Labor warns Government's National Energy Guarantee will lead to renewables lag

ABC NEWS
April 20 2018


The Federal Government's latest energy plan will mean no new renewable energy projects would be built in Australia for a decade, the Opposition says.   :(

Following Friday's meetings, state and territory energy ministers have agreed with federal counterpart Josh Frydenberg that discussions can continue on the National Energy Guarantee (NEG).

The NEG is aimed at overcoming a decade of policy uncertainty in Australia as well as ensuring a reliable and affordable supply of power that also helps Australia meet its climate targets.

Under those targets, emissions from the electricity sector should be cut by 26 per cent compared to 2005 levels by 2030.

Mr Frydenberg said "there is still a lot of work to be done", but he hoped the states and territories would sign up to the NEG at another meeting in August.

While states agreed to keep talking about the NEG at Friday's meetings, some are scathing about that target, arguing it is too low to drive any new investment.

Queensland Labor Minister Anthony Lynham is a reluctant proponent of continuing the talks.

Malcolm Turnbull unveils his shiny new energy policy, complete with its own three-letter acronym. Here's what it all means.

He said the major sticking point was the lack of detail provided by the Commonwealth about how the energy plan would work.   :(

"[We are] surprised and disappointed because we need that detail to … do a comprehensive analysis of the policy before we make a decision," he said.

Dr Lynham said fundamental elements of the policy remained a mystery, including the way emissions reductions would be divided up between the states and territories.

"Do Queensland and other Labor states do the heavy lifting and we find other states dragging behind us?" he said.
NEG lacking investment in renewables: Federal Labor

Federal Labor predicts stagnation in the renewable energy sector would force power prices up and put extra pressure to cut emissions on farmers, as well as the building and transport sectors.

Labor's energy spokesman, Mark Butler, said Labor wanted to see a bipartisan solution to what he called a "deep energy crisis".

But he also said in its current form, the NEG would mean not a single new renewable energy project would be built in Australia for an entire decade from 2020 to 2030.

    "That will obviously see jobs and investment in that critically important industry fall off the edge of a cliff," Mr Butler said.   :(

He argued the lack of investment in the new system would see power prices rise for households and businesses.
What is the Paris Agreement?

Here's a simple explanation of the agreement, and what it means for Australia.

Mr Butler said that would simply handball the job of cutting pollution and tackling climate change to other industries that do not have the same capacity to cut emissions as the electricity sector does.

Federal Labor leader Bill Shorten said if the NEG did not have "fair dinkum targets for renewable energy", jobs and investment would be undermined, pushing up power prices.

"I have concerns at this stage that Mr Turnbull is still hostage to the knuckle-draggers of the right wing of the Liberal and National Party, because he is proposing very unambitious, modest targets for renewable energy," Mr Shorten said.

You mean theres not already a lag?

Bloody hell more increases. Most people are having trouble paying now.

Spot

If renewables are so cost effective; why the need for Federal Government intervention?

lee wrote on Apr 21^st, 2018 at 11:57am:

If renewables are so cost effective; why the need for Federal Government intervention?

Sometimes people need an incentive to get off their arse and buy solar panels  etc

Bobby. wrote on Apr 21^st, 2018 at 4:37pm:

lee wrote on Apr 21st, 2018 at 11:57am: If renewables are so cost effective; why the need for Federal Government intervention? Sometimes people need an incentive to get off their arse and buy solar panels  etc

Also any time a product is poisonous the government has had to step in to ban it, the companies selling it don’t want change and the general population are busy living.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 21^st, 2018 at 4:37pm:

lee wrote on Apr 21st, 2018 at 11:57am: If renewables are so cost effective; why the need for Federal Government intervention? Sometimes people need an incentive to get off their arse and buy solar panels  etc

What is the cost effectiveness once batteries are factored in?

lee wrote on Apr 21^st, 2018 at 6:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 21st, 2018 at 4:37pm: lee wrote on Apr 21st, 2018 at 11:57am: If renewables are so cost effective; why the need for Federal Government intervention? Sometimes people need an incentive to get off their arse and buy solar panels  etc What is the cost effectiveness once batteries are factored in?

What is the cost to human life and well being when u factor the poisons fossil fuels emit into the air ?

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 21^st, 2018 at 11:03pm:

What is the cost to human life and well being when u factor the poisons fossil fuels emit into the air ?

Give us the numbers.

Not statistically found numbers where one assumes we lose a life to CO2 one every 1,000 deaths or some such stupidity. Or from NO_x, or other things. Real world numbers.

lee wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 12:32pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 21st, 2018 at 11:03pm: What is the cost to human life and well being when u factor the poisons fossil fuels emit into the air ? Give us the numbers. Not statistically found numbers where one assumes we lose a life to CO2 one every 1,000 deaths or some such stupidity. Or from NOx, or other things. Real world numbers.

Please just do this easy test park a vehical and a garage ,keep the car running close the garage and read a book in the car for a hour and tell me how u feel

Just look at pictures of any really big city with the chemical clouds there, move your family there becouse that haze isn’t really bad for u.
Don’t need figures, pictures r all we need
But if u really need numbers here’s a article u might like

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/15/australian-coal-power-pollution-would-be-illegal-in-us-europe-and-china-report

And a report on smog in China

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2056553/smog-linked-third-deaths-china-study-finds

As a laugh I googled
fossil fuels aren’t really bad for u
Not even the crazies say that in a article

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 12:44pm:

Please just do this easy test park a vehical and a garage ,keep the car running close the garage and read a book in the car for a hour and tell me how u feel

CO is a naturally occurring compound, how can that be pollution? Even Water another compound that occurs naturally can be harmful  (deadly) to life. And that isn't considered a pollutant.


DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 12:44pm:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/15/australian-coal-power-pollution-would-be-illegal-in-us-europe-and-china-report

I see you can now quote URL's. Can you please enclose them in the URL icon at top left blow the title thread (map of the World)?

Now I don't usually read the garudian; however I notice it only  includes older power stations not new.

I guess that is a bias from Environmental Justice Australia.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 12:44pm:

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2056553/smog-linked-third-deaths-china-study-finds

Yeah. Another statistical study.

Life expectancy cities of China - between 71.86 (Guiyang) to 83.18 (Shanghai)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_cities_by_life_expectancy

By State

USA - Hawaii - 81.3 highest.

Minnesota - 81.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_life_expectancy
By City -

New York, New York: 81.8 years

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/us-cities-where-people-live-the-longest-2018-1?r=US&IR=T

So it seems Smog choked Shanghai denizens live longer than USA denizens. Go figure.

lee wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 1:27pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 22nd, 2018 at 12:44pm: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2056553/smog-linked-third-deaths-china-study-finds Yeah. Another statistical study. Life expectancy cities of China - between 71.86 (Guiyang) to 83.18 (Shanghai) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_cities_by_life_expectancy By State USA - Hawaii - 81.3 highest. Minnesota - 81.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_life_expectancy By City - New York, New York: 81.8 years https://www.businessinsider.com.au/us-cities-where-people-live-the-longest-2018-1?r=US&IR=T So it seems Smog choked Shanghai denizens live longer than USA denizens. Go figure.

And there is the subject change.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 2:06pm:

And there is the subject change.

YOU were the one raised life impacts. I was just showing you statistics can be made to do want you want.

Don't agree with me? formulate a new argument. ;)

whiteknight wrote on Apr 21^st, 2018 at 11:22am:

Labor warns Government's National Energy Guarantee will lead to renewables lag ABC NEWS April 20 2018 The Federal Government's latest energy plan will mean no new renewable energy projects would be built in Australia for a decade, the Opposition says.   :( Following Friday's meetings, state and territory energy ministers have agreed with federal counterpart Josh Frydenberg that discussions can continue on the National Energy Guarantee (NEG). The NEG is aimed at overcoming a decade of policy uncertainty in Australia as well as ensuring a reliable and affordable supply of power that also helps Australia meet its climate targets. .

Australia does not need more intermittent power that has to be backed up by base load  coal, when it could just use base load coal.

Let the other idiots work out how to fix the massive deficiency of intermittent power while we continue to produce barely 1% of the world's GHGs