The triumph of Tony Abbott’s carbon alter-ego

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tony Abbott may continue his public war of words against the carbon price, but he would quietly approve of the new de-facto minister for carbon pricing in the Australian cabinet – the think-alike prime minister of Poland, Donald Tusk. But the introduction of the carbon price floor underlines the importance of maintaining the renewable energy target.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tony Abbott will no doubt continue his public war of words against the “great big new tax”, but he would quietly approve of the new de-facto minister for carbon pricing in the Australian cabinet – Donald Tusk, the prime minister of Poland.

Tusk is exactly the sort of prime minister of Poland that you would imagine Abbott would be, if he had an “inski” at the end of his name. Tusk doesn’t want to push on climate change because he wants the rest of the world to act first, he says carbon policies are a threat to an economy that relies so much on coal, he doesn’t like building wind and solar farms because he says it merely supports technologies that come from western European countries. Presumably, he doesn’t approve of washing machines or TVs either.

Tusk doesn’t have the National Party in tow, but he does have the Peasants Party, and it’s hard to spot the difference. Both assert that climate change and clean energy policies are “dangerous” for a country that relies so heavily on coal – more than 90 per cent, even more than Australia.

Tusk, in fact, has done more than anyone to hold up more ambitious climate change policies of the progressive nations on the continent – he has been able to veto moves to lift European emissions reduction targets, veto a proposal for a more ambitious continent-wide renewable energy target, and veto moves to rid the massive overhang of phantom credits that has swamped the EU carbon market.

He has, single-handedly, made the EU climate policies all but useless – a fact that is celebrated in Poland. “It’s a toothless tiger,” a senior Polish diplomat said recently of the ETS. “Nobody will dare to chop this tree down, but we will be shaking it until it loses all its leaves.” That’s a sound-bite right out of the Abbott vestibule.

Australia has now bought into that political mess and hitched a ride on European carbon cavalcade by aligning its carbon trading scheme with Europe. This is not to say that Australia’s decision to drop the carbon floor price and link to Europe’s was the wrong one. But like so much of the  debate that has characterized the climate change policy arena, it is one borne out of expediency and compromise, and possibly for the wrong reasons.

In the current domestic context, it is seen as smart politics. It effectively neutralises the business lobby, defuses the political debate, and invited Abbott to take the bait and adopt an even more extreme position. Mr “No” obliged. He now has even less room to manouvre. The political pundits that make their living in Canberra are duly sated, at least for the moment.

But unless the government’s budget numbers are to be blown out of the water, then Canberra needs to hope that pressure can be brought to bear on Poland’s PM, and that at least two of those troika of policies that he has so far neutered can make progress– at the very minimum it needs the massive overhang of surplus credits to be removed or delayed. Otherwise, once the fixed price period ends in 2015, its own carbon price will fall to a similarly useless level as Europe’s.

This may satisfy “business”, but it underlines the critical importance of the “complementary” policies that will be the next target of the unrelenting forces opposed to change, unless it comes with a hefty compensation package. Chief among these is the Renewable Energy Target. A lower carbon price means there is no hope at all of substituting gas for coal. Without the RET, a low carbon price means that Australia will do not much transitioning at all.

But the low carbon price means that renewable energy certificates (RECs) will be more expensive to bridge the difference in the upfront capital costs of wind and solar farms. (The difference between the current cost of coal and renewables is made up from a combination of the carbon price and the RECs price. If one falls, the other rises). That does not make much difference to consumers, but it could be tempting for energy utilities to pay a penalty price on the RECs rather than go to the trouble of building something useful.  The RET needs to be retained, and it escape clauses need to be strengthened.

Because of their own frustration with the EU ETS, leading European economies have taken their own additional measures to effect a transition to a low carbon economy, and to ensure that they remain competitive with the Asian economies and their Asian counterparts, who are dominating the clean energy markets. England has introduced an additional carbon price for its energy sector, on top of a renewable energy target and generous feed in tariffs. Germany has accelerated its exit from nuclear and is pushing for the most ambitious transformation to a renewables-dominated electricity grid. Ireland, Spain and the Scandinavian countries all have supplementary measures to add to their low carbon opportunities.

And that’s the tricky position for Australia. It is located in the heart of the Asia-Pacific region, which is competing so vigorously to champion clean energy technologies, and gain the dominant role in what the head of GE last week described as a $6 trillion market. Asian countries that are considering emissions trading schemes are unlikely to introduce schemes that are so patently compromised as that of Europe’s – the Californian scheme that comes into effect in a few months has an effective floor price and no permits from international markets for that very reason.

These were all considerations when Australia went through the laborious process of designing its own scheme that was supposed to draw from the experiences and lessons of Europe. That explains the “cautious” welcome given to Combet’s announcement by advocacy groups. Actually, they think it’s pretty stupid, but are so thankful of having a carbon price at all, and so terrified by what Abbott might do to it, that even a compromise is acceptable.

So now we’ve exported sovereignty over carbon pricing to Poland, in a continent in the midst of a recession. If any media organizations in Australia had any money it would be worth opening a bureau in Warsaw. An Australian reporter is likely to see some familiar faces checking in to lobby in the corridors of power – Mitch, Greg, Matthew, Oh, look, there’s Jennifer. And the Peasants Party should invest in a new set of napkins – the luncheon menu is set.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 Comments
  1. Josh Dowse 7 years ago

    Good articles Freddy and Giles, and slightly unnerving to read the extent of the Poland Problem. But Poland isn’t known for its long-term leaders, and 2015 is some way off. In both Australia and Europe, it shifts the focus back onto the targets that determine the market price for the permits needed to meet them. The EU will eventually have to recalibrate for a weak economy. And what now constitutes the ‘international action’ that would trigger Australia’s 15% target?

  2. Geoff Bragg 7 years ago

    Did you pick the destination of your Clean Energy Week media award yet Giles? There must be a renewables conference in Warsaw before the year is out.
    Would love an interview with Mr Tusk 🙂

  3. colin 7 years ago

    Though having huge reserves, polish coal has become uncompetitive with either imported coal or renewables. Hence Poland takes the easy way out and uses legislation (or lack of) to rescue the position of its coal industry. But the prices, be it coal, or renewables are moving in the wrong direction for Poland to hold out for long.

  4. David Rossiter 7 years ago

    Pity we have lost the chance to see what the price of carbon in Australia is to achieve our targets on our own.

    Allowing other types of carbon certificates (CDM,EU, etc) to be used for acquittal before the Australian system is settled down – a period of five to ten years I would estimate – means we become entangled in the problems of the other systems. And at the same time we loose the ability to decide which systems we might join with in the future once they have settled down.

    A floor price was the rather crude patch repair that partial overcame the lost opportunity to test out our system, find our price and then join other systems down the track. Now the floor price is being queried – perhaps this is the time in exchange to lift our draw bridge, let our carbon system prove its local capability and then decide which other hopefully mature systems we might work with in five or ten years.

    To assume that any country or group of countries can set up a complex carbon system that is perfect from day one is ambitious thinking. Buying the cheapest carbon certificates from one of these immature systems to meet our acquittal may be good for the Australian budget but is bad for the quality development of our systems and our knowledge of our own carbon price.

    Learning from history shows us that the RET, and its predecessor MRET, did studies to forecast future REC energy sources and prices using the best expertise available. The actual revealed prices for RECs were consistently cheaper than those forecast and the energy sources were different.

    I expect that similar factors will be seen with carbon trading – lower prices and different abatement actions from those forecast. That is why we use market mechanisms – no modeller can anticipate the multitude of options that emerge as a market develops.

    As for gas taking over from coal as a transition fuel to lower emissions for electricity generation I suspect that era has passed. Ironically the discovery of world scale gas resources from coal seam gas in recent years has enabled LNG plants to be viable in the eastern states and world parity pricing is following for gas as night follows day. It happened much the same way in WA over the last fifteen or more years.

  5. John D 7 years ago

    Am I missing something? We currently have a carbon price that is too low to drive any significant change. (Can anyone nominate ANY reduction in emissions that would not have happened without the carbon tax?) It now looks like we are now going to reduce our carbon price even further so that we will be able to claim that we are meeting our emission reduction targets without reducing our emissions.
    If the Government really believes that the carbon price is the best way to go it should set the price high enough to drive real action ($60/tonne?) Alternatively it should come up with a believable plan to produce serious reductions in emissions. Perhaps they could even start thinking outside the carbon price approach?

Comments are closed.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.