Submission on Review of the Renewable Energy Target
Lack of Substantiated Basis for Setting an RET
The key issue at stake is what influence, if any, does human activity have on climate
change.
The Renewable Energy Target (RET) has been promoted on the hypothesis that
human-induced greenhouse gas emissions (especially of carbon dioxide (CO2)) are
the driver of dangerous global warming -- the process known as anthropogenic
global warming (AGW), also defined imprecisely as 'climate change'. The climate
scientists promoting the AGW hypothesis have assiduously defended it by strongly
asserting that natural variations in climate have only a very minor effect, and that the
dominant determinant of climate change is anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
However, AGW remains hypothetical, as scientists -- including scientists from
Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation and the Australian Academy of Science -- have not been able to table
empirical scientific evidence to prove that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a
significant driver of global warming.
Climate scientists have developed computer models with which to make projections.
These have received wide media coverage, as they predict alarmist outcomes.
However, these models are invalid, as they do not adequately represent the
interaction of the factors that influence the climate change process. In fact, these
factors still are not properly identified, let alone understood. Contrary to climate
model projections, there has not been any statistically significant global warming
since about 1998, despite anthropogenic CO2 emissions continuing to increase.
There are no scientific papers that report the measure of global warming that has
been contributed by human activity. This is clear indication that the contribution, if
any, is miniscule, and that the AGW-believing climate scientists have grossly overestimated the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on global warming.
Despite the lack of substantiating scientific evidence, the AGW believers claim that
there is scientific consensus and assert that climate science is settled -- whereas, in
fact, it is not.
Let us be clear about what is not scientific evidence:
. the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause dangerous global
warming has not been substantiated -- it remains an hypothesis (the AGW
hypothesis);
. the assertions of AGW made by the UN political organisation, the IPCC, are not
scientific evidence;
. the alleged scientific consensus on climate change is not scientific evidence;
. climate change models are not scientific evidence -- they have not been validated.
There has been no significant increase in average global temperature since about
1998, despite significant increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions;
. the belief of the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and university research
scientists in AGW is not scientific evidence;
. the belief of various science academies in AGW is not scientific evidence;
. applying the precautionary principle is not appropriate as there is no empirical
scientific evidence to justify government spending on allegedly controlling climate
change.
Therefore, it is clear that there is no scientific justification for proposing legislation for
emissions reduction.
As there is no scientific justification, it follows that there is no economic justification
for such action.
Past RET and Emissions Reduction Action Contrary to National Interest
Given a legislated RET, the emissions reduction action implemented by past
governments, particularly by the last two governments, was based on their
erroneous belief in AGW, and consequently has resulted in the following
dysfunctional effects:
.. it has caused mis-allocation of scarce resources, viz. it has subsidised the
replacement of low-cost, reliable coal-fired electric power generation by inefficient,
costly renewables, wind turbine power and solar power;
. it has cost taxpayers billions of dollars that could have been deployed more
efficiently elsewhere;
.it has forced up electricity prices such that Australia has lost its natural cheap energy
advantage;
. it has raised the costs of local industries, and thereby simultaneously lowered the
price of competing imported goods and services;
. it has forced the closure of local manufacturers, some moving offshore;
. it has caused significant loss of employment;
. it has caused income redistribution from low income people to the better-off who
are paid subsidies for solar power panel installation and operation;
. it has caused visual pollution by way of installation of unsightly wind turbines;
. it has caused adverse health effects for residents located adjacent to wind turbines;
. but, it has had absolutely no measurable impact on global warming.
Implementation of bad policy can never be in the national interest.
No Justification for Setting an RET
It is indisputable that implementation of the RET and the various associated green
schemes, together with the so-called carbon tax, has influenced substantial
electricity price rises, but has had no measurable effect on global warming.
Passage of the Government's carbon tax rescission legislation would result in some
benefits, of course.
As the limitations and unreliable nature of renewable energy generation by wind
turbine and solar necessitate substantial coal- or gas-fired backup capacity, these
renewable energy sources are at least twice as costly as coal-generated power.
Consequently, there is no economic justification for setting an RET in the first place,
and then subsidising renewable energy development
If Government is really serious about acting in, and promoting, the national interest, it
must correct its policy not only by not proceeding with its costly Direct Action policy,
but also by rescinding the RET legislation.
Instead, it makes more scientific and economic sense for the Government to
allocate resources to developing better contingency planning for coping with future
natural disasters.