|
|
October 16th, 2009
The Australian Government has abruptly suspended its "solar schools" program without giving any notice.
The program provided up to $50,000 to schools for solar panels, solar hot water heaters, water tanks or other energy efficiency measures.
So far, 1,800 schools have received funding and formal applications have been received from a further 700. These will be processed but no more applications will be accepted this financial year. Another 2,500 schools have registered for the scheme but have not yet made formal applications.
Schools in New South Wales received no funding for more than a year after the scheme began because of delays in the State’s centralised tendering system.
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said it was "amazing that this government can waste $16 billion on unwanted school halls but suspend a key solar program that every school appears to want".

- Source: Australian
- tweet_this_url: http://bit.ly/bf1IFW
Key words: government, solar

May 18th, 2009
- Source: Sydney Morning Herald
- tweet_this_url: http://bit.ly/boFQrs
Key words: government, renewables

September 3rd, 2008
A report for the Federal government by the former head of the NSW Cabinet Office, Roger Wilkins, has found that government rebates, such as the $8,000 for households installing solar panels, are among the most inefficient ways of tackling climate change.
The report found the solar panel rebates cost more than $400 for each tonne of carbon dioxide emissions abated, much higher than any feasible market price on carbon emissions.
The report argues that emissions trading will remove the rationale for programs such as this – including rebates for solar photovoltaic and hot water systems to grants for the use of renewable energy in remote areas and subsidies for research on clean coal technologies – by putting a market price on emissions of greenhouse gases.
Instead of rebates, it argues that climate change programs should focus on areas of market failure, such as helping commercialise low-emissions technologies in the first place, rather than on boosting their take-up by consumers once they are commercially available. It canvasses a venture capital approach to investing government funds on developing clean energy technologies modelled on Britain’s Carbon Trust.

- Source: Sydney Morning Herald
- tweet_this_url: http://bit.ly/a6N98i
Key words: economy, government

April 21st, 2008
At the Australia 2020 Summit in Canberra yesterday, the Population, Sustainability and Climate Stream proposed that, by 2020, Australia should "be making a major contribution to a comprehensive global response to climate change, including working with our partners on clean energy".
The Stream agreed that there should be a national sustainable cities program supported by taxes and other policies which encourage the use of public transport. By 2020, carbon neutrality should be required for all new buildings and all Australians should have access to smart meters measuring their energy and water consumption.
A proposal that no new coal-fired stations be built unless they have commercially proven carbon capture and sequestration received wide support and applause. However, the idea was opposed by a a group described by climate scientist David Karoly as industry figures within the stream and some others with concerns about the effects on coal mining communities. "There is and was within the group very strong support and a small minority of opposition that in the end prevented that because the minister and co-chairs wanted consensus," Professor Karoly said.
As a result of the minority opposition to the idea and despite calls for a vote, Stream Co-Chair, Senator Penny Wong, refused to take the proposal forward. "We’ve not voted on anything else, we’ve tried to come to agreement, a consensus agreement," she said.
Anna Rose, co-director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition commented "I found myself in the climate stream with representatives of … Xstrata and Shell, yet not a single person from an environment non-government organisation. No one from Friends of the Earth, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, Climate Action Network Australia or any of the state conservation councils."


March 19th, 2008
Large Goverment fund investments are favouring fossil fuels over renewables by a factor of 47 to one, according to a report by the Australian Conservation Foundation. The report found that Government-owned investment funds, including the Federal Future Fund and funds owned by state government bodies such the Workcover Authority, are investing in ways which are in direct conflict with stated government policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A spokesman for the New South Wales Treasurer, Michael Costa, said that the NSW Government would continue to invest in fossil fuels and uranium "so long as the goods and services produced are legally available to the community. The primary objective for major Government-run funds is to maximise returns from their investment portfolios."
A South Australian Government spokesman said that the report is misleading because it does not include private sector investment. Simon O’Connor of the ACF responded that, if the Government is somehow providing strong financial support for the renewables industry through the private sector, it should make that public.
He went on to point out that "Environmental risk, if it’s not being addressed appropriately, can have a materially-negative impact on investment performance, So we’re not saying to do anything altruistic or morally supported here, we’re just saying this is a risk issue for your investment holdings and it’s very important that you look at climate risk across your investment portfolio."

- Source: Sydney Morning Herald and ABConline
- tweet_this_url: http://bit.ly/9DZkS8
Key words: government, investment

|
|