National Political Developments
Washington State’s voters rejected (56-44) a proposal to introduce a carbon tax, which according to its sponsors, would create jobs and cut pollution. The state Governor, Jay Inslee, is known as “the climate guy”. Passage of the initiative would have brought the first US carbon tax. Billionaire liberal activist Tom Steyer funded a proposition in Arizona to require 50 per cent wind/solar for electricity which was also rejected (70-30) by voters. Colorado rejected a proposition (though 43 per cent voted for it) that would have restrained fracking technology, putting 85 per cent of the state off limits.
In spite of the massive resources promoting these proposals Vox’s spin was, “Fossil fuel money crushed clean energy ballot initiatives across the country”.
In Quebec, activist lawyers are suing Ontario on behalf of children. A similar case is falling apart in California. The Canadian case follows Ontario’s rejection of a carbon tax with some doctors joining the condemnation. Ontario is, however, unwisely considering a variation of Australia’s “direct action” including buyouts of emissions, real and imagined, a policy I addressed here.
The EU is concerned that Brexit might mean UK weakening its impositions targeted at preventing the human-induced climate change myth and, to avoid loss of competitiveness, is insisting on the UK maintaining EU policies. There seems little risk of a departure from these under the UK Environment Minister Michael Gove who cites WWF as a credible source, rehearses the usual litany of climatic disasters (floods, droughts, hurricanes, rising oceans, etc) and commits £6 billion to help developing countries avoid or mitigate these outcomes.
But spontaneously hi-viz yellow jacketed demonstrations have erupted in France against the constant hiking of fuel prices to reduce carbon dioxide “pollution”. In pursuit of an “energy transition” from fossil fuels and nuclear, the Macron government has also banned fracking and any extraction of fossil fuels.
Ireland may face its own unrest having discovered that it will need to raise its per capita carbon impost from the current €100 to €1,500. That’s based on a CO2 tax of €300 per tonne, though the formulae of the IPCC report shows the tax required in 2030 for the 1.5ºC of warming pathway would vary between $US135 and $5,500 per tonne (the 2013 repealed Australian carbon tax was a mere $24 per tonne).
The Australian electorate is generally hostile to coal and under the Greens policy, it would no longer be legal to dig, burn or ship thermal coal by 2030. But even if the most ambitious plans for introducing renewables were to be met, there would need to be economically crippling 35 per cent cuts in emissions from agriculture and transport ($). Australia met its commitments to reduce emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, which it ratified in 2007, by using planning laws at the expense of farmers and agriculture generally. That approach would now require cuts in agricultural output and force farmers to return their land to wilderness.
Half of recent Australian emission increases are caused by one natural gas project (Gorgon) which has not implemented an impossibly expensive and worthless carbon-capture-and-storage adjunct to its production. The Greens prefer to forego the project’s $80 billion in investment and $100 billion in taxes. Australia is the world’s largest producer of liquified natural gas, which has half coal’s CO2 emissions.
The electorally confident Australian Labor Party launched its energy and environment policy. It features massive new subsidies for renewables to lift their electricity market share to 50 per cent, and a comical support plan for household batteries; the measures also seek to limit political damage by promising to retrain displaced coal energy workers. I commented on the policy here and here.
