The controversial Renewable Energy Target (RET) review, led by climate sceptic Dick Warburton, has finally been published, with the panel unsurprisingly recommending that the scheme be scaled back or totally abolished by 2030. The government has repeatedly given iron-clad assurances that it is committed to supporting the RET, but as the review’s scope was narrowed to economic impacts – excluding the broader environmental, health and social benefits renewables bring – it has led to it being dubbed “a report written by climate change deniers, for climate change deniers” engaged in an ideologicalculture war. The pressure is now on Prime Minister Tony Abbott to listen to the 95 per cent of Australians that support renewable energy; and to not fight the future by swinging the wrecking ball and undermining Australia’s inevitable renewable energy transition.
- MT @cleannrgcouncil: What would cutting #RET really do? Cut jobs, investment, & raise bills https://t.co/AqtaDvIoEA http://t.co/YAsD95zlTF
- RT @willozap: In conclusion Hector the Coal Lump doesn’t like RET but does like coal http://t.co/DSgaNUe226
- Write: Email your MP and tell them to protect the RET (Solar Citizens)
- Share: Renewable Energy Target review – experts respond (The Conversation)
- Share: Biased Renewable Energy Target review panel has no credibility says Tim Flannery (The Climate Council)
- Share: Exciting adventures in renewable energy (First Dog On The Moon / GCCA)
- The Renewable Energy Target (RET) was brought in to reduce carbon emissions and transition Australia’s dirty energy system to a clean and sustainable one, and it was doing its job exceptionally well. The RET is not about meeting new demand with clean sources of power, it is about replacing dirty forms of power with clean ones as we simultaneously get more efficient in our use of energy overall. Australia’s energy system is ageing, inefficient and unprepared for the future, and those dirty sources of power need to be replaced with clean ones.
- The more renewable energy we have, the more downward pressure there is on power prices. Multiple analyses have concluded that the RET will cut power costs – especially after 2020. If the target is reduced the cost of solar panels could double, while the biggest beneficiaries would be coal-fired power stations.
- Thanks to the RET Australia now has 1.3 million solar homes; 24,000 renewable energy jobs, and has emitted 22 million tonnes less carbon. If the RET Is slashed, 21,000 jobs will be at risk, including 5,800 in the solar industry.
- Solar power subsidies for household panels, water heaters may be cut after Renewable Energy Target review (ABC)
- Renewable Energy Report Recommends Cutting Australia’s Target (Bloomberg)
- Review calls for Renewable Energy Target cuts: what it means (The Conversation)
- Renewable energy target review backs closure of scheme to new entrants (The Guardian)
- RET findings have industry fearing the end (Nine News)
- Clean energy industry calls for inquiry into renewable energy target review (Sydney Morning Herald)
- The leak that saved the RET, good for jobs and energy prices ([$] Crikey)
- Review calls for slow end to RET (Australian Financial Review)
- How Australia perfected solar power then went back to coal (Vice)
- Is the RET a market-distorting subsidy? (Climate Spectator)
- BNEF: RET changes to cause bankruptcies, kill industry for decade (RenewEconomy)
Tools and resources
- Report: RET Review report (Australian Government)
- Report: The dirty three (Greenpeace)
- Report: Who really benefits from reducing the renewable energy target (The Climate Institute / WWF / ACF)
- Report: Australia’s Electricity Sector: Ageing, inefficient and unprepared (Climate Council)
- PR: Review recommendations could bankrupt Australian renewable energy sector (Clean Energy Council)
- PR: To wreck the RET would be reckless (ACF)
- PR: Kneecapping the RET is a bad call: it hurts our future prosperity and makes climate goals even harder to attain (The Climate Institute)
- PR: Time for Abbott to Renew his Thinking on Electricity (Greenpeace)
- PR: Slashing Renewable Energy Targets hurts environment & wildlife (WWF)
- Guide: Greener electricity guide (Greenpeace)
- Explainer: Renewable Energy Target (The Climate Institute)
- Fact check: Is the Renewable Energy Target a market-distorting subsidy? (The Climate Institute)
- “If the Prime Minister adopts either of the two most likely options proposed by Dick Warburton’s review, he will be marked forever as a leader with a blind ideological vendetta to destroy policies which benefit the environment. With over 95 per cent of Australians in favour of renewable energy, Prime Minister Abbott’s attempts to weaken Australia’s Renewable Energy Target is surely his most unpopular and backward-looking policy yet.” Head of Program for Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Ben Pearson.
- “If the Prime Minister thinks that all of his backbenchers can keep [their] jobs while 8,000 people in the solar industry lose theirs, well I’ve got to tell you you’ve got another thing coming.” The Solar Council’s John Grimes.
- “It is inconceivable that the review could objectively recommend slashing the RET when its own economic modelling showed this would lead to higher power bills in the long run, while at the same time smashing billions of dollars of investment. It is particularly naive to suggest that slashing the target would not have a massive impact on businesses that have invested on the basis of a legislated policy scheduled to operate out to 2030, and with over a decade of bipartisan support to date.” Clean Energy Council CEO Kane Thornton.
- “This is a report written by climate change deniers, for climate change deniers, and it shows.” Labor’s shadow climate change spokesman Mark Butler.
- “The RET review is part of the dinosaur protection racket – an $8 billion favour for Tony Abbott’s mates in the fossil fuels sector, at the expense of clean technology.” Greens leader Christine Milne.
- “Clearly the process has been highly flawed. There was already an independent body tasked with reviewing the Renewable Energy Target, the Climate Change Authority. Unfortunately a Panel was convened with a number of people with a well-known history of working closely with the fossil fuel industry. It is crucial that reviews like this are independent and at arms length from those with a vested interest. The public cannot have confidence in this process as vested interests are simply too close to it.” Climate Councillor Tim Flannery.
- “While the Target has helped millions of Aussies take control of their energy bills by installing solar, there are still millions more who want to do the same. A move to change or axe the Target would indicate the Coalition Government has no real commitment to lowering the cost of living and no desire to support the only source of power whose costs are coming down.” Solar Citizens Campaigns Director Claire O’Rourke.
- “The Warburton Review would kneecap Australia’s energy and climate policies. It turns a blind eye to our massive fossil fuel subsidies and longer term climate change objectives. And it ignores the growing global action on clean energy investment and climate change. If the government accepts the changes proposed by the Warburton Review, it would see Australia increase the amount of coal in our generation mix effectively re-carbonising, rather than de-carbonising our electricity.” CEO of The Climate Institute, John Connor.
Related Tree Alerts
- Attacks on renewable energy a hit on consumers, windfall for fossils
- States go renewable as Federal government bets on fossils
- Renewables digging large potholes in coal’s rocky road
- Australian coal plants obsolete, fossil utilities that don’t move with times at risk
- Attack on Renewable Energy Target to cost billions, destroy thousands of jobs
- RT @GrogsGamut: The RET review reads like a Penthouse forum letter for coal fired power generation
- MT @TommiiButler: Warburton suggests that consumers pay coal generators $15B instead of investing in renewables! #RET http://t.co/wYZimmpId8
- RT @CherishBlueDot: Is the #RET a market-distorting subsidy? We looks at the claims in a new #factcheck http://t.co/SwOHIu2ngO #climate #RET
- RT @KetanJ0: Panel recommends target should be axed because another scheme that was just axed is a better alternative http://t.co/fqJsulR68i