COP28 More of a Fizz Rather than a Bang

Logo for COP 28 UAE event featuring a circular design with intricate yellow patterns on a green background, symbolizing sustainability and environmental themes, displayed over a dark brick wall texture.

With just 2 days of negotiations left at the COP28 summit, it is clear that world leaders are not entering into the summit with the same sweeping mandated as seen in Paris in 2015. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clearer that the Paris 1.5-degree target is unlikely, never mind strengthening the resolve on these targets.

Despite this year, 2023, already being declared the warmest on record by November, and having six record breaking months and two record breaking seasons, world leaders as squabbling over texts which will have little to no impact on emissions or targets.

With the head of this year’s COP, Sultan Al Jaber, the head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) in the position many thought would create a conflict of interest, he is indeed between a rock and a hard place. With over 80 countries, many at the forefront of climate change pushing for an end to the use of fossil fuels, a topic every previous COP has been careful to avoid, the Sultan is now being lobbied from both sides, with OPEC now pressuring members and the chair to reject any deal which targets fossil fuels directly.

Reuters, who broke the news shared a letter from December 6th sent by OPEC Secretary-General Haitham al-Ghais “It seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences, as the draft decision still contains options on fossil fuels phase out … I avail of this opportunity to respectfully urge all esteemed OPEC Member Countries and Non-OPEC Countries participating in the CoC and their distinguished delegations in the COP 28 negotiations to proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy i.e. fossil fuels rather than emissions”.

The Sultan is therefore walking a very fine line, as evident by his calling of the majlis, elders conference, on Sunday. In there, the main focus was two pronged, one the aforementioned fossil fuels phase out or abatement, and the second on financing.

Climate adaptation funds is not a new concept, it was raised pre-the-Paris agreement, and every year since. However, despite UN reports released in November, Adaptation Gap Report 2023, showing 2021 funding fell 15% year on year to a cumulative $24.6bn, but more than $200 – 350bn is needed, and 2023 is likely to only be around the $100bn mark. The idea of now increasing the burden on fossil fuels emissions to be phased out and not abated will leave many countries, especially in the African continent behind. As emerging and expensive technologies, which will allow other countries to continue producing, will not be available to them.

I once again argue, with politicians and special interests lobbying, the value of the COP is diminishing. Energy policy should not be in the hands of those who are worrying about re-election in 1, 2 or 4 years but those who understand the science, industries and financing of the projects required to make the change. We cannot just turn off coal, the Eraring “closure” has shown us that in bright bold lights (or blackouts), so there has to be balance. But that cannot be done by those who are not in that world or influenced by only one side of an argument.

However, with Azerbaijan the COP29 hosts, a country with at least 7bn barrels of commercial oil, and 1.3 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and one of the world’s largest gas fields I am sure will fly the flag for phase out of fossil fuels and strong targets for all nations attending.

With Statements due in the next 48 hours, I may be proven incorrect, and the Sultan is absolutely making the right noises, “I want everyone to come prepared with solutions … I want everyone to come ready to be flexible and to accept compromise. I told everyone not to come with any prepared statements, and no prescribed positions. I really want everyone to rise above self-interests and to start thinking of the common good.” But as always, the proof is in the packages which come out of the talks and with only two days to go and no consensus the clock is absolutely counting down.

Transmission Requires Community Engagement Realisation

Back view of two children and an adult walking towards wind turbines, the adult holding a colourful pinwheel up in the air

With the government ploughing ahead with the re-wiring the nation rhetoric and discussions about $10,000/km costs for land the attention of the AEMC and others have naturally been drawn to the requirement for community engagement.

Many panels and speakers at this years’ All Energy conference in Victoria honed in on the requirements for the local communities to be brought into the fold regarding Renewable Energy Zones, Transmission and the benefit this could bring to those communities.

The AEMC have taken this a step further and on Thursday released the final requirements which are required for any transmission projects to get through the regulatory investment test (RIT-T). They are expecting for this engagement to be across all affected parties from councils to local landowners and will ensure they not only have clear information about the proposals but they are aware of the rights they hold.

Taking directly from the AEMC announcement the main changes being made include:

  • Stakeholders are to receive information that is clear, accessible, accurate, relevant and timely and explains the rationale for the proposed project.
  • Engagement consultation materials, methods of communication and participatory processes must be tailored to the needs of different stakeholders.
  • The stakeholders’ role in the engagement process must be clearly explained to them, including how their input will be taken into account.
  • Stakeholders are provided with a range of opportunities to be regularly involved throughout the planning of ‘actionable’ or ‘future’ Integrated System Plan (ISP) projects and Renewable Energy Zones (REZs).

This is timely given the announcement from Chris Bowen who was speaking at the Future Energy conference in Adelaide this week who amongst his optimistic speech stated that “a properly constructed renewable grid is a reliable grid… is one that we can count on in difficult times,” and that access to transmission or delays in building new infrastructure would be the main contributor to Australia not meeting its targets.

These targets are now set to 82% of Australia’s energy coming from renewable sources by the end of the decade, and GHG emissions cut by 45% (in comparison to 2005 levels) by the same time.

However, with the focus of the government squaring in on transmission as the key messaging to Australia missing its targets and not the lack of cohesive renewable energy strategy for the past 10 years or the governments approvals of new gas fields, you do wonder if that is part of the reason our Minister for Climate Change and Energy is ducking the hard questions at this years COP28 in Dubai which starts at the end of the month.

The announcement that he is dispatching his Assistant Minister, Jenny McAllister has not gone unnoticed, especially by the pacific islands our Prime Minister is trying to woo this week. With those nations key to Australia being announced as the COP31 hosts, Turkey is stating they would also be interested, they intend to firmly hold Australia to its climate promises and pointing the finger will not wash with their nations at the forefront of recent climate disasters.

 

Australia’s commitment to climate change – we won’t make it to Paris

Show your stripes Climate change

Are the government realising what we have known all along – we won’t make it to Paris?

Almost a month after the world’s 6th #ShowYourStripesDay, the day made to spread awareness of climate change using the global Warming stripes https://showyourstripes.info/ the government have continued to apportion blame rather than invest in the industry to help them meet the targets they have set.

This was further evident in the Renew Economy podcast Chris Bowen undertook last week where he stuck to the governments line of “ambitious but possible.” However, leaks out of his office and the concerns that upcoming auctions will not produce the renewable investment results in time for the expect August 2025 closure of Eraring have led to industry starting to move away from the spin and into the reality of the 2025/2026 market, even before the release of the August ESOO.

The well-publicised article in the AFR added further faces and voices to those who are not standing behind the government’s naïve reality. Amongst them Kerry Schott, former chairwoman of the ESB, and Paul Broad the former Snowy Hydro CEO, who have been added to the growing chorus of dissenters who are adamant that Australia will miss its 2030 climate targets. This is in addition to the comments by the AEMO chief Daniel Westermann who cited a lack of investment as the reason Australia will fall short.

However, one question still looms large, if we don’t get there will we need to extend the life of existing coal plants, specifically Eraring whose closure in August 2025 will remove 25% of generation from the NSW grid?

It now looks like we have that answer. The industry at the end of last week was awash with rumours that the long-anticipated announcement around Eraring was starting to gain some certainty. According to an article in the Daily Telegraph on Friday, citing “industry sources,” at least half of the stations generation will indeed stay on post the August 2025 shutdown.

These targets moved further into the horizon when Delta run Vales Point announced they would have the ability to remain on until 2033, four years more than they originally anticipated and securing another 1.3GW on the NSW system into the 2030’s.

Whilst this is good politics, no one is getting re-elected with rolling blackouts on their record, just look at SA. What this does to Australia’s position on the Global stage is a different story. With COP28 coming up in November and December it is likely that we will have a target on our backs before we even mention extension of life.

At Edge2020 our focus is energy savings with an eye on the planet, we are energy brokers, advisory & sustainability consultants. If you would like to ensure your PPA comes from green sources please reach out for support from our Climate Active registered consultants on 1800 334 336 or info@edge2020.com.au. 

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism gaining traction in Europe

Edge2020_Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

The European Parliament is introducing new climate legislation including a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, in a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The new package aims to reduce emission by at least 55% by 2030 and will include a series of measures which will have big impacts to many large industry customers who now will have millions of tonnes of carbon at risk.

The proposal will include phasing out of the free European Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) allowances after 2026, including maritime shipping within the ETS and a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. The latter of these the CBAM or Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will impose a tariff on goods whose production is carbon intensive and shows the greatest risk of carbon leakage, in Australia the most vocal opponents of this scheme are unsurprisingly the cement, aluminium and steel industries.

As a quick digress the term carbon leakage is referring to the idea that you move the most carbon intensive parts of your production abroad, into countries with less stringent climate policies, and then import them back into Australia.

The idea of the CBAM is this will place a price on the carbon which has been emitted during this production phase. The price being derived from the price of carbon which was paid for the product to be developed and produced within Australia.

Those keen eyed amongst us will remember the Safeguard Legislation, which will come into effect on the 1st July 2023, cited a review would be undertaken to examine the feasibility of a CBAM within Australia, including a consideration for early commencement for those high-exposure sectors such as steel and cement.

Now with the EU making the leap and the likely follow on from the UK, Japan and Canada, amongst others, including the US via its own Polluter Import Fees Australia, we will surely have to comply to ensure both our own goods are being protected as well as meeting the requirements of the global expectations.

However, what is the cost of compliance. Whilst the legislation is quite straight forward the compliance cost will increase. Cradle to gate / grave accounting is complex and with auditors being stretched between, NGERs, Safeguard and now this, finding a resource to complete the calculations and data collection will be one thing, but looking to have these accounts audited will be another. With the CER having only 75 registered auditors on their books will the cost of this be wider than the government are imagining?

Possible extension to the gas caps

Image of Gas Stove

It is likely today that the Climate change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen will announce an extension to the $12/GJ cap on wholesale gas. Currently the gas caps will expire at the end of the year. Following the release of the draft mandatory code of conduct the market will have several weeks of consultation.

Energy producers are likely to be concerned over an extension or possibly permanent changes to the wholesale gas. Energy producers will also be concerned that changes will impact the pricing of long-term deals as it is likely a reasonable pricing clause will be included.

Under the reasonable price provision, gas companies could only charge a price based on the cost of production plus a reasonable margin. The reasonable price does not consider the capital invested during exploration and development of projects. Gas buyers will be able to challenge the price of contracts via a formal dispute process. The dispute process is designed to determine what the ‘reasonable’ price should be.

While the extension to the cap mechanism will provide certainty for energy users, energy producers remain in a holding pattern.

Gas producers are not finalising new gas supply contracts for 2024 until the government confirms what the impact of the code will have on pricing.

The federal government have also set the expectation that the federal budget will include a Petroleum Rent Tax. The Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) have shared with its members concerns that changes to the taxing of gas producers will add $100B of tax receipts to the government.

To appease the gas production sector, it is expected the new code will allow for exemptions. New projects that add supply for domestic use may qualify for exemptions from any specific pricing provision.

APPEA said the code “must recognise the importance of gas in a cleaner energy future, and the need to ensure settings which enable investment in new supply to avoid forecast shortfalls and put downward pressure on prices”.

Gas industry developers continues to warn the broader industry that deterring investment in new gas supply will harm the supply to manufacturers and reduce the secure of supplies of electricity across the NEM.

Beach Energy’s chief executive has said that getting the terms of the code wrong could imperil Australia’s transition to low-carbon energy given the role gas plays to support renewable energy.

At the end of the day changes to the industry need to benefit producers, end users and ensure gas and electricity security is achieved. While international cost pressures are impacting the gas and electricity industry. The continued development of gas resources are required to provide gas the opportunity to be the transitional fuel as Australia strives to its Net zero emission targets.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Warning

Edge20202 Drought Landscape

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 6th Assessment Report (AR6) last week, on 20th March. This has been an eight-year assessment and involved over 250 climate scientists.

It was as bleak as can be expected and shows the catastrophic impact of increasing greenhouse gasses. The report discusses how we have already reached a 1.1 degrees Celsius increase in global warming and how this is affecting summer arctic ice coverage, ocean acidification and concentrations of Carbon Dioxide.

The focus isn’t just on the current impacts as it reveals the irreversible affects that can occur at as low as a 1.5-degree overshoot, including species extinction and loss of life.

The report is a must read and will be discussed over the next few weeks by many. Interestingly one of the first out of the gate was the UN, whose secretary general has urged nations to abandon the 2050 net-zero target for new stronger 2040 packs. Antonio Guterres is calling for developed nations to phase out coal by 2030 and block new oil or gas extraction. This may, in his opinion, hold us at the 1.5-degree warming cap.

The true test will be in COP28 in the UAE in November and December 2023. However, with the attendance of chair, H.E. Dr Sultan Al Jaber, being the CEO of the 12th largest oil business will likely see a softening of approaches happening there!

What the AR6 does tell us is that we are close to the point of no return. The impacts of climate change are visible and require immediate action. We must react, or it will be irreversible.

Edge2020 have an eye on the energy market, enabling us to support price benefits as well as customer supply and demand agreements. Our clients rely on our experts to ensure they are informed, equipped, and ideally positioned to make the right decisions at the right time. If you could benefit from an expert eye on your energy portfolio, we’d love to meet you. Contact us on: 1800 334 336 or email: info@edge2020.com.au

Davos – No snow, no consensus, no relevance?

Swiss alps

Now as a keen skier and a lover of the European Alps – Davos will always hold a place in my heart.

But at the end of last month it transformed, as it does annually, into the equivalent of the old debutant season, and the sheer act of walking around in this otherwise normal ski resort means you are part of the global elite.

The annual World Economic Forum (WEF) is certainly an exclusive club, the 1% attend and have the right to come and lobby those in power and hope to not only affect change within their spheres but globally. That was its aim back in 1971 when it was first formed – the idea that power brokers from public and private sectors could come together to meet a mission statement “…improve the state of the world.”

Therefore, it is unsurprising that once again climate change was a hot topic.

Never one to miss an opportunity Greenpeace have released data which shows that to reach this exclusive club, 1 out of every 10 attendees came by private jet, doubling the local airports flights and increasing CO2 emissions by the equivalent of 350,000 cars. But moving past the glaring irony of that statistic this year was particularly poignant.

With a significant warm winter in Europe the usually picturesque snow capped mountains were bare and the temperature was over 2 degrees warmer than usual. Therefore, when participants were told their focus would be on addressing and curbing climate change, maybe their stark surroundings helped focus the mind a little.

CEOs were quick to point to initiatives which are helping them and their companies reach net zero, with more than 11,000 businesses signed up to the pledge to reach the milestone by 2050 (September 2022 UN Figures), you would think this is a good news story. Yet with the war in the Ukraine still looming large and the ensuing inflationary pressures, privately bankers were discussing how to curb the environmental pressures without adversely affecting investment decision making. This made even more poignant by the sentencing of the “Barclays 7” at the end of January, who lifted the lid on the banks $19billion investment in fossil fuels, in direct contradiction of the IEAs decree there could be no new investment.

The UN Secretary General (Antonio Guterres) has certainly increased his rhetoric since the IPCC has declared that even with an increase in pledges, the world will miss its 1.5-degree goal, and without significant intervention will reach 2.8%.

He has implored businesses to “put forward credible and transparent transition plans on how to achieve net zero … which must be grounded in real emissions cuts” before the end of 2023. He also stated with no uncertainty that “The transition to net zero must be grounded in real emissions cuts – and not rely on carbon credits and shadow markets.” Which is the strongest rhetoric on this we have seen.

A WEF report (along with the Boston Consulting Group) which was shared stated that those prepared to take the risk and be an early mover will have the opportunity to make “fortunes”. Touting Orsted (previously Dong), Tesla and Beyond Meat as examples.

But with Germany touting their “clean credentials” due to their absolute requirement to decouple from its reliance on Russian Coal and Gas and increasing its renewable capacity to a likely 80% of its grid, the power of the oil and gas giants at the elite table may be waning.

Previous years has seen them be accused of hijacking the debate and maybe they are realising their influence is less at the table with CEOs with stakeholders to answer to and more on the policy stage.

Their agenda is well protected by the appointment of HE Dr Sultan Al Jaber as the lead to the COP28 summit in the UAE this year. I may be incorrect, I mean it’s not like he is motivated by ensuring returns from his oil business – the 12th largest globally, or from making sure those in that line of business aren’t hampered too much, maybe he will provide a balanced and fair approach to his presidency of the COP28 conference – NOT!

Overall do I think Davos moved the needle – no – did it achieve its ambition for “bold collective action” on “ongoing crises” absolutely not, did it create “cooperation in a fragmented world” I do not believe so.

Therefore, the question must be asked if the relevancy of the not-for-profit is really anything more than a status symbol that you meet the criteria and are rich or powerful enough to come in. Surely we can and should do better, or we should move away from the antiquated “boys club” and leave the alps to those on skis.

 

 

COP27

In comparison to the COP26 (Conference of the Parties 26) which occurred with great media attention and pageantry, partly due to the delay due to Covid-19 and partly due to the significance of the promises being made by countries. COP27 kicked off yesterday, 6th November, the 12-day event has received little to none of the media fanfare that was seen in the conference last year.

Our staunchly anti-target ex-Prime-Minister Scott Morrison even attended COP26 (sponsored by Santos!) but to show the stark comparison, our new Prime-Minister Anthony Albanese, who is a big supporter of Climate Targets and moving towards renewables, has opted not to attend the COP27 in Egypt, instead sending Chris Bowen and Jenny McAllister (our Minister and Assistant Minister for Energy) in his place. As we were not announcing any new targets and therefore the importance to attend wasn’t as strong.

Yet we aren’t the only ones shying away, Joe Biden is going to forego his annual nap at the COP conference and is instead sending four Cabinet Officials – sighting the mid-term election as reasoning (as if we don’t all expect a massive flop in those and the GOP to take back the house!). Rishi Sunak, the newest UK Prime-Minister, was not going to attend, yet after significant pressure did a dramatic U-Turn at the end of last week and will be there in Egypt this week. It is no surprise that Vladimir Putin won’t be in attendance, yet the biggest surprise came from China, with Xi Jinping also pulling out and sending a negotiator to participate, the equivalent of sending a toy poodle as they will block everything and agree to nothing.

Yet this conference should certainly have more clout. It is thirty (30) years since the UN Framework on Climate Change was adopted and the first meeting in Berlin took place, and seven years since the massive commitments made in the Paris Agreement.

But does the lack of attention and attendance show that the support is waning? Maybe not long term, but with many countries in dire economic circumstances, Germany and others in Europe throwing out their climate targets around Coal generation, in favour of keeping the lights on, and prices as low as possible in an ever climbing and squeezed market and massive debt and austerity to come from an overspend during COVID, required to ensure their economies didn’t collapse. Standing up and agreeing to tighter emissions targets and the cost implications of this would not play well at the polls, and although a politician may have great ambition for Climate Change they have more ambition for Political safety and longevity.

Last year, at the COP26, world leaders agreed to “revisit and strengthen” their national climate targets annually, if possible, with what seemed like a consensus to produce significant commitments to target Climate Change. They agreed to look at and strengthen their targets every 12 months (previously five years as per the original Paris Agreement) and this was done to try and hold global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Yet heading into this COP27 only 21 countries have submitted updated climate commitments for their country, with 172 making no change. Of the 21, only Australia has made significant and credible commitments, yet many (everyone!) would argue this was to catch up to the rest of the world and is nowhere near what would be defined as ground-breaking.

Let’s be clear, regardless of politics, regardless of debt and war without significant change, within a decade we will go above the 1.5 degrees Celsius target and above 2.4 degrees by the end of the century. A recession can be reversed, it is awful and hard, but it can be, a war can be stopped, but once this warming has occurred there is no way back, and it will be those on the edges who suffer first and most. An incremental change is not good enough anymore and playing ostrich to ensure your political survival for four more years will not help future generations and ensure the world is thriving.

Yet with world leaders being beyond non-committal, the UN sending out strong statements but with no action and little education on what this means, we are not changing anywhere near fast enough and at some point the cost of it will be on our front door.

I would urge you to follow the public debates and live streams https://unfccc.int/cop27#events or look at the U.Ns campaign to see what “individual Actions” you can do to help reduce everyone’s carbon footprint here https://www.un.org/en/actnow/

I assure you this is not just a big emitters problem, changes by us all could help, and to be clear I do not mean by gluing yourself to a Van Gogh or Vermeer or covering Ferrari showrooms in orange paint.  Gorilla activism is not the answer, their actions are disruptive and not effective in changing the minds of those outside of their own cause. But, all of us taking our positions to the checkout each week will force a change, in the way only free markets can be affected, and that can only benefit everyone now and in the future. I assure you our politicians will not do it for us and this COP27 is just the latest proof of this, unless it is a silver bullet they will not act, therefore we must.