the same. Then the horrors of 2008 to 2012…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

September 18, 2013 – Greenpeace try to occupy the “Arctic Sunrise.”

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”

Categories
Activism Australia

August 11, 2005 – Greenpeace protest Hazelwood power station

Eighteen years ago, on this day, August 11, 2005, Australian activists took action.

On 11 August 2005 approximately 50 student environmentalists and Greenpeace volunteers unfurled a “Quit Coal” banner outside the plant while 12 activists occupied the brown coal pit, with two locking themselves to coal dredging equipment. This action drew worldwide attention to Hazelwood’s CO2 emissions and their harmful impacts on the global climate. (Wikipedia on Hazelwood)

See also https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-08-11/police-remove-greenpeace-mine-activists/2078834

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Victorian Government was continuing to talk about expanding and continuing with Hazelwood, which was burning brown coal. This, while abundant, was truly filthy. So Greenpeace were doing their best to keep the issue on the agenda, and to accelerate the demise of Hazelwood. 

What I think we can learn from this

Transitions take a long time. Involve a lot of blood sweat and tears.

What happened next

It took a long while. But finally, they won. Hazelwood is Toast and Victoria is going for wind and renewables.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

On this day in 1995, the Victorian government said it would spend taxpayers money on brown coal and trying to making power stations that used it 30% more efficient in a joint venture. 

“THE Victorian Government is to participate in the country’s largest research and development syndicate, a $100 million joint venture for research which could make the State’s four baseload brown coal power stations up to 30 per cent more efficient. The syndicate arranged by Bain and Company includes Perth entrepreneur Mr Kerry Stokes’ Australian Capital Equity as majority investor, with ABN Amro Australia , Mercantile Mutual , Babcock & Brown , and Deutsche Bank AG . The other investors are HRL Ltd – the former research arm of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, now 40 per cent owned by the State – and the SECV shell. The project announced yesterday by the Victorian Minister for Energy, Mr Jim Plowman, and HRL Ltd, to construct a 10 megawatt generation facility to test the commercial viability of new coal-burning technology, is funded under the Federal Government’s 150 per cent R&D tax concessions. The study will examine integrated drying, gasification and combined cycle (IDGCC) technology, which promises – by turning low-grade coal into coal gas – to cut electricity supply costs and reduce greenhouse gases by 25 per cent.” Pheasant, B. 1995. Vic takes stake in $100m coal R&D. The Australian Financial Review, 17 March, p.9.

The backstory is that Victoria has unimaginably vast reserves of brown coal. Brown coal is less pure than black coal. And when you burn it, you get a lot more mercury ash, C02 and general crap. This means that it’s a really poor thing to export as well. So Victoria has never been able to make a go of that, despite periodic speculative schemes.

If you want to know about the guy who brought coal to Melbourne as it were, that’d be John Monash (to simplify matters somewhat). 

The backstory here is that in 1989, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria came up with a plan about how to deal with greenhouse, but then was privatised, and all of that went out the window.

Why this matters. 

We should know that there have been promises of technological salvation, going back a very long time. This is neither a particularly old nor particularly recent one. But it is, to use a phrase that was popularised in Victoria, for another purpose, “a dumb way to die”.

What happened next?

Brown coal continued to be burnt and burnt. And the co2 continued to accumulate, which is of course how I finish most of these blog posts.