3 Responses to “A video interview with Louise Hand, Australia’s Ambassador on climate change”

1. Lou 14 December 2009 at 12:43 am #

   Thanks Phil! Great work pushing Louise on CCS and also on ODA. It’s excellent that the Australian negotiating team have been so generous with access. I look forward to Louise being true to her word that she ‘couldn’t agree more’ with your hope that Australia plays a strong role in securing a fair, equitable and binding agreement!
2. Jessie Wells 15 December 2009 at 11:45 pm #

   Thanks Phil,
   The assumption that coal-fired energy must continue and therefore CCS must work, risks ‘locking in’ coal-based infrastructure for decades to come and damages any chances of a real transition to sustainability - both here and in developing countries whose emissions we keep saying must be curbed.

   I refer to the UK Energy Research Centre’s work on 2050 energy scenarios
   and this, and global and Australia-specific work on an Energy [R]evolution show there are far better paths to energy security through renewables that involve phasing out all emissions from coal by 2030 - as James Hansen and others have said is vital to reach a safe climate.

   CCS is too slow (the govt’s own Global Institute estimates commercial availability in 2030), has residual emissions that are still too high (life-cycle analyses suggest max 70-86% capture), and requires MORE fuel per unit of usable electricity - i.e. mining and associated damages, and more toxic fly-ash and other power-plant wastes)

   Safe Climate Australia is an initiative involving esteemed researchers and planners that is currently developing a comprehensive transition plan for Australia’s society and economy, that fully accounts for environmental and social costs and benefits, and does not depend on nuclear, CCS nor other technologies that involve high costs and enduring wastes.
   This approach, of asking “where do we need to be?”, and “how could we get there?”,
   makes so much sense, yet is diametically opposite to Australia’s approach, asking “what are we willing to do if everyone else does as much or more than us?” (possible after-thought: where will that get us? )

   Q1) Why continue to push coal with CCS as a solution when so many other options for energy are faster, cleaner, more efficient, and more suited to equitable systems for distributed energy generation?

   Q2) How can we continue to push coal exports when we know that every tonne we export, for the next 10 - 30 years at least, will be burnt with ZERO capture of emissions?

   Q3) FINANCING:
   When will Australia make a clear statement on its contribution to financing for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries?
3. Sue M 15 December 2009 at 11:45 pm #

   Thanks Phil for pressing Louise on the issue of CCS. I agree absolutely with Megan and Jessie’s comments. Louise is parroting the Australian Government and Australian coal industry line that “coal is absolutely part of the mix”, while putting her head in the sand about the reality that burning coal for another 10 years WITHOUT CCS is a totally unacceptable gamble with our climate. There is broad consensus (even within the coal industry) that CCS will NOT be implemented at the scale required within the next decade, yet the science tells us emissions must peak well before 2020. A much stronger commitment to REAL renewable energy is essential. If I can generate more than 100% of my total household energy use with a measly 1kw solar PV system (which I do for at least 6 months of the year), then why can’t Australia achieve better than a 20% renewable energy target over the next 10 years? The answer is simple - it simply doesn’t want to! Existing vested interests (in Australia & elsewhere) are dictating our future. Maybe there is a place for CCS somewhere down the track (although I doubt it, given the economics of the alternatives), but it has no place in the current discussions around the CDM.

Leave a Reply