Download here - National Council of Women of Queensland Inc

The Hon. Steven Miles MP
Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection and Minister for National Parks and the Great
Barrier Reef
GPO Box 2454
BRISBANE QLD 4002
Email: [email protected]
Dear Sir,
Threats to Great Barrier Reef
The National Council of Women of Queensland (NCWQ), which represents over 50 women’s
organisations, commends the Government and its partners for initiatives undertaken to improve the
water quality in the reef catchments. In particular, we laud you for agreeing or agreeing in principle,
and commencing implementation of the recommendations of the Great Barrier Reef Water Science
Taskforce, and for commissioning the investigation to cost various policy options to meet the reef
water quality targets. We urge you to ensure the recommendations come to fruition.
Also as you would be well aware, the biggest danger to the Great Barrier Reef is climate change. The
National Council of Women of Australia (NCWA) has urged the Federal Government to ratify the
Paris Climate Change Agreement, to consider not only the Direct Action scheme but also alternatives
such as a baseline and credit scheme without government subsidies, an emissions tax and an
emissions trading scheme, and to maintain support to the renewable energy industries. (letter attached)
On 14 April 2016 .the NCWQ wrote to you concerning the impact of microplastics on the marine
environment. In your reply ( Your Ref CIS 07393/15) you drew attention to initiatives of State
Governments to address the disposal of plastics at the national level.
The NCWQ urges your Government to advance action on these issues through the Council of
Australian Governments.
Attached is supporting evidence on the Great Barrier Reef and Climate Change for our
recommendations.
Yours sincerely,
Lyn Buckley, President of National Council of Women of Queensland.
Supporting Information on Climate Change from NCWA &NCWQ Environment
Adviser, P.M. Pepper B.Sc. M.Sc. Ph.D
Global efforts on climate change: In preparation for the adoption of the Paris Agreement in
December 2015 Governments including Australia submitted an intended nationally
determined contribution(INDC). http://climateactiontracker.org/indcs.html The Climate Action Tracker
(CAT), a Consortium of four research organisations. {Climate Analytics, Ecofys,
NewClimate Institute, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research}, has tracked climate
action and global efforts towards the globally agreed aim of holding warming below 2°C,
since 2009. Thirty two countries which cover about 80% of global emissions are tracked and
their submitted INDCs assessed and rated, focusing on:
 Impact of INDCs or other commitments on emissions in 2020, 2025 and 2030 and
beyond.
 Effect of current policies on emissions

Whether the INDCs is a fair share of global effort to limit warming below 2°C
Australia has been rated “inadequate”. Australia’s target is to reduce Green House Gas
(GHG) emissions by 26–28% from 2005 levels including land-use, land-use change and
forestry (LULUCF) by 2030. After accounting for LULUCF, this target is equivalent to a
range of around 5% below to 5% above 1990 levels of GHG emissions excluding LULUCF
in the year 2030. Australia has a large gap between current policy projections for 2030 and
the INDC target. Of the nine industrialised countries assessed to date (Australia Canada, EU,
Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, USA) Australia ranks eighth on its
projected rate of reduction in per capita emissions, exceeded only by Russia, and eighth on
projected improvement in emissions intensity for the period from 2012 to 2030, with Canada
ranking worst. The “inadequate” rating indicates that Australia’s commitment is not in line
with most interpretations of a “fair” approach to reach a 2°C pathway: if most other countries
followed the Australian approach, global warming would exceed 3–4°C.
CAT noted that had the Australian Climate Change Authority’s recommendations been
adopted (an emissions reduction target of 30% below 2000 levels by 2025 (incl. LULUCF).
40–60% below 2000 levels (incl. LULUCF) by 2030) Australia would be much closer to
being in line with 2°C and placing it in the “medium” category in 2030 instead of
“inadequate”. http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia.html
Paris Climate Change Conference: As at 21 September 2016, the historic United Nations
Paris agreement on climate change has been signed by 189 countries and 60 have ratified,
accounting in total for 47.76% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions.
http://climateanalytics.org/hot-topics/ratification-tracker.html For the treaty to become law, 55 countries
need to ratify it, and at least 55% of global emissions to be represented by those accepting
countries. The agreement sets crucial goals to limit global temperature increases, and specific
goals in three areas – mitigation, adaptation and finance. Mitigation includes a long-term goal
– early peaking, balancing emissions and sinks with emissions to be reduced from 55
gigatonnes (Gt) to 40Gt in 2030.A new global adaptation goal aims to increase countries’
adaptive capacity and resilience. There are also aims to achieve a finance increase to US$100
billion per year post 2020. While the Paris agreement, as it stands, will not solve the ongoing
problem of climate change, if momentum can be created the target of preventing warming
from exceeding 1.5 degrees might be achieved. With global temperatures already at one
degree warmer, and emissions continuing as strongly as ever, the world has to act quickly to
achieve this target. While most of those countries ratifying the Agreement make a minor
contribution, it is pleasing major contributors China (20.09%) and USA (17.89%) have
ratified. and that India with 4.10% has promised to ratify on 2 October. In Australia,
ratifying the Paris agreement means tabling the document in Parliament and submitting it for
scrutiny by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. However, Australia has bipartisan
support for the agreement, so no impediments are expected. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-0422/what-happens-after-this-paris-climate-deal-is-signed/7350506 https://theconversation.com/paris-set-a-benchmark-inthe-battle-against-climate-change-what-now-56934 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-06/ban-ki-moon-says-time-toincrease-climate-change-action/7389482?section=environment http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php.
Australia’s emissions reduction policies: Australia which is responsible for around 1.3 per
cent of global emissions, has steadily reduced the task of meeting its 2020 target to reduce
emissions to five per cent below 2000 levels and is expected to beat this target by 78 million
tonnes. The 2030 target to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels is
expected to be met through energy productivity, fuel switching, fugitive emissions
management, land use change, management of agricultural practices, management of
industrial processes, renewable energy and waste management. The Direct Action scheme
with the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF; $2.55 billion) supports Australian businesses,
communities and landholders to undertake activities which reduce or avoid greenhouse gas
emissions such as projects improving energy efficiency, capturing methane from landfills and
storing carbon in forests and soils. The scheme uses a reverse auction to allocate payments
from ERF. Bids to implement registered emissions reduction projects are submitted the Clean
Energy Regulator (CER) who selects the lowest bids per unit of notional abatement. The
auction winners enter into contracts with the CER to deliver Australian Carbon Credit Units
(ACCUs), each representing a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalence (t CO2-e) emissions
reduction below an assumed baseline. The contracts guarantee payment from ERF in return
for delivery of emissions reductions. A Safeguard Mechanism commenced on 1 July 2016 to
ensure emission reductions purchased by the Government are not offset by significant rises in
emissions above business-as-usual levels elsewhere in the economy. The safeguard
mechanism requires Australia’s largest emitters, around 140 large businesses that have
facilities with direct emissions of more than 100,000 t CO2-e a year, to keep emissions within
baseline levels which have been set using data already reported under the National
Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. This will cover around half of Australia's
emissions. Flexible compliance arrangements allow a range of options for meeting safeguard
obligations.
ACCUs can be used to offset emissions above the baseline.
Multi-year monitoring will allow a facility to exceed its baseline in one year, so long as average
emissions over two or three years are below the baseline.
An exemption will be available for facilities whose emissions are the direct result of exceptional
circumstances, such as a natural disaster or criminal activity.
There will be a range of discretionary, graduated enforcement options that the CER will be able to
apply to deter non-compliance. factsheet- Australian-government-action.docx; factsheet- safeguardmechanism.pdf;
https://www.environment.gov.au/node/41417?utm_source=Climate%20change&utm_campaign=feed&utm_medium=rss
However the key disadvantage of the scheme is that it could fund individual projects that would have
happened without government funding e.g. landfill projects which already generate revenue from
electricity. To accurately assess the scheme the ongoing emissions levels of participating projects and
the emissions that would have been observed without the subsidy should be known. The latter is
difficult to assess. . An alternative could be a baseline-and-credit scheme without government
subsidies. Other alternatives are an emissions tax or an emissions trading scheme (ETS) which would
introduce a price per unit of emissions and the private sector would decide which projects to
implement. Large emitters are already required to report their emissions, so implementation would be
comparatively straightforward. Firms covered by an emissions tax or an ETS could be allowed to use
voluntary offsets generated outside the scheme to reduce their tax/permit liabilities. However offset
arrangements would need to be carefully designed. https://theconversation.com/direct-action-not-giving-usbang-for-our-buck-on-climate-change-59308 Burke, P.J. (2016), Undermined by adverse selection: Australia’s Direct
Action abatement subsidies, CCEP Working Paper 1605, Apr 2016. Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian
National University.
A review of Australia’s emissions reduction policies is scheduled for 2017. Hopefully all options
including the Direct Action, a baseline-and-credit scheme without government subsidies, an emissions
tax or an emissions trading scheme will be considered.
Renewable Energy: In addition to reducing emissions other Government policies include supporting
clean and efficient energy, building resilience to the unavoidable impacts of climate change and
supporting an effective international response to climate change. To meet the Renewable Energy
Target of 23% of Australia’s electricity coming from renewable sources by 2020, Australian
households and businesses are encouraged to install solar and other renewable energy technologies,
and the electricity sector to move to cleaner and more diverse sources. A $1 billion Clean Energy
Innovation Fund aims to help emerging clean energy technologies move from demonstration to
commercial deployment.
https://www.environment.gov.au/node/41417?utm_source=Climate%20change&utm_campaign=feed&utm_medium=rss
factsheet- Australian-government-action.docx
Australia’s electricity sector accounts for 33% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions with 90%
of electricity production generated by burning fossil fuels (75% from coal). Giga-What? A guide to the
Renewable Energy Target by Petra Stock (Climate Council of Australia)2015) Yet, Australia’s renewable energy
resources are capable of producing 500 times the amount of electricity currently used. (Geoscience
Australia and ABARE 2010; AEMO 2013b). A Productivity Commission review of more than 1,000
emissions reduction policies found that policies encouraging additional large-scale renewable
electricity power plants were the second-most cost-effective set of policies after emissions trading
schemes.
When Australia’s Renewable Energy Target(RET) was 41,000GWh large-scale renewable electricity
annually by 2020 plus uncapped support for eligible small-scale solar and wind, greenhouse gas
emissions were reduced by 22.5 million tonnes carbon dioxide- equivalent to 10 per cent of
Australia’s annual electricity emissions. If the policy with that target had continued, the RET was
estimated to reduce emissions by 58 million tonnes carbon dioxide (2015–2020) – equivalent to
annual emissions from all of Australia’s passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. With the target
now of 33000 GWh this could change but the fact remains that, the RET has increased the supply of
renewable energy thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. Giga-What? A
guide to the Renewable Energy Target by Petra Stock (Climate Council of Australia)2015)
As energy storage technologies are becoming more viable in Australia, wind and solar power
should become more viable. A lithium-ion battery, Powerwall, is expected to sell in Australia
next year for about $5,500 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/powerwall-solar-batteries-to-transformelectricity-industry/6488230 While currently batteries are considered the default form of electricity
storage, at an industrial scale, there are promising technologies for particular applications and
locations e.g. storage systems, such as flywheel and compressed air. Once energy storage can
be cost-effectively deployed at a large scale, the implications for energy markets and energy
security are immense. http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/technologies/energy-storage.html
South Australia with more than 40% of its energy based on wind and solar is currently experiencing
an energy crisis indicating the need for diverse energy sources with sufficient transmission
connections nationwide. The Weekend Australian July 16-17, 2016. The Australian Energy Market
Commission (AEMC) has announced a review of the national market to look at whether the current
wholesale energy market frameworks can support increasing volumes of renewable energy and
maintain system security. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-21/energy-ministers-need-to-focus-on-reformingelectricity-market/7646106 However as Tony Wood, Director of the energy program at the Grattan
Institute, has said it is unhelpful to blame the perceived failure of the wholesale market, inadequate
transmission planning or the intermittent nature of wind and solar. He advocates the 2017 review of
climate change policy begin immediately, with a priority to strengthen and evolve the existing
Safeguard Mechanism so that it becomes an effective market mechanism for reducing emissions and
driving new investment. He also recommended that the national electricity market be reviewed,
considering alternative or additional mechanisms that may be needed to avoid future threats to
reliability and/or prices. http://www.afr.com/opinion/from-reliable-and-cheap-to-patchy-and-expensive-southaustralias-energy-policy-20160719-gq8ths
Impact of climate change: A recent study which analysed 14 years of satellite data
measuring the key climate variables of air temperature, water availability and cloud cover,
has given a deeper insight into the impact of extreme events on ecosystems and which aspects
of climate have been the most important in shaping different vegetation types around the
world. The study confirmed that most of Australia was most sensitive to variability in water,
rather than to temperature. But while there were areas of very high climate sensitivity in the
east of Australia, the study showed inland ecosystems were among the world's least sensitive
to climate variability, particularly in terms of rainfall. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-18/globalmap-highlights-sensitivity-of-australian-vegetation/7178164
Sea-level rise, erosion and coastal flooding are some of the greatest challenges facing
humanity from climate change. Coral islands are very dynamic landforms where waves and
currents can change their shade by mobilising and depositing sand and gravel. If the sea level
only rises 3-5 mm pa (global average 3mm pa), possibly islands could withstand the rise.
https://theconversation.com/dynamic-atolls-give-hope-that-pacific-islands-can-defy-sea-rise-25436 However, in the
Solomon Islands the sea has risen 7-10 mm pa since 1993. Some islands are exposed to
higher wave energy. Of the 21 islands exposed, five completely disappeared and a further six
islands eroded substantially. These rapid changes to shorelines have led to the relocation of
several coastal communities that have inhabited these areas for generations Twelve islands in
a low wave energy area experienced little noticeable change in shorelines despite being
exposed to similar sea-level rise. https://theconversation.com/sea-level-rise-has-claimed-five-whole-islands-inthe-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511
Supporting Information on Great Barrier Reef from NCWA &NCWQ Environment
Adviser, P.M. Pepper B.Sc. M.Sc. Ph.D
Update on Great Barrier Reef (GBR): Hundreds of comprehensive in-water surveys to
assess coral mortality have been conducted Reef-wide since the beginning of March by the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) with the Australian Institute of Marine
Science, the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and other partners. The GMRMA reports
the overall mortality to be 22 per cent with about 85 per cent of that die-off occurring in the
far north between the tip of Cape York and just north of Lizard Island, 250 kilometres north
of Cairns ( the most pristine of GBR). This has resulted from the most serious bleaching
event to hit the Reef on record, and was related to a combination of warming of our planet’s
oceans and a major El Niño. The Chairman of the GBRMPA, Dr Russel Reichelt, reported
that because some reefs had been under greater heat stress than others, the bleaching had
resulted in varying mortality rates, but that fortunately the section of the Marine Park that had
substantial increase in coral cover in recent years (the southern part of the Reef ) has
experienced little mortality. GBR-Coral-Mortality-13-June-2016.pdf http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/mediaroom/latest-news/coral-bleaching/2016/the-facts-on-great-barrier-reef-coral-mortality As Dr David Wachenfeld
of the GBRMPA has said it is crucial to reduce greenhouse emissions if the diversity and
current quantity of coral and marine life are to be maintained in the long term. In the medium
term, land management improvements in catchment area to reduce downsteam pollution will
help reduce pressure on the coral as will short term measures like removal of crown of thorns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GkZvSJBuxE However, only half of cane famers and a tenth of
graziers in the GBR catchments have participated in some best management practice. In most
districts around half of the farmers were over-applying fertilisers. GBR Water Science
Taskforce (GRBWST) has recommended that of the $90 million already allocated to improve
water quality, the Queensland Government (QG) spend $33.5 million on two particular
problem areas for nutrient, pesticide and sediment loss, in the Wet Tropics and the Burdekin.
Also another $20 million should be spent on incentives for farmers, including ongoing
payments for farmers to restore wetlands and flood plains, and temporarily retire or de-stock
parts of their property. It also recommended a legal cap on the amount of fertiliser farmers
could use if other measures did not work. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-25/great-barrier-reeftaskforce-report-90-million-state-funding/7444074 In their response to the GBRWST, the QG agreed, or
agreed in principle, to all the recommendations and allocated an additional $90 million over
four years, The recommendations included enhanced communication, increased levels of
agricultural extension, a greater focus on innovation, expanded monitoring, financial and
other incentives, and staged and targeted regulations. Some recommendations require formal
public consultation processes or working with stakeholders and/or the Australian Government
to be fully implemented. The QG has commenced implementation of some of the
recommendations e.g. investments into monitoring improvements, additional extension
resources, communications, establishment of an innovation fund and the commencement of
the projects to tackle nutrient, pesticide and sediment loss the Wet Tropics and the Burdekin
catchments. http://www.gbr.qld.gov.au/taskforce/final-report/; taskforce-final-report-response.pdf
The GBR wellbeing became a major issue in the federal election campaign with the political
parties pledging extra funds. In addition to $461 million currently planned to be spent over
six years on incentive programs to help farmers move to more “water quality friendly”
management practices, the re-elected Government has committed up to $1 billion over 10
years from an existing $10 billion administered by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
This will provide loans to finance more energy- and water-efficient irrigation systems on
farms, as well as improved pesticide and fertiliser application systems. Whether this will be
sufficient funds and whether enough farmers will take up the loan facility is being
questioned. http://theconversation.com/policycheck-what-are-the-parties-really-offering-to-save-the-great-barrierreef-60927
The QG commissioned the GBRWST to investigate the cost of various policy options to meet
the reef water quality targets (sediment runoff to be reduced by 50% in the Fitzroy, Burdekin
and Wet Tropics regions, and nitrogen levels by 80% in Burdekin and Wet Tropics
catchments; sediment runoff by 20% and nitrogen levels by 50% in Mackay-Whitsunday and
Burnett Mary catchments) below 2009 levels. The GBRWST estimated that A$8.2 billion
would be the likely cost using current methods and prices to reach the targets albeit with a
little more to be done in the Wet Tropics. $6.46 billion and $1.1 billion would be required to
meet the maximum 50 per cent fine sediment reduction target in the Fitzroy basin and the
Burdekin respectively. However, by spending around A$600 million in the most costeffective areas halfway to the nitrogen and sediment targets could be achieved. Focusing on
these areas would enable significant improvement to be made while allowing time to find
more cost-effective solutions to close the remaining gap. http://theconversation.com/the-8-2-billionwater-bill-to-clean-up-the-barrier-reef-by-2025-and-where-to-start-62685;
http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2016/8/11/government-agrees-to-all-reef-taskforce-recommendations;
costings_report.pdf
Unfortunately, the expansion of coal mines and existing ports with increased shipping traffic
raises the risk of damage to the reef and marine life from collisions and oil spills. severe
damage at Douglas Shoal was caused in April 2010 by the Chinese bulk carrier Shen Neng 1
running aground due to negligence. Following the out of court settlement ($39.3million)
with the owners the GBRMPA will now initiate field operations to remove toxic anti-fouling
paint and rubble, enabling restoration of the natural ecological processes on this reef.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/media-room/latest-news/corporate/2016/statement-on-out-of-court-settlement-with-owners-ofshen-neng-1 http://www.joshfrydenberg.com.au/guest/mediaReleasesDetails.aspx?id=258
In the long term it is crucial that greenhouse emissions be reduced if the diversity and current
quantity of coral and marine life are to be maintained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GkZvSJBuxE
National Council of Women of Australia Ltd
PO Box 4,
DEAKIN WEST
ACT 2600
Ref. EAQLD2/7/2016
The Prime Minister,
The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP,
Parliament House of Australia,
Canberra, ACT.
The Minister for Environment and Energy,
The Hon Josh Frydenberg MP,
Parliament House of Australia
Canberra, ACT.
Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water
The Hon Mark Butler MP,
Parliament House of Australia
Canberra, ACT.
Leader of the Greens,
Senator Richard Di Natale.
Parliament House of Australia,
Canberra, ACT.
Dear Sir,
CLIMATE CHANGE
The National Council of Women, Australia commends the Government for scheduling a
review of Australia’s emissions reduction policies in 2017. However, given the difficulties of
accurately accessing projects allocated payment from the Emissions Reduction Fund, we urge
you to consider not only the Direct Action scheme but also alternatives such as a baseline and
credit scheme without government subsidies, an emissions tax and an emissions trading
scheme.
The Climate Action Tracker, a Consortium of four research organisations. {Climate
Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research} has
rated Australia’s target to reduce Green House Gas emissions as “inadequate”. In light of this
and the case previously submitted to you the National Council of Women, Australia urges
you to maintain support to the renewable energy industries, along with other emission
reduction support, so as to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by the recommended
40-60% reduction based on 2000 levels by 2030. (copy of letter attached). Aware of South
Australia’s recent electricity problems, we would urge you to extend the emissions reduction
policies review to include the national electricity market and identify strategies to avoid such
threats to reliability and prices.
The National Council of Women, Australia urges the Federal Government to ratify the Paris
Climate Change Agreement, and use the Sustainable Development Goals, Targets and
Indicators to implement the changes and responses to climate change effectively. (copy of
letter from International Council of Women Environment Adviser attached)
Attached is supporting evidence prepared by the National Council of Women Australia
Environment Adviser.
Yours sincerely,
President of National Council of Women of Australia.