“The Albanese government has made great strides forward in delivering what Australia needs – an ambitious roll-out of clean, affordable and reliable energy that will also reduce emissions, but this good work is hugely undermined by its refusal to stop new fossil fuel projects that will spew out billions of tonnes of emissions,” said David Ritter, CEO, Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

“Australia is one of the sunniest and windiest countries in the world, and we have the skilled people and resources to smash our 43% emissions reduction target while becoming a renewable energy superpower. But fossil fuels are slowing us down in the race to cut emissions at the speed and scale demanded by science, and future-proof our economy.

“An immediate step the Federal Government should take to avert climate disaster is to stop Woodside’s Burrup Hub, Australia’s biggest climate threat, which is projected to emit 6.1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over its proposed 50-year lifetime.

“The Climate Change Statement comes as COP28 kicks off, where Australia and other major polluters will rightly come under significant pressure to stop approving new coal and gas projects in order to preserve a chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. If Australia wants to be taken seriously as a climate leader, it simply cannot greenlight more fossil fuels,” said Mr Ritter.

Lindsay Soutar, head of Electrify, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “The Federal Government’s Climate Change Statement would show better progress if Transport Minister Catherine King had not dragged her feet on delivering much-needed legislation on a Fuel Efficiency Standard.

“Transport is the third largest source of emissions in Australia, and every day that we do not have legislation to limit emissions from polluting vehicles, we are locking in decades of avoidable pollution, while Australians miss out on millions of dollars of savings,” said Ms Soutar.

The second annual Climate Change Statement comes as two new pieces of analysis released by Greenpeace Australia Pacific this week show that $10.1bn could have been saved by motorists had a Fuel Efficiency Standard been introduced back in 2016—the figure is rising by $105/second—and that Woodside’s Burrup Hub is Australia’s biggest climate threat, emitting 6.1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over its proposed 50-year lifetime.

—ENDS—

“Petrol is a dirty, polluting, expensive, fossil fuel – and with every year that passes, our reliance on fossil fuelled cars is costing Australians billions,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific campaigner Lindsay Soutar said today.

“The Australian Government under Malcom Turnbull looked seriously at legislating fuel efficiency standards in December 2016 – but then failed to put this critical measure in place.

“Today that indecision has cost Australians dearly, with over $10.1 billion in avoidable petrol costs forked out, and transport emissions still continuing to rise.

“In April, Transport Minister Catherine King announced there would be legislation for a fuel efficiency standard by the end of this year – but now she is refusing to confirm that timeline. The question must now be asked: is Catherine King taking her eyes off the road too?’

Alongside the new data Greenpeace has released a ‘Fuel Costs ticker’ that shows motorists missed savings of $6,300 every minute, $378,000 every hour and $9 million every day as a result of failure to introduce the policy.

“Each day without a legislated minimum level of efficiency for new cars being sold means more gas-guzzlers on the road. These cars then keep polluting for an average of 15 years, locking Australians into years of higher petrol consumption.

“In a time of climate crisis and with cost of living only rising, Minister King needs to keep her promise to cut dirty, polluting emissions. Every day we delay costs motorists and our climate.”

The figures come as Toyota’s latest sustainability report shows Australia receiving Toyota’s dirtiest cars, alongside South Africa.

“These new figures provide proof that Toyota is blowing smoke in the eyes of Australian motorists. They’re using Australia as a dumping ground for their most polluting vehicles,  while lobbying to delay fuel efficiency standards.

“Even oil kingdom Saudi Arabia is getting more fuel-efficient cars from Toyota than Australia”

Just this week the peak lobby group representing Toyota called for the go slow on introducing the policy, despite the government having run consultations on the proposed introduction of standards for well over a year now.

The data comes as recently released Climate Council polling showed a majority of Australians thought fuel efficiency standards would save them money.

“Minister King must stand up to the car lobby and start delivering for Australian motorists. As the only major wealthy nation without a fuel efficiency standard, our country is being left behind in the transition to cleaner technologies.

“Every week that passes, Australians will continue paying the price for the Minister’s delayed action on transport emissions,” Ms Soutar added.

—ENDS—

Note: for methodology please click here

Given transport is one third of Australia’s carbon emissions, pollution from petrol cars is a health hazard and petrol prices keep going up during a cost of living crisis, that is great news for most people!

But car companies, like Toyota, who have failed to keep up with EV technology and are still making a profit from selling their petrol cars are arguing for a bunch of loopholes in the fuel efficiency standards. And that is bad news! A fuel efficiency standard riddled with holes will undermine emissions reductions, cost savings, and mean less electric vehicles for sale.

Here’s how the fuel efficiency standards should work. 

Standards set a target for how much pollution each brand of car can emit on average.

Each car company tries to reduce the average emissions of the cars they sell to get below the target. If they’re below the target, they get credits. If they’re above the target, they have to pay penalties or buy credits from another company.

This means car companies have a reason to bring their most efficient petrol cars, and their electric models, to Australia.  Fuel efficiency standards have been used to successfully get more EVs on the road in the US, EU and New Zealand.

So how does the ghost car loophole work?

Car companies say they should get extra credit for selling electric and hybrid cars – these are called ‘super credits’ or ‘multiplier credits’ – but we call them Ghost Cars.  So when the companies add up their average, they want to count their really polluting cars once…. and count their really clean cars two, three or four times.

So for every actual electric car they sell, they also get to count free Ghost electric cars. Imagine that!

It’s great for car companies because all these ghost electric cars make their average look much better. But it means that whatever the pollution cap the Government introduces, these petrol car companies will get so many credits that they will barely have to change the vehicles  they sell to us. That’s not good news for Australians who desperately want to get their hands on cleaner transport options.

So why is the Government considering using ghost cars?

Australia isn’t the first country to legislate a fuel efficiency standard. In fact 85% of the global car market already has these standards.

When other countries like the USA and EU were creating their fuel standards, electric and hybrid cars were really new technology. So car companies argued it would be easier for them to meet pollution targets by just making petrol engines more efficient than building entirely new types of vehicles, so they should get extra credits for the new types of vehicles.

But now electric vehicles aren’t new, and hybrids certainty aren’t. So the USA and EU are phasing out these credits.

Which means to meet their targets in the USA and Europe, car companies need to sell efficient vehicles and electric vehicles. Real, actual ones.

But in Australia, car companies are arguing that they should be able to keep meeting their targets with ghost cars for years and years to come.

If only our petrol bills and climate-related bushfires were imaginary too.

Ministers Catherine King and Chris Bowen, need to stand up to the petrol car companies and rule out including ‘ghost car’ multiplier credits in their proposed scheme.

The annual ranking evaluates the world’s 15 largest traditional automakers on their phase-out of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, supply chain decarbonisation, and resource reduction and efficiency. The report highlights how Australia’s most popular car brands are also some of the worst in terms of electrification and decarbonisation efforts.

Suzuki was bottom of the pile and did not sell a single zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) in 2022, nor has it set any targets for supply chain or materials decarbonisation.

Australia’s leading car brand Toyota crawled up from last year’s bottom-ranking position, but continues to stall when it comes to ZEV sales which represented a measly 0.24% of its total sales in 2022 — exceedingly low for a carmaker of its size. 

The Australian Government is currently considering the introduction of a Fuel Efficiency Standard (FES) which would limit pollution from cars by creating a cap on emissions across a manufacturer’s overall sales. This would incentivise the supply of zero and low-emissions vehicles, ensuring everyday Australians have access to more affordable and less polluting cars.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific Campaigner Joe Rafalowicz said that Australia is one of the only developed nations without an emissions standard and is fast becoming a dumping ground for expensive, dirty vehicles.

“Australia is considered an ‘ICE hold-out market’ due to our lack of fuel efficiency standards, placing us in the same category as countries like Turkey and Vietnam. 

“While Australians are calling out for access to more affordable electric vehicles, and petrol prices keep rising, Toyota continues to lobby for weak policy to protect its petrol-powered profits. This is clearly not in the interest of Australian consumers.

“A strong Fuel Efficiency Standard will benefit all Australians by slashing emissions, improving air quality, and reducing cost of living pressures. We call on Ministers Bowen and King to ensure a FES is implemented quickly and is robust enough to have a real impact on transport emissions, and to rule out loopholes for companies who have failed to invest in electric vehicles”

Yesterday, Greenpeace issued a statement in support of the decision by the High Court to scrap Victoria’s ‘ill-considered’ road user tax for electric vehicles.

In Question Time yesterday, Minister for Transport Catherine King was asked by MP for Kooyong Monique Ryan whether the government would rule out supercredits and other loopholes for car companies in its forthcoming fuel efficiency standard.

In an August statement, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen said that the strong response to his government’s FES consultation reinforces overwhelming support for the Government’s position that, “Australia needs fuel efficiency standards that make us competitive with other parts of the world for cleaner, cheaper-to-run cars.”

—ENDS—

Notes for editor:

• Read the full report and media briefing 
• Toyota was penalised in the ranking due to a series of class-action lawsuits, known as “Dieselgate,” for emissions cheating that involves tampered devices displaying a lower nitrogen oxide emission level than the actual emissions.
• Toyota received a score of ‘D’ by InfluenceMap, due to its history of negative lobbying and active involvement in regressive trade associations.
• Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s submission to the Australian Government’s FES Consultation can be found here

After posting a $2.7 billion loss, the pressure was on the operator of some of the country’s dirtiest coal burning power stations to clean up its act or face even bigger losses in the coming years.

As well as the epic financial losses, the review was driven by a pressing need for AGL to get with the times. The old economic model that underpinned coal-fired power generation is under enormous pressure from asurge of large-scale renewable energy and storage projects already powering Australia and exerting downward pressure on energy prices, with many more to come online in the near-term, coupled with world-leading rates of households adopting rooftop solar. 

 Rather than moving to get onboard the renewables roadtrain, AGL has chosen to deal with the pressure by announcing plans to split into two businesses.

A ‘retail’ business, which will house AGL’s token renewable energy assets and try to push the community friendly image that AGL likes to cultivate.

And a separate company to hold AGL’s coal assets including some of the nation’s top climate polluters, Bayswater and Liddell in New South Wales’s Hunter Valley, and Loy Yang A, in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley. 

Bayswater is a coal fired thermal power station owned by AGL Energy near Muswellbrook in New South Wales, Australia. It was opened in 1985 and is due to shut down by the end of 2035. AGL Energy is Australia’s single largest climate polluter. This image document the water pollution and ecosystem impacts from the leaching coal-ash waste dumps.

AGL has once again let down its investors, shareholders and the growing number of Australians who want to see coal replaced with clean energy like wind and solar.

AGL wants to keep these ageing, unreliable and climate-wrecking coal-burning power stations out of the public eye but will continue to rely on them to generate the bulk of its power for decades to come, in the case of Loy Yang A, until 2048!

AGL plans are completely at odds with its hollow marketing rhetoric and the globally accepted timeline for coal closure that we need to maintain a safe climate.

By hiding its polluting coal assets away in a separate business, AGL is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of its millions of customers. It’s masquerading as a forward-facing, modern energy business while holding on to its ageing, unreliable coal power stations.

AGL has already been left behind and this dodgy demerger will only entrench its backward position on climate and energy. Its main rival Energy Australia, which has been slow but seems almost like a Formula One race car compared to the glacial pace of AGL, has brought forward the closure of its Yallourn coal burning power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley to 2028. Yallourn will be replaced by the world’s largest battery.

Energy Australia Man ging Director Catherine Tanna said the new battery “will help to secure Victoria’s energy supply and enable more renewables to enter the system”.

The very same renewables that make AGL’s decision to run its Loy Yang A power station until 2048 completely untenable on economic and environmental grounds.

Given where the coal market is headed, AGL’s CEO Brett Redman is dreaming if he thinks Loy Yang A can stay open that long. This timeline is also completely inconsistent with nation-wide efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

AGL is clearly a company in trouble and it’s gone into damage control. But rather than doing anything of substance, AGL has chosen to treat the inevitable decline of coal and it’s terrible environmental impact as a marketing problem rather than an opportunity.

Customers of all businesses want them to take meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Other businesses are listening and responding by announcing shifts to 100 per cent renewable electricity. This year we’ve seen Coles, Coca-Cola Amatil and TPG Telecom make the renewable switch, following brands such as Woolworths, Bunnings, Officeworks, Telstra and ALDI last year.

These are all big, complex companies that use lots of energy but that hasn’t stopped them from making concrete plans to reduce emissions.

Energy providers, like AGL, should be doing the same, rather than relying on complex corporate manoeuvres to try and hide their destructive operations and continue polluting.

If AGL was serious about the future of the planet, and the long term future of its business, it could power Australia with renewable energy – and it would create thousands of jobs and thriving industries, particularly in regional Australia. 

There are clear economic benefits for AGL to make the switch to clean energy, pumped hydro and battery storage could be attached to the sites of its existing power stations, where they can easily hook up to high voltage transmission lines.

With renewable energy already powering the country, and growing every day, it’s time for AGL to come clean and make the switch – or fall even further behind.

“Mathias Cormann has been a leading figure in a government that has repeatedly blocked climate action and promoted the increased use of fossil fuels, the leading driver of climate change,” said David Ritter, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

“Like any job applicant, Mr Cormann deserves to be judged on his record. He has proven time and time again that he puts the profits of the coal and gas industry above people and planet, and his recent attempts to airbrush his record clean can’t change the fact that he has been active in blocking climate change action in Australia.”

Oxfam Australia CEO Lyn Morgain said, “Our global community currently faces the twin challenges of recovering from the coronavirus pandemic and tackling accelerating climate change. As communities experience the impacts of climate change, including here in Australia and across the Pacific, there is no time to waste.” 

“The leaders of our international institutions must act in concert with nations to avoid a climate catastrophe that will further entrench poverty and inequality. It is vital the next head of the OECD have a record that demonstrates a real commitment to taking action on climate change.”

Kelly O’Shanassy, CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said “Climate change is the greatest challenge facing the world’s leaders, particularly those that need to lead the global transformation to zero emissions economies.”

“The next Secretary-General of the OECD will have a significant influence on how the world tackles climate change, so it is imperative that position is held by a person who has a strong track record on climate policy and action and is up to the challenge.”

For more information please contact Greenpeace Australia Pacific Head of Communications Nelli Stevenson on 0481 303 815 or email nelli.stevenson@greenpeace.org

Notes:

To access the letter click here.

Signatories of the letter include:

Catherine Abreu, Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada 

Christoph Bals, Policy Director, Germanwatch e.V.

Matt Brennan, Chief Executive Officer, The Wilderness Society Australia 

Gidon Bromberg, Israeli co-Director, EcoPeace Middle East, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Suzie Brown, National Director, Australian Parents for Climate Action

Sharan Burrow, Secretary General, International Trade Union Confederation

Red Constantino, Executive Director, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities

Dave Copeman, Director, Queensland Conservation Council

Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network International

Chris Gambian, Chief Executive Officer, Nature Conservation Council

Michelle Higelin, Executive Director, ActionAid Australia 

Dr Saleemul Huq, Director International Centre for Climate Change and Development Independent University Bangladesh

Rachel Kyte, Dean of The Fletcher School, Tufts University

Jonathan La Nauze, Chief Executive Officer, Environment Victoria

Nick Mabey, Chief Executive Officer, E3G

Bill McKibben, Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, co-founder and Senior Advisor of 350.org

Nathan Méténier, Advocacy Manager of Youth and Environment Europe

Shar Molloy, Co-Director, Environmental Centre NT 

Lyn Morgain, Chief Executive, Oxfam Australia

Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director, Greenpeace International

Thea Ormerod, President, Australian Religious Response to Climate Change

Kelly O’Shanassy, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Conservation Foundation

Julie-Anne Richards, Executive Director, Climate Action Network Australia

David Ritter, Chief Executive Officer, Greenpeace Australia Pacific

Manuel Rodríguez Becerra, President National Environmental Forum (Colombia), Emeritus Professor, Universidad de los Andes.

Julia Sanchez, Secretary-General, ActionAid International

Pascal Vollenweider,  Climate Director Avaaz

Craig Wilkins, Chief Executive, Conservation SA

Farhana Yamin, Adviser  & Deputy Chair of the Expert Advisory Group of the Climate Vulnerable Forum

“As it stands, unrepresentative private interests are influencing government decision making and it appears to be for the benefit of members of the Covid-19 Commission rather than the Australian public”, Liz Hicks said.

“Cabinet confidentiality was not designed to hide conflicts of interest. It’s not even clear that these unelected business people can be part of Cabinet, which is supposed to be comprised of federally elected ministers who are answerable to their electors and Parliament.”

“The paper clearly shows that the way the National Covid-19 Commission was set up allows it to escape scrutiny and potentially advance projects that would benefit members of the commission and the taskforces advising it,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific Campaigner, Jonathan Moylan said. 

“It is alarming that fossil gas projects like Narrabri that don’t stack up environmentally or economically, have been slated for access to public money by former Commissioner and EnergyAustralia CEO Catherine Tanna, who stands to benefit from an NCCC recommendation.”

The briefing lays out how the NCC members were not appointed through an independent process and the body was not established by legislation, which is typical of publicly funded agencies. It also highlights the potential for rent-seeking as the commission’s potential conflicts of interest only need to be declared to other commission members and not to the public. 

Notes

Read Private Actors & Crisis; Scrutinising the National Covid-19 Commission Advisory Board here

https://government.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/3457725/GDC-Policy-Brief-4_Private-Actors-and-Crisis_final.pdf 

Contact:

Communications Campaigner Martin Zavan

0424 295 422

martin.zavan@greenpeace.org 

Later this month, the directors of the Commonwealth Bank face just such a moment of truth when the bank’s board is expected to decide the business’ future policy on global warming.
 

Originally published on The Guardian.

On present trajectory, CommBank seems set for pariah status.

CommBank is the most structurally significant private investor in fossil fuels in Australia – the coal, oil and gas that are the major drivers of the carbon pollution causing global warming. The biggest Australian bank by market capitalisation, CommBank also loaned more money to fossil fuel projects in 2016 than any other bank.

Unlike the other three of the “big four” banks, CommBank has not even ruled out providing finance to Adani’s Carmichael coalmine, which would be so disastrous for the global climate and our Great Barrier Reef. Commbank claims to support the 2015 Paris agreement but, earlier this year, its chief executive, Ian Narev, couldn’t give a parliamentary inquiry a single example of a project that had been refused finance because of the purported commitment.

It is no surprise that public pressure is now building on CommBank. Earlier this week a community protest in Newcastle called out CommBank for its contribution to the 3,000 premature deaths per year in Australia attributed to particulate pollution like that from coal infrastructure.

So what will CommBank’s board do?

Company directors are expected to bring their personal skills and experience to bear on decision-making. Disunity within a board can be disastrous but, equally, groupthink makes for poor collective judgment. This is why the composition of a corporate board is so important and diversity of membership is crucial.

The CommBank board is comprised of 10 members with an average age of over 60. Their backgrounds are business establishment, mostly in corporate banking, consulting and the like. There are some quirks. Board member Harrison Young is, among other things, a writer of erotic fiction, while Narev was once a child actor with the memorable catchphrase “Me mum will skin me!”

Nine of the board appear to be ethnically white, with Singapore-based Shirish Apte the lone exception. Four are women: chair Catherine Livingstone; intellectual property lawyer Mary Padbury; technologist Wendy Stops; and Launa Inman, who has a background in business retail. Sir David Higgins is an Australian-Briton knighted for his work on the London Olympics. The remaining members are Brian Long and Andrew Mohl, senior figures in accounting and banking respectively.

Scrutinising the board profiles on the CommBank web page, the words “sustainability”, “environment” and “climate change” do not appear in any of the short statements of experience. This is not to suggest that CommBank’s directors know nothing about the issues but they certainly don’t appear front and centre. “And to be honest”, Young wrote of corporate boards earlier this year, “moderating climate change is not our core competence.”

Scrutiny of directors’ liabilities and obligations around global warming has never been greater and is continuing to increase. According to an opinion provided by Sydney barristers Noel Hutley SC and Sebastian Hartford-Davis last year, it is “likely to be only a matter of time before we see litigation against a director who has failed to perceive, disclose or take steps in relation to a foreseeable climate-related risk that can be demonstrated to have caused harm to a company (including, perhaps, reputational harm)”. The opinion has been widely circulated and discussed within corporate Australia. It would seem probable that lawyers will now be seeking to identify appropriate test cases.

The Australian Institute of Company Directors’ guidance on board decision-making suggests that among the questions directors should ask themselves are “does the information I have address all the risks?” and “will this decision compromise the culture, capability or values of the organisation in years to come?”

In this case, the CommBank board could consider the latest public information produced by the Climate Council. Or they might look at the analysis provided by the sustainable finance program of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University. And they should definitely read the landmark February speech by APRA member Geoff Summerhayes entirely devoted to the risks of climate change.

It is essential that CommBank’s board understands that climate change is something much more fundamental than just stakeholder management. The most prudent step for the board of CommBank to take is to approve a credible group policy on climate change at its June meeting. The policy should include a curb on the bank’s lending to fossil fuels including an immediate ban on lending to new coal projects and a serious plan to phase out its exposure to existing coal to zero by 2020 and existing fossil fuel projects to zero by 2030.

More than seven in ten (71%) said the government was not doing enough to ensure “affordable, reliable and clean energy” for households and businesses. Only 12% said it was. Fewer than one-quarter (23%) of Coalition voters thought it was doing enough. 62% of these voters said it wasn’t.

The government has recently signalled it is likely to provide incentives for new “clean coal” coal-fired power stations. But 45% opposed building new coal-fired power stations in Australia, with 31% supporting. The question did not refer to “clean coal”.

Despite the concerted government attack on the ALP’s strong commitment to renewables, nearly two-thirds (65%) approved of Labor’s “target of 50% renewable energy by 2030”. 18% disapproved. Support for the policy was 55% among Coalition voters.

Nor have people been convinced by the government’s heaping blame for recent blackouts on over-reliance on renewables.

The poll found 45% agreed with the proposition that recent blackouts “are due mainly to failures of the energy market in responding to extreme weather events”. 19% agreed they “are due mainly to the privatisation of electricity supply”. Just 16% said they “are the result of too much reliance on renewable energy”.

Malcolm Turnbull has continued his attack on the energy situation in South Australia, with its high reliance on renewables. Dean Lewins/AAP

Asked whether renewable energy was the solution to our future energy needs or a threat to our future energy supply, 64% (up four points since October) saw it the solution (including 58% of Coalition voters), and 14% as a threat.

Some 60%, up six points since December, agreed that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity.

On Tuesday, EnergyAustralia’s managing director Catherine Tanna briefed the recently formed energy committee of federal cabinet on the potential for developing pumped hydro storage in the Upper Spencer Gulf in South Australia. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) is finalising a A$450,000 grant to EnergyAustralia to examine the feasibility of the project. The feasibility study will take about six months; the development itself would take about two years if it goes ahead.

In remarks to the committee, Malcolm Turnbull continued his attack on the energy situation in South Australia, with its high reliance on renewables.

“We’ve seen in South Australia what happens when you have unaffordable and unreliable energy – the most expensive and least reliable electricity in Australia.”

Turnbull said a key element needed in the electricity system was more storage as the use of renewables increased. “Batteries are developing but the big opportunity is in pumped hydro,” he said.

Tanna said while the pumped hydro project was in the feasibility phase, the sort of power availability being looked at could have alleviated the load-shedding that occurred in South Australia.

Labor’s energy spokesman Mark Butler said the government was adding to the crisis in energy policy by “distracting the Australian people with irresponsible and uneconomic plans to use taxpayer money to build coal power plants.

“Since it was first flagged, the government’s coal plan has been criticised by industry groups such as the Australian Industry Group, electricity generators and their peak body the Australian Energy Council and even the very government agency the government wants to use to fund its coal plan, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.”

Butler said the criticisms “are based on a few simple facts: new coal plants are more expensive than alternatives like gas and renewables, they are incompatible with Australia’s obligations under the Paris Climate Change Agreement, and they do not provide the flexibility that complements greater uptake of renewable energy”.

Despite the federal government’s constant criticism of South Australia’s energy policy, SA Premier Jay Weatherill on Tuesday reaffirmed the state’s commitment to a 50% state-based renewable energy target to be achieved by 2025.

“People that are talking about coal are talking about the past – we’re talking about renewable energy, which is the future,” he said

The SA government is currently developing a plan to intervene in the energy market to get more stability into its system.

This is a guest blog by Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra.

This article originally appeared on in theconversation.com on February 21, 2017 8.07pm AEDT. 

Disclosure statement:

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.