Greens to demand 90 per cent emissions cuts from future Labor government


7 August 2018
The Age


The Greens would pressure a future Shorten government to slash greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by 90 per cent, posing a likely complication for Labor should it win office at the next election without an absolute majority.   

The Greens’ stance, announced on Tuesday, underscores the importance of negotiations over the final design of the Turnbull government’s national energy guarantee. Labor states want a future federal government to control the setting of emission reductions imposed on the electricity sector, rather than being beholden to forces in Parliament seeking bolder or weaker climate action ambition.


Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg on Monday said federal Labor wanted free rein to change the targets because it “doesn’t want to have to deal with the Greens to change the legislation” if it wins office.

Greens climate change and energy spokesman Adam Bandt told Fairfax Media his party would seek a number of amendments if the energy policy came before Parliament in its current form. This would include cutting electricity sector emissions by 90 per cent by 2030, based on a 2005 baseline.

The proposal is far greater than both the Coaltion's 26 per cent target and Labor's 45 per cent goal over the same period.



Greens climate change spokesman Adam Bandt says the energy policy is designed to appease Coalition "coal huggers".


“The Greens’ target is for 100 per cent renewable energy as soon as possible and we’ll negotiate with any future Labor government to achieve that goal,” he said.   

“If we find ourselves with the balance of power in both houses like we did in 2010 then [a 90 per cent emissions reduction target] is certainly something we will be putting on the table.

“We hope that in the future ... we will be in a position to get greater pollution reduction and more renewable energy in the system.”   

The ability of future federal governments to easily lift the targets has been a key point of dispute ahead of a meeting of the nation’s energy ministers on Friday.

Labor's climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler did not comment on the Greens' position, but said "we don’t support tying the hands of future governments by locking in grossly inadequate emissions reduction targets".

Mr Frydenberg insists the target should only be changed through legislation - requiring support from Parliament - saying this would provide certainty.


Labor says the national energy guarantee will stifle investment in renewable energy.


But Labor states want any changes made through regulation. This would mean a future federal Labor government in a hung parliament would avoid unpredictable negotiations with the crossbench, including the Greens.

The Greens are yet to finalise a position on the national energy guarantee. However it is understood the party is highly unlikely to back the 26 per cent target unless a legislative mechanism exists to prevent Parliament from disallowing any increases.

Federal Labor has not yet specified the conditions under which it would consider supporting the 26 per cent target if it comes before Parliament.

The Greens have demanded the Victorian government veto the national energy guarantee. Mr Bandt on Monday warned Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews he would “pay at the ballot box ... if you sell out renewables and sign up to this deal”.

The Andrews government is under pressure from the Greens in several Melbourne seats, including Brunswick and Richmond, ahead of November’s state election.

The old propaganda parrot BlackDay is squawking out of control pumping the Greeny bulldust like there is no tomorrow.

lee wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 11:49am:




Its a bit of old whipping boy the old baseload.

Bam wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 4:53pm:



Just much more reliable than renewables. You do know hospitals have priority on the grid; don't you? They are the last to go out. Of course if the 100% renewables go out it is everybody out.

And then of course they have no-break plant if the power fails. But that burns fossil fuel so it is no good for the renewables pundits.

lee wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 11:49am:

lee doesn't know what baseload is!

"Reducing Baseload Demand

Firstly, we currently do not use our energy very efficiently.  For example, nighttime energy demand is much lower than during the day, and yet we waste a great deal of energy from coal and nuclear power plants, which are difficult to power up quickly, and are thus left running at high capacity even when demand is low.  Baseload demand can be further reduced by increasing the energy efficiency of homes and other buildings."

"Secondly, some renewable energy sources are just as reliable for baseload energy as fossil fuels.  For example, bio-electricity generated from burning the residues of crops and plantation forests, concentrated solar thermal power with low-cost thermal storage (such as in molten salt), and hot-rock geothermal power.  In fact, bio-electricity from residues already contributes to both baseload and peak-load power in parts of Europe and the USA, and is poised for rapid growth."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374

Oh no skep sci - say it isn't so.

Baseload power can be reduced? Not that it can be totally got rid of?

Using Bio-mass? Doesn't that have less energy density than coal? Doesn't DRAX power station in the UK run on  bio-mass? Wood pellets, shipped from Canada and the USA on fossil fuel burning ships, outputting that evil CO2?

Whatever happened to the skep sci we knew and understood?

I am not sure how BIO hot-rock geo-thermal is.

Rtard Polly Waffle displays his already well known gross ignorance of power generation.

The tiny 100MW max output battery in SA is as useful as Polly Waffle in supplying SA's load of about 2000MW.

The tiny SA battery has a max capacity of 129MWH ie it can supply 100MW for 1.29hours.

SA is totally dependent on the link to the Vic coalfields when the wind stops.

The few diesel genes sitting up in trees and a few very expensive to run gas turbines on limited supply gas can only last for a short time.

All the tiny 100MW battery does is supply a tiny bit of power to give the diesel and gas turbines time to start.

SA has gone down the road to ruin with the renewable rubbish.


Hot rocks was tried in SA but the up hot pipe keeps getting blocked by sediment and the whole thing stops.

lee wrote on Aug 8^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

And with this, you shoot yourself in the foot with a shotgun.

What is Loy Yang? A supposed "baseload" generator. It's not baseload when it's not generating power, eh.