Plans for Chinese-backed coal-fired plant in NSW's Hunter Valley could reignite the climate wars

Chinese-backed plans to build a massive new coal-fired power plant in New South Wales are reopening hostilities in the so-called climate wars.

Plans to build a power plant in the Hunter Valley
have become a point of political contention.

The Greens say a "veritable army" is ready to stop the plant from being built.

But Coalition backbencher Craig Kelly calls the plan "fantastic" and is urging Prime Minister Scott Morrison to pour taxpayer subsidies into it.

"This is exactly what the market needs," Mr Kelly said, adding competition from the new plant would lower power prices.

"If the Government needs to underwrite it, if it needs a little bit of help, then that's what we should be doing.”

Read the ABC News story by Tom Iggulden and Amy Greenbank - “Plans for Chinese-backed coal-fired plant in NSW's Hunter Valley could reignite the climate wars.”

Climate wars have cost us the chance to lead

The climate wars between the major political parties have cost us a host of lost business and employment opportunities, even a global leadership role, and yet we drift on without an energy policy that might provide some relief to rising power costs and some strategy to meet our commitments to reduce emissions.

John Hewson takes us through the climate wars.

The government’s most recent policy, the National Electricity Guarantee (NEG), is the fourth most effective response, only being proposed after an emissions trading scheme, an emissions intensity scheme and Finkel’s clean energy target were sequentially rejected.

In this sense, the guarantee is the last, and only, game in town, but it is still likely to be exhaustively debated, mostly for not moving fast or far enough, with concern about the longer-term future of the renewables sector.

Read John Hewson’s opinion piece from The Age - “Climate wars have cost us the chance to lead.”

Productivity Commission fuels energy war by calling for carbon price

Productivity Commission
chairman, Peter Harris.

The Productivity Commission has thrown a spanner in the Turnbull government's attempts to settle Australia's intractable climate wars, calling the policy landscape a "regulatory mess" and calling for a price on carbon.

It comes a week after the government released its much-anticipated energy blueprint, the national energy guarantee, which was designed to quell debate and meet Australia's international emissions obligations without a carbon price.

The independent Productivity Commission released its five-year productivity review on Tuesday. It was commissioned by Treasurer Scott Morrison.  

The review said immediate action was needed to manage the looming risk of summer blackouts, however there was a real danger Australia's longer-term electricity needs would not be met if "the regulatory mess persists”.

Read the story in today’s Melbourne Age by Nicole Hasham - “Productivity Commission fuels energy war by calling for carbon price.”

How Australia's climate policies came to be poisoned by pragmatism

It might seem a million miles from the climate policy debate of today but Australia’s decade-long climate wars arguably began with perfect being the enemy of good.

A coal-fired power station near Muswellbrook. Alan Finkel’s report
recommended a clean energy target, rather than an emissions trading
 scheme or an emissions intensity scheme.

On at least three occasions, the chance for Australia to have relatively strong emissions policies were squandered, leaving many people in politics, industry and the environmental movement today wishing that something weaker – but therefore more politically feasible – had been instituted when it was possible.

That legacy has meant a culture of extreme pragmatism has taken over the climate policy debate in Australia. Second-best policies have become the preferred option, until they’ve been ruled out, and suddenly third-best policies are considered the only feasible option.

This pragmatic turn has infected not only the political parties and some NGOs but also official, independent government offices, and left Australia with virtually no genuinely independent advice in the climate policy space.

Read Michael Slezak’s story on The Guardian - “How Australia's climate policies came to be poisoned by pragmatism.”

Does the Finkel review provide a solution to our energy crisis, or is it just another report destined to gather dust?

Discussing the Finkel Review.

The Finkel Review was was claimed to be the paper that would end the divisive “climate wars”.

Just over a week ago, a plan for the future of the National Electricity Market was released by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel.

While some experts have lauded the review, others say it goes too far, particularly in relation to a Clean Energy Target - or CET.

Is the Finkel review a panacea to Australia's energy challenges - or just another report destined to gather dust? 

Listen to the Roundtable discussion on Radio National’s Sunday Extra - “Does the Finkel review provide a solution to our energy crisis, or is it just another report destined to gather dust?”