Copenhagen Accord: Implications for Australia

Attached to this post is the Copenhagen Accord. Essentially, Australia now has until 31 January to put forward its emission reduction commitment under the Accord. It is likely to sit somewhere in the range of 75% to 95% of 2000 levels (the 5% to 25% range already announced through the CPRS).

International Energy Agency Views on Climate Change

Today I attended a presentation by the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and some of the top officials from the Agency. It was fascinating to get an insight into how such an important institution views the issues associated with climate change and the energy sector.

Without an international agreement, the IEA is forecasting global energy sector emissions to rise from around 29 gigatonnes (gt) today to around 40 gt by 2030. To achieve a stabilisation of emissions in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (the minimum amount climate scientists currently advocate), emissions need to actually fall below 29 gt over the same period.

Interestingly, the IEA has calculated that you would require an average carbon price over the period of $50 a tonne to achieve a reduction in emissions. However, it is some of the indirect aspects of this that are worth considering:

- Without a global agreement, the ratio of oil import spending to GDP for all major nations (e.g. US, EU, China and India) will increase from around 1% (average since around 1970) to 2-3%. This has important implications for energy security, balance of payments and financial security. However, with an agreement in place, demand for oil does not rise as significantly and oil prices are therefore lower with the resulting impacts on importing nations much lower as well. Long story short, climate change policy for some nations is a handy way to address liquid fuel security and reduce the spend on imported energy.

- $10.5 trillion of additional investment would be required to achieve the stabilisation of emissions. This sounds alot doesnt it. However, when you consider that the annual US budget is about $1 trillion, it doesnt sound such an unachievable task. In fact, its worth noting that governments around the world recently spent around $4 billion on bailing out financial institutions.

- Most importantly of all, each year of policy certainty delay adds around $500 billion in costs associated with achieving the abatement outcome. The message for policy makers is clear. To solve this problem efficiently requires action today.

Interview with Boardroom Radio

For those that haven’t heard it, I did a boardroom radio interview outlining progress at the conference to date. To access it, click here.

http://www.brr.com.au/event/preview/qyrg7ffpas/62715

Interview with Business Spectator

Today I did an interview with Giles Parkinson from Business Spectator. The report of the interview is in the following link – just click on Giles’ column (half way down page).

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/

AGL Biomass Policy

Last week the Safety, Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility Committee of the AGL Board approved the AGL Biomass Policy, to guide AGL’s position in relation to the selection of appropriate sources of biomass for electricity generation.

The Policy was  originally developed in 2005 in response to stakeholder concerns about potential impacts to biodiversity in the event that energy companies source fuel for power generation from native forest.   

In response to renewed interest from stakeholders in relation to biomass generation, this year AGL reviewed and revised the Policy, which was subsequently approved by the Board Committee.

 The AGL Climate Change Council was consulted in relation to the content and appropriateness of the Policy.  The organisations represented on the AGL Climate Change Council  include WWF-Australia, The Climate Institute and the Australian Conservation Foundation.

AGL Biomass Policy

AGL will not consider contracting with, or investing in, biomass projects that:

•  Source any fuel from a native forest; or
• Source any fuel from a plantation forest located on a site that was cleared of native forest after 1990.

 AGL will consider contracting with, or investing in, biomass projects that:

• Source fuel from wood waste obtained from a plantation forest located on a site that has not been native forest at any time since 1990;
• Source fuel from biomass obtained from a plantation that is sustainably harvested (i.e. energy crops); or
• Source fuel from environmental projects designed to control noxious weeds.

 AGL will consider other localised environmental issues on a project-by-project basis, taking into account stakeholder views.

The Policy is also available on our website, at www.agl.com.au/sustainability/pages/AGL-and-the-environment.aspx

Leave a comment to tell us what you think of our policy.