The proposed "technology investment roadmap" recently released by the Coalition government will not only retain but expand the role of fossil fuels at the centre of the Australian economy. This is bad news for our attempts to mitigate climate change.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It also delivers big wins for major Coalition donors such as Santos and Origin Energy.
It is very disappointing to see such a naked example of fossil fuel vested interests buying government policy, and as Greens NSW Senator Mehreen Faruqi noted: "The government is bending over backwards to please the fossil fuel lobby.
"It's no coincidence these are the businesses and players who have donated enormous amounts of money to both the major parties over decades."
What this is all about is the discussion paper released last week by the scandal-plagued Energy Minister Angus Taylor.
It elevates gas to the centre of Australia's energy strategy, while also endorsing the thoroughly discredited carbon capture and storage technology, not to mention ridiculously expensive and dangerous nuclear power.
This is simply a lie ... all of the above are proven technologies.
Mr Taylor argues "switching from coal to gas can provide 'quick wins' for global emissions reductions and has the potential to reduce electricity sector emissions by 10 per cent," echoing claims by Scotty from Marketing earlier this year, Crikey reported.
But more accurately, Greens leader Adam Bandt said the government's energy roadmap will set Australia on "a pathway towards destruction".
So, let's have a closer look. Though Mr Taylor claimed that "there is no credible energy transition plan for an economy like Australia that does not involve the greater use of gas as an important transition fuel," in fact gas extraction, storage and distribution produces significant climate damage via emissions such as methane that are much more dangerous than CO2.
And ScoMo's claim that gas is central to Australia's "energy transition plan" (if such a plan exists) has been repeatedly discredited, even by the Australian Energy Market Operator. In fact the role of gas in energy generation has been rapidly declining in Australia.
The Business Council of Australia, of which a number of global fossil-fuel companies are members, has also strongly pushed for policies to reverse gas's role in Australian energy production.
Taylor's discussion paper also embraces carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Yet the Australian Institute calculates more than $1.3 billion has been spent trying and failing to prove CCS in Australia in the past 17 years. In short, CCS doesn't exist, and isn't likely to.
Taylor also opens the way for nuclear power.
True, this is a proven technology, but is subject to very environmentally damaging mining, severe usage risks, prohibitive delays, cost blowouts, and is not commercial in Australia without a carbon price.
A snowflake in hell would have greater chances of survival than a carbon price of being introduced by the Liberal/Nationals coalition government.
Angus Taylor, who has a history of opposing renewable energy, particularly wind power, continues to argue that the existing technology is inadequate to meet our future power needs.
This is simply a lie. There have been many studies to show that solar panels, wind turbines, pumped hydro and batteries are not only able to provide 100 per cent of our power needs, but are cheaper than fossil fuel-based alternatives, and are expanding at a greater rate. All of the above are proven technologies.
The only real need is to upgrade the existing distribution networks to meet the needs of generation areas not currently served, and to accommodate distributed generation.
Adam Bandt called on the government to invest further in renewable energy. "Australia has to end its addiction to toxic methane gas which is heavily promoted in this report. Gas, coal and oil are the major causes of climate change and swapping one for another is not the answer," he said.
"What this report proposes is using public money to fund new gas infrastructure.
"Now that is taking money from schools and hospitals and putting it into fossil fuels at a time when we're told we have to quit fossil fuels within the next 10 or 15 years at most, otherwise we're not going to stop the climate crisis.
"Taking money from schools and hospitals and giving it to gas is like taking money from the health budget to give to asbestos."