In the news

Are fossil fuel companies telling investors enough about the risks of climate change? | The Conversation

Prior to President Donald Trump taking office, there was a push to require oil and gas companies to inform their investors about the risks of climate change. As governments step up efforts to regulate carbon emissions, the thinking goes, fossil fuel companies’ assets could depreciate in value over time.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, was probing how ExxonMobil discloses the impact of that risk on the value of its reserves. And disclosure advocates have been pressing the agency to take more decisive action.

Now that Republicans control Congress and the White House, will the SEC reverse course? And should it?

The Trump administration’s apparent skepticism regarding climate change may portend such a change in direction. And Congress’ decision to roll back transparency rules for U.S. energy companies in the Dodd-Frank Act suggests transparency policy more broadly is being loosened.

More

Startling air pollution maps reveal the true extent of rising emissions in the UK | Wired

Environmental campaigners place great importance on people using public transport over driving, but when it comes to the London Underground, the tables have been turned.

A recent study, published by the University of Surrey found that Londoners who travel on the Tube are exposed to 68mg of harmful pollutant PM10 daily, whereas car drivers experience 8.2mg. Describing the results as an "environmental injustice" against Londoners, lead author Dr Prashant Kumar is calling for more to be to done to reduce the health risks.

More

Trump's vow to scrap the Paris climate change accord faces skepticism from corporations, GOP moderates | LA Times

Trashing the Paris Agreement made for a great campaign prop at Donald Trump’s rallies, where the climate change accord was portrayed as a product of the out-of-touch, insufferable elites that Trump pledged to sweep from power.

Now the landmark agreement, signed under President Obama, is fast becoming a nuisance for President Trump’s White House.

It is putting the president under increasing pressure from places he may not have expected. His own secretary of State appears to see little upside in the president following through on the signature campaign vow to scrap it. His ambassador to the United Nations is hedging. And titans of industries that Trump promised would be unleashed to create new jobs once freed from the agreement’s constraints are openly hostile to Trump’s plan to put it through the shredder.

More

Energy politics has Malcolm Turnbull in a tangle | The New Daily

Malcolm Turnbull playing a Tony Abbott-style energy policy never looked convincing. Now, even he realises that his attack on renewable energy was misdirected.

Worse, it exposed the government’s complete lack of a coherent policy and made them look out of touch with consumer and business sentiment.

The plan was simple last year: the Prime Minister could restore the government’s fortunes by coming up with a contemporary version of Mr Abbott’s carbon tax scare.

The beguiling appeal was to link Labor’s climate change policies to the rising cost of living. The message was simple: vote Labor and your power bill will go even higher.

More

Republicans’ winning idea: Less carbon in the atmosphere, more equal distribution of income | Robert Reich

"A group of former Republican officials (including James A. Baker, Henry Paulson, George P. Shultz, Marty Feldstein and Greg Mankiw) is proposing a carbon tax that would start at $40 per ton and gradually increase.

The proceeds of the tax would be distributed to every American.

The average family of four would receive $2,000 annually in dividends. As the tax rises, so would their dividends. Since everyone would receive the same amount of revenue from the tax regardless of their income level, the dividend would make a bigger difference for poorer families than for wealthier ones.

It’s a win-win: Less carbon in the atmosphere, and more equal distribution of income. That it’s being proposed by Republicans doesn’t make the idea any less worthy.

I’m aware that some on the left would rather use revenues from such a tax to invest in clean energy and other social causes rather than return the revenues directly to the public. That detail can be worked out.

The idea is getting a hearing in the White House. And in these dreadful times, that’s good news indeed."

Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written 13 books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His new movie "Inequality for All" is in Theaters. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.

Hard facts unmask the fiction behind Coalition's 'coal comeback' | Lenore Taylor

Watching politics builds a high tolerance for hypocrisy and humbug, but even I am aghast at the Coalition’s antics this week – fondling a lump of coal in parliament while accusing the opposition of an “ideological approach to energy” and negligence in policy planning.

Seriously. There’s a long list of blame and shame for Australia’s threadbare climate and energy policy, and the failure to plan for an energy market crisis that experts have warned about for years. But Malcolm Turnbull’s Coalition takes out first place.

Arguably all sides of politics have made mistakes or miscalculations to get us to this point of omni-failure – high prices, blackouts and an inability to reduce electricity sector emissions – and yes, ideology has played a part: mostly the climate-change denying, renewables-are-a-socialist-plot ideology espoused by sections of the Liberal and National parties that once upon a time, a long time ago, Turnbull also railed against.

Before we untether from reality entirely and drift off into a Trump-like universe where truth belongs to whoever delivers the best poll-driven lines or brings the dumbest prop to question time, let’s hammer down a few facts. Because we aren’t reviewing bad theatre here and when some commentators opine about whether Turnbull’s lines will “work”, or how funny the whole thing was, what they are really assessing is whether the prime minister can successfully, and in broad daylight, shift the blame for a monumental stuff-up, while apparently proposing solutions that will make it substantially worse in every regard.

More

Health fund HCF divests from fossil fuels, saying industry harms members | The Guardian

HCF has become the first Australian private health fund to divest from fossil fuels, having decided that the industry harms the health and wellbeing of its members, pulling about $20m out of fossil fuel companies in Australia and overseas.

In a letter to the campaign group Market Forces dated 15 December 2016, HCF said it would be divesting from fossil fuels on the same ground it used for pulling out of the tobacco industry.

More

Like Trump, Turnbull’s energy policy is based on “alternative facts” | Renew Economy

The first few weeks of the Trump administration have been extraordinary, and quite frightening – not just because of the incompetence of a president who appears to be little more than a self-obsessed idiot, but by the actions of the dangerous ideologues at the helm of the world’s biggest economy and military power.

There have been shocks across the policy spectrum, but probably none more so than in climate and clean energy, where Trump has promised to throw the baby out with the bathwater, quit the Paris deal, disband or dismember environmental regulations, “re-invent” coal, stop renewables and build more gas pipelines.

It might sound stone-cold crazy to many people in Australia, but it should be familiar: There is little that Trump and his regime is doing on climate and clean energy that has not already achieved, or attempted, by the current Coalition government in Canberra. 

More

We can't have another destructive decade in energy policy | AFR

by Matthew Warren

Energy is a business. We urgently need to start treating it like one again. For the past decade this critical multibillion-dollar sector has been held hostage in an escalating ideological and political struggle over climate change.

Last week the Prime Minister used his address at the National Press Club to position energy policy as a battleground federal issue. While many of the points he made were sensible, his speech was the latest in an escalating cold war on energy and climate between the two major parties.

We now risk rolling into a second decade of energy policy uncertainty. This could be catastrophic for the cost and reliability of energy in Australia.

We are already experiencing the consequences of energy policy paralysis for the past decade. It's not pretty. The "grid" as we know it is degrading in front of our eyes. Power stations are closing and not being replaced. Like the fleet of cars in Cuba, remaining owners are sweating remaining generators until and if the investment drought breaks.

Australian businesses and households are now feeling the results of this dysfunction via higher prices and increased unreliability. Right now, there is no respite in sight.

Of course the real pivot issue isn't energy, it's climate change. In the vacuum of credible policy to reduce emissions the debate is framed by the extremes of the ideological spectrum. We are asked to choose between impossible solutions: building more coal-fired generation (we can't finance) versus running the grid entirely on renewables (we can't, at least not yet).

Business risk

Climate change is not a belief. It's a risk. In the middle of the last decade the global business community finally made sense of the growing concerns of scientists about the risk that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities were accelerating the natural climate variation of the planet, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Unsurprisingly it was the insurance and re-insurance industry that began to calculate the potential liabilities and sounded the alarm. This flowed on to banking and finance. Climate change risks and the consequential constraints on emissions have been increasingly factored in to commercial transactions ever since.

Commercial consideration of these risks now occurs regardless of current climate policy settings. In effect, it means it is not up to state and federal politicians, or US presidents for that matter, to decide if climate change is real or not. That's not the question any more. It's how we manage the risk, which is real.

Australia's energy sector has been operating for the past decade with an implicit price on emissions. All Australia's energy businesses have effectively shelved any plans they once had to build new coal-fired generation. Holding aside all other considerations, they are 50-year assets with a material carbon risk. This is only marginally improved by new coal technologies, or in the case of carbon capture and storage, are still too expensive. Put simply, you cannot finance coal.

Over the past decade the industry's investment focus has shifted from coal and gas to gas and renewables. Some new gas generation proceeded, but has since stalled. While gas has a much lower carbon risk, further investment is unprofitable without some kind of effective constraint on emissions.

Carbon price

We've also seen some investment in renewables, facilitated by the renewable energy target (RET). But now we are seeing signs this too is struggling. The decision by one retailer to opt for paying the penalty price cap rather than source and surrender renewable energy certificates is a symptom of a deeper investment problem.

When it was increased in 2009, the RET was designed to operate alongside and converge with a national carbon price. The idea was the RET would support early investment in renewables projects, develop capacity and skill in integration until, by around 2020 the carbon price would be high enough to take over the role as sole investment signal for the entire sector.

Instead, for the past year the renewable certificate price has been hovering right against its ceiling price, and this in a time of higher wholesale electricity prices. Conditions have never been theoretically better to build renewables, but even with these support measures renewables are now caught by the investment paralysis.

At the end of March Hazelwood power station closes in Victoria's Latrobe Valley, following Northern in Port Augusta last year. That's more than 2000MW of firm generation exiting the market without any plan as to how we can give investors the confidence to replace it.

Political standoff

South Australia's reliability issues are now well documented. Victoria is about to go into negative capacity reserves, meaning it does not have enough generation to meet periods of maximum demand. It is still going to be expected to supply South Australia with power during these times (normally heatwaves), which means it will in turn need to rely on power from New South Wales and Tasmania.

In other words, everything has to go right to avoid blackouts, while power prices increase as we sustain demand but short supply. It's an increasingly fragile system.

These problems and the impacts on industry and households will only worsen if we do nothing and sustain another decade of political standoff. It's a destructive impasse that needs to end before we do more serious economic self-harm.

Credible national energy and climate policy remains the solution we need urgently. This means a nationally co-ordinated energy strategy and a clear and durable measure to constrain emissions. This can take many forms, but is unlikely to include arbitrary, populist targets or schemes for specific technologies. The difference between political window dressing and meaningful reform can be measured by the scale of the return of investors to the energy market. We need them back, at scale, and soon.



Read more: http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/we-cant-have-another-destructive-decade-in-energy-policy-20170207-gu7561#ixzz4Y4MNyhj9
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

TCFD Recommendations Report Overview Webinar 24 January 2017

This one hour webinar provides an overview of the main points of the Recommendations report and the implementation guidance. 

The 60-day public consultation period on the Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures report is currently open through to February 12, 2017. The consultation is a critical way to solicit views on the Task Force's recommendations. Results from the public consultation will be shared with the Financial Stability Board in February 2017 followed by an updated report to the Financial Stability Board in June 2017. 

You can submit feedback directly via the online questionnaire to facilitate analysis of the comments.  

Global Risks Report 2017 | World Economic Forum

For over a decade, The Global Risks Report has focused attention on the evolution of global risks and the deep interconnections between them. The Report has also highlighted the potential of persistent, long-term trends such as inequality and deepening social and political polarisation to exacerbate risks associated with, for example, the weakness of the economic recovery and the speed of technological change.

These trends came into sharp focus during 2016, with rising political discontent and disaffection evident in countries across the world. The highest-profile signs of disruption may have come in Western countries – with the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union and President-elect Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election – but across the globe there is evidence of a growing backlash against elements of the domestic and international status quo.

Read more