4 January 2024

Could this be the end of the fossil fuel era?

| Shane Rattenbury
Join the conversation
54

ACT Greens leader Shane Rattenbury says COP28’s caution is understandable but regrettable. Photo: File.

Some are calling it the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era, others a death sentence for small island nations. The outcomes of the global climate summit in Dubai, known as COP28, have been fraught and difficult to negotiate.

The final text calls on countries (taking into account national circumstances) to contribute to “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”.

Many, particularly small island states, have criticised the text for not going far enough in requiring a phase out of fossil fuels. The loose wording creates loopholes that leave a lot of room for countries to continue with business as usual.

As we have seen to date, global agreements like the Paris Agreement are notoriously difficult to enforce and countries face few repercussions if they do not meet their commitments or set weak targets.

We saw this play out in Australia over the years of the Coalition Government, as we were criticised by the global community each year for being a climate laggard, but faced no practical consequences.

READ ALSO ACT disability services deserve support and NDIS funding model needs overhaul

And now, while it’s a vast improvement to see Australia taking genuine action to reduce emissions and decarbonise our energy system, there are enough loopholes in these agreements to enable us to talk about climate action but continue to approve new coal and gas projects and export fossil fuels to the world.

Australia’s Labor Government will be simultaneously fuelling climate havoc and sending money to vulnerable nations to repair climate damage.

The insanity, hypocrisy and economic inefficiency of this is beyond belief. The five new coal mines and 116 new fossil fuel projects in the pipeline cannot go ahead if we are to keep warming to below 1.5 degrees.

We know the climate crisis is caused by mining and burning fossil fuels. We know we have no time to waste in phasing out their use. So it is disappointing, while not surprising, that the negotiations have failed to deliver the level of ambition that we need.

As with all global negotiations, the agreed outcome is a balancing act, with small island states rightly arguing that failing to phase out fossil fuels would be a death sentence for their nations, and fossil fuel dependant countries like Saudi Arabia arguing for no mention at all of fossil fuels in the agreement.

With such wildly opposing views, there is little wonder that the final text from COP28 lacks the ambition required.

Having attended a number of previous COPs, I can nonetheless attest to just how far we’ve come. Having fossil fuels mentioned in the agreement is a positive step forward after decades of COP agreements failing to mention them at all. This is a very low bar, and while these steps are far too small, each inch of progress gets us a little closer to where we need to be.

The consensus-based decision making process of these conferences requires getting every country on the same page, meaning the final outcome is significantly less ambitious than many people, countries, climate scientists and organisations would like.

READ ALSO Call for police investigation into brumby aerial cull trial as NSW inquiry gets underway

Climate anxiety is real. Outcomes as underwhelming as this can make us feel helpless. But I do not feel hopeless.

Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, acknowledged in his closing remarks that “loopholes leave us vulnerable to fossil fuel vested interests which could crush our ability to protect people everywhere against rising climate impacts”.

He went on to highlight that transparency and people holding their governments to account will be vital for closing these loopholes and continuing to ramp up ambition.

I wholeheartedly agree with these comments. For a range of reasons, this is as far as the global agreement has been able to go right now and we need to take it and run with it, as far and as fast as we can.

People everywhere need to call for fossil fuel phase outs, they need to hold their governments to account on emissions targets and they need to keep up the pressure on wealthy nations to fund countries that need assistance to decarbonise and to recover from climate impacts.

These global agreements are important, but even more important is the power of people on the ground to shape their communities and to demand urgent climate action from their governments. Pressure works. We all need to step up, step out, and demand action from everyone who has capacity to take it.

Shane Rattenbury MLA is the ACT Attorney General, Minister for Water, Energy and Emissions Reduction, Minister for Gaming and Minister for Consumer Affairs and leader of the ACT Greens

Join the conversation

54
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Even if every single car, truck and plane was switched out for an electric equivalent, crude oil refinement will still be needed in order to ensure supply of all the items we derive from it, for example aspirin.

The decisions on climate change certainly are NOT science-based. It has more to do with politics, especially in Australia. The actual science actually unequivocally states that on a simple model the more you heat a water source the more evaporation you get. If you equate that to oceans the more heat you put into an ocean (climate change) the more evaporation you get which then falls as increased rainfall, not less. This is the fallacy of the entire climate alarmists cult which is now planet-wide. Increasing temperature is going to give us a wetter planet, not a drier one.

@Rob
Interesting that you deride the scientific evidence provided by climate change scientists and then go on to provide a reason for one of the predicted outcomes of anthropogenic climate change, i.e. extreme weather events.
While the IPCC has predicted drier conditions are anticipated for most of Australia over the 21st century, consistent with conclusions in Working Group I, an increase in heavy rainfall also is projected, even in regions with small decreases in mean rainfall. This is a result of a shift in the frequency distribution of daily rainfall toward fewer light and moderate events and more heavy events. This could lead to more droughts and more floods.
Far from being a fallacy, sadly we are seeing the manifestation of those climate change induced extreme weather events through the extraordinary rainfall which has caused flooding in many parts of eastern Australia.

JS – I see you’re one of the true believers. I do not follow cults

@Futureproof
Thanks for your usual indepth insight into …. well … umm… actually … absolutely nothing whatsoever, Fp

Capital Retro1:38 pm 08 Jan 24

Its all happened before JS so why don’t you have a cuppa, a Bex and a good lie down.

@Capital Retro
Perhaps you can tell the people of Lismore and other flood affected areas along the eastern seaboard that there’s nothing to see here and they should stop whingeing.

Capital Retro3:09 pm 08 Jan 24

What you mean to say is “hey, look over there, is that a unicorn?”

@Capital Retro
No, what I meant to say, is “hey look over there, it’s CR on his perch squawking his usual denialist garbage”.

Capital Retro4:59 pm 08 Jan 24

I’ve just put my ladder away JS after doing some more cherry-picking. The quantity and quality is excellent. I am now sharing some the fruits of my labour with you:

https://yoursay.lismore.nsw.gov.au/lismore-floodplain-risk-management-plan/forum_topics/community-forum?posted_first=true

Two things stand out namely people built houses on a flood plain with their eyes wide open and vegetation in the upper catchment area disappeared long ago.

@CapitalRetro
Congratulations, CR, your research capabilities are amazing – you’ve managed to uncover a fact about Lismore that’s been known since the NSW gubernatorial days of Arthur Philip and Lachlan Macquarie. The region is no stranger to floods – hence the mitigation strategies, such as the levee.
What you correctly identify is your cherry picking, as you have conveniently ignored the critical fact that over a period of four days leading up to the disaster, three rain episodes occurred. Under usual conditions each would have generated a moderate flood, but cumulatively they created a catastrophe that caused floodwaters to reach the highest level ever recorded in Lismore, reaching 14.4 metres.
Errors were made for sure, but there’s no denying the extreme weather events to which I referred above.
So perhaps next time you are motivated to get your ladder, you should just make jam with the cherries you pick.

The extra rainfall that caused the flooding is looking like its due to the Togan volcano not man made climate change. Looks like we may have a few more wet years to go.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/101978886

Capital Retro4:39 pm 09 Jan 24

I’ll send you some and you can garnish it with some of that mock cream you have.

@Boourns
I note the article you linked to is dated Feb 2023.

The lead on the paper (under peer review at the time), which the article references, Dr Martin Jucker, from the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, stated that they “… could not link it (the eruption) to a specific weather event, such as the Lismore flooding ….”.

I haven’t been able to find any other reference which associates the Lismore or any other floods with the Tongan eruption.

So I’d be interested to know how you conclude that “extra rainfall that caused the flooding is looking like its due to the Togan volcano not man made climate change”

@Capital Retro
Nah, I’m good thanks, CR. If you are producing it, it will be tasteless and need some form of articial sweetener to give it a semblance of normality.

“”This could lead to more droughts and more floods.””
Geez JS … that seems to read having 2 bob each way.

You know I reckon the person who decided it was a bit crook using the heading ‘climate
warming ‘ , and changed it to read ‘climate change’, deserves a hell of a pat on the back.

This way if it rains too much, its climate change, and if it don’t rain at all, that also is climate change…. brilliant.

And with our now 24 hour news services reporting from every valley and hill and desert on the planet, which we never had before, we can find a example of some sort somewhere to say ‘yeah, told you so .. climate change because of the flood / drought / sand storm / something something.”

A truly brilliant name change. That Professor bloke we had some years ago would be impressed.

I dips me lid.

Capital Retro8:16 pm 09 Jan 24

Like a taxpayer subsidy to get people to buy EVs?

@Capital Retro
… or the tax breaks to assist fossil fuel industries?

Capital Retro7:06 am 10 Jan 24

At some stage, the climate warmist spin doctors changed the name to “climate variability” before realizing that was a tautology.

I’m reading this while being bombarded with the noise of Summernats drivers, burning up fossil fuel like there’s no tomorrow. Can’t get past the hypocrisy. .

Capital Retro4:39 pm 07 Jan 24

I think Mick Gentleman would be offended by your comment.

CR, Mick Gentleman is offended that he has to work for his pay

privatepublic11:03 am 07 Jan 24

Bit of fun, nice video of wok cooking. GAS rules the roost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbeEGWmud-4

privatepublic10:55 am 07 Jan 24

Mr. Shane,

Nothing against the leisure cruise industry. What about the cruise industry in Europe? Why not look at the carbon and sulphur spewed out by this industry. You ever smelt a cruise ship, they smell like a small coal station.

I will have to find the websites again. From memory the European leisure cruise industry outputs more carbon than 50,000 flights between Paris and New York (this may have been the 747 heavy drinkers, which has been removed from service). Outputs more carbon than ALL land transport in Europe, not sure if this includes Russia and other Eastern European states.

One easy fix, go back to your Greenpeace buddies and get rolling.

Again, more than the European land transport: i.e. cars, trucks and buses, just think about that, an economy of 24 trillion being outpaced by Leisure Cruise Liners…That is an easy fix.

“The consensus-based decision making process of these conferences requires getting every country on the same page, meaning the final outcome is significantly less ambitious than many people, countries, climate scientists and organisations would like.”

Yes and that is the way it should be. Just because someone wants to make a situation seem very dramatic, doesn’t mean that it actually is. I see that every day in sensationalised media reporting.

“People everywhere need to call for fossil fuel phase outs, they need to hold their governments to account on emissions targets and they need to keep up the pressure on wealthy nations to fund countries that need assistance to decarbonise and to recover from climate impacts.”

Nice in theory to say that we need to hold Governments to account. However, the current ACT Govt has been less than transparent on a range of matters including the cost-benefit analysis of the tram, when the electorate has demanded this transparency. Shane, I guess you are using the mantra, “do as I say, not as I do.”

You are a dill Shane.
How are we going to make steel without coking coal.
How will world trade continue without ships & planes. How will we harvest crops.
We need more engineers & less politicians.

Ray Polglaze – that might be so, but the ore has to be mined and shipped

GrumpyGrandpa10:06 pm 06 Jan 24

“….The five new coal mines and 116 new fossil fuel projects in the pipeline cannot go ahead if we are to keep warming to below 1.5 degrees”. Shane, calling for the Australian Government to cancel or stop these projects won’t make one iota of a difference to global climate change. It’s a global issue. Not one that Australia alone can solve.

It’s a little bit like how Canberra having the highest uptake of EVs, is trying to save the world, one EV at a time, without acknowledging that the carbon cost for production of an EV is 70% higher than that of an ICE.

Then we are further saving the planet by buying battery powdered buses (at double the cost of a diesel bus), we are buying fire and garbage trucks and that really big battery, too. Expending all that extra carbon digging up rare minerals, on basis of potentially saving future carbon. Are we fooling ourselves or just trying to look good?

Sure, if an EV owner keeps their car long enough, it might break-even or do better, but I’m expecting most people will trade up to the next EV at the end of their lease, perpetuating the new carbon-burn cycle.

Sure again, there is an argument that those EVs will then become available on the used market. Frankly, there is no way I’m buying a used EV. Things like no warranty and potentially battery replacement are deal breakers for me.

I’m not anti-EV. They have their place, so do hybrids, hydrogen and other fuel sources. Coal also has it’s place, so does gas, hydro, wind and so on. (Then there is the discussion about nuclear, that no one wants to have).

Yes, we need to act, but we also need some honesty and a lot less spin from our politicians. Like it or not, we need a reliable base load that can cope with peak demand for heating and cooling, without the risk to blackouts and grid failures. Abandoning coal, without first securing an alternative source of reliable energy for the sake of ideology is ridiculous.

Your so right Grumpy. Also the real science about climate change actually says the more heat into the oceans through climate change actually means more water evaporation into the atmosphere which means more rain, not less rain. Also your point on EV’S you missed 2 other important points regarding them. The first they use fossil fuel right now to recharge EV batteries because 80% of Australians’ power comes from coal and gas power generation. Next your leaving a truly massive increased fire risk parked in your garage which is attached to your house in most instances. In California already insurance companies are charging householders an excess for housing insurance because of the marked increase in house fires caused by exploding EV’S.

Garbage Rob.

Insurers are raising prices or even pulling out of California owing to increased risk and intensity of wildfires, as predicted by climate change models, and consequent increased construction costs for safer houses.

Having shot yourself in one foot, here’s where you shot the other: far more fires stem from ICE vehicles than EVs.

GrumpyGrandpa10:09 pm 07 Jan 24

Hi Rob,
We have seen plenty of EV fire disasters, although most of them have been related to commercial activities like cargo ships, an EV bike factory, a Cement truck in Melbourne etc. We also lost our recycling plant, allegedly due to batteries.

I think one EV car in your garage is probably low risk, but that risk is substantially increased in – say an apartment block, where there might be many cars in a confined space.

My Mrs would like to downsize into an apartment block, but the thought of an escalation of Body Corporate levies, due to fire risk has me pretty concerned. 😟

GrumpyGrandpa10:24 pm 08 Jan 24

Hi byline,
There is no doubt that statistically, fires are more likely in an ICE and more so in a Hybrid, than in an EV.

The important difference is fires in ICE type vehicles can be extinguished. Battery fires can not be extinguished. During thermal runaway, oxygen is a by-product. Their fuel source needs to burn out.
Hence when an batteries goes off, they go off and potentially take out things like car shipping containers, battery powered bicycle warehouses, they shut down bridges in Melbourne and destroy our own
recycling plant.

The issue with EV insurance costs is real. It relates to the risk associated with any potential damage to the battery or its cooling system. Insurers simply write-off EVs if there is any chance of battery damage, as opposed to repairing replacing the battery.

HiddenDragon7:15 pm 06 Jan 24

“We all need to step up, step out, and demand action from everyone who has capacity to take it.”

We also need to work out how we pay our way in the world when the fossil fuel and other lucrative Australian industries which are on the hit list of climate campaigners are either closed down or greatly diminished as sources of revenue.

All we have at present is talk of becoming a “renewable energy superpower” which will remain a three word slogan and mirage unless Australia handles this transition much more energetically and cleverly than we did the elimination of the tariff wall which, some decades ago, protected a domestically focused Australian manufacturing sector and which was, we were told, going to be replaced by a vibrant, high-tech, export-oriented manufacturing sector.

The latter did not happen, due essentially to Australian complacency and competition from far more determined and ruthless nations. There are already signs that exactly the same will happen with this economic transition, which won’t just be a problem for individuals and communities directly reliant on the threatened industries – the loss of so much government revenue would mean that many Canberrans would also need to face up to the grim reality of the glibly patronising concept of “just transition” (one of those ideas which sounds as if it might be reasonable when it is happening to other people, but not so good when it gets closer to home).

CaptainSpiff5:13 pm 06 Jan 24

Shane can you fill us in on how many private jets attended COP28?

Rumours of coal’s death have been greatly exaggerated, as global coal demand rose by 1.4% in 2023. (IEA)

@nobody
Global sales of battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids rose 20% versus a year ago (Reuters report). So exactly what is your point?

Capital Retro6:54 pm 06 Jan 24

The author isn’t interested in the global situation. As long as we let him get away with the claim to be supplying us with green renewable electricity from the coal powered generators over the horizon the joke is on us.

Capital Retro8:34 am 07 Jan 24

The point is that without fossil fuels an EV could not be made.
Have you seen the price of Lithium lately? There is a huge oversupply which means the hype claiming EVs are about to take over the world has failed.

JustSaying, global carbon dioxide emissions increased by 1.1% to the highest on record in 2023 (CSIRO).

@nobody
Yes that’s true – do you see an increase in carbon emissions as a badge of honour?

Capital retro, I am sure I recall you saying that there was not enough lithium to make EVs. Now you say there is too much to make EVs, or something like that.

How many car manufacturers are neither making nor planning to make EVs?

Capital Retro1:48 pm 07 Jan 24

Not enough lithium to make enough EVs to eventually replace all the ICE ones would have been what I was alluding to but now the take up of EVs has fallen dramatically short of what the industry had predicted.

Worldeide EV sales growth of 40% per year is apparently a low take up according to CR.

Do you ever tire of making yourself look foolish?

Daniel O'CONNELL1:27 pm 06 Jan 24

Maybe it needs more illegal direct action. Out A-G is past master at that.

This from the same bloke who had a holiday touring Antarctica. More like a climate hypocrite

The problem you have, Shane, is that you may talk the talk, but your actions are completely contrary.

If you want to talk about “insanity, hypocrisy and economic inefficiency”, look to your tram that’s going through at the expense of hospitals and schools. Or the way you support the developers in clearing every tree on every block of land that gets redeveloped. There are many more examples.

Your credibility is shot.

Lefty EVs = fire risk.
Once again idology wins over saftey and practicality.

Unsure why the government says its addressing climate issues, which could be made better by offering better public transport, however they pull back public transport and they have made rego free!

The only ones paying for all of this is middle Australia!

“The insanity, hypocrisy and economic inefficiency of this is beyond belief.” This from a political party leader where in his own backyard 120,000 people are this weekend burning a tanker of fossil fuels just for fun. Of course $35 million into the economy buys a lot of silence.

Lefty Boomer8:57 am 06 Jan 24

We would have had a much better foundation of policy and laws if The Greens hadn’t scuppered the carbon pricing negotiations with the Gillard government Shane. Pursuit of the perfect destroyed the momentum.

Capital Retro8:49 am 06 Jan 24

“Having attended a number of previous COPs……..”

Well Shane, I’ve attended none which means I have a zero carbon travel footprint which means I am doing more to de-carbonise the globe than you are.

And could you please explain what “climate impacts” are?

Never get between Climate Carpetbaggers and the bank

Nor I. I haven’t been overseas since 2000 (no interest), haven’t flown since 2019. I’m doing my bit

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.