Things are getting very ugly

 

Source: Off Target, from the UN Environment Programme
Note:  I believe that the UN is using the convention that methane is 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide over 100 years.  The better way to count methane, I think, is its effect over 20 years, when it is 80 times as potent a green house gas as CO2.  This would significantly increase the percentage of emissions from agriculture above the ~20% shown in this table.

Next year, this humungous El Niño could drive temperatures to 1.7 or 1.8 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.  This is, of course, catastrophic.  Things will get very ugly, unless we redouble our efforts to slash emissions.  

What can we do?

First, what can governments do?

✔️ Set a renewable energy target.  The percentage of renewables+nuclear in electricity generation needs to rise by 6-8% a year, or more, if we are to eliminate electricity's emissions before it is too late.

Emissions from electricity generation are just under 30% of total global emissions.  We may not yet be able to go above 90 or 95% renewables in the grid, because we don't have long-term storage to offset periods of dunkelflaute, but we can certainly aim for 90%, and reconsider what we need to do next when we get there. 

How would this work?  Each utility would be required to reach the levels set in the RET each year.  Those which exceeded this target would get credits, those which didn't would have to buy credits, either from their more successful peers, or from the government.   This would encourage utilities to replace coal and gas with wind/solar/batteries/nuclear/hydro. I include nuclear, but in truth, it can't be built fast enough.  But if there is already nuclear available, it shouldn't be closed down. 

If we aim for a maximum of 10% fossil fuels in electricity generation within 10 years, we will have cut emissions by 27%.  And, remember, in principle, every use of energy can be electrified.  So removing fossil fuels from electricity generation is key.

✔️ Every country should introduce a carbon tax.  It doesn't have to be swingeing to start out with, but it should rise every year, and the pathway should be clear to everybody.  To prevent emission leakage — you tax your industries while others don't tax theirs — you must also tax imports from countries which do not have an R.E.T. or a price on carbon.  (See my posts on a carbon border tax)

✔️ We need to accelerate the replacement of petrol/diesel vehicles (ICEVs) with EVs.  15% of emissions come from transport.  Because even when we reach 100% of sales being EVs, it will take 10-20 years for all ICEVs on the roads to be replaced.  This is too long.  Most countries are nowhere near 100% EV sales, even though this percentage has risen sharply over the last 9 months.   To accelerate this process, we could, for example, ban the import of new and second-hand ICEVs, or slap 100% taxes on them.  By taxing new petrol cars and subsidising EVs, we would rive a wedge between the up-front costs of EVs and ICEVs.  Ethiopia has already done this.  This policy should apply to two and three-wheeled vehicles, too.  Countries which do this deserve reduced carbon border taxes.  And we should press on with bi-mode and battery trains and electric planes.

✔️ We need to replace oil- or gas-based household and industrial heating with heat pumps.  They're four times as efficient as gas, oil, or electric heaters, and so are cheaper to run, but they have higher up-front costs.  They will require government subsidy to start the revolution rolling.  

All of these combined will cut emissions by 50 or more.  If we also switch to low-emission steel and cement, the emissions cuts could reach 65%.

Second, what can you do?

✔️ The steps above will leave mostly agricultural emissions to be reduced, which (but see note on graphic above) are ~20% of emissions. This is too hard for governments to act on — now.   People love their meat too much to give it up.  But it won't go away.  When we've cut emissions by 70%, agriculture will dominate what's left over.  And action will no longer be postponable.  

✔️ Until then, you personally can cut beef, mutton, pork and cow's milk out of your diet, which would more than halve your emissions from the food you eat.  Even better: if land is freed from animal raising, it can be re-wilded, which reduces the level of Co2 in the atmosphere.  Negative emissions!  If you really care about global heating, this is something direct you can do.  You can only force governments to switch to renewables by acting collectively (by voting), and though we shouldn't give up trying to get collective action, we don't need anybody else's permission to eat less meat.  It's something you can start today.

The position is far from hopeless.  We have the technology to slash emissions from electricity generation and transport. What we lack is the will to act.  Perhaps the upcoming Godzilla El Niño will shift the political logjam.  Make it so.

Renewable Energy Certificates

Source: The Australia Institute

The Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in Oz are similar to the US Federal Production Tax Credit, which pays 1.8 cents/kWh for each kWh of wind power produced in the first 10 years of the wind farm's life.  The difference in Australia is that no one knows how much the RECs will be worth in the future.  In the US, the tax credit/subsidy is fixed.  In Australia it depends on the gap between the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and actual renewable electricity production.  This is what the government body The Clean Energy Regulator says about RECs (there are small scale RECs too, for rooftop solar)

The Renewable Energy Target operates through the creation of tradable certificates which create an incentive for additional generation of electricity from renewable sources. Certificates are created and issued through the REC Registry —an online trading platform managed by the Clean Energy Regulator.

Through the scheme, large renewable power stations and the owners of small-scale systems are eligible to create certificates for every megawatt hour of power they generate—creating the 'supply' side of the certificate market. Wholesale purchasers ​​​of electricity, mainly electricity retailers, buy these certificates to meet their renewable energy obligations—forming the 'demand' side of the certificate market. Wholesale purchasers of electricity then surrender these certificates to the Clean Energy Regulator in percentages set by regulation each year.

(Source: The Clean Energy Regulator)

The price for RECs will therefore vary.  If total renewable generation exceeds the 33,000 GWh requirement, then the price of RECs will be zero.  If renewable electricity production is very low, then the REC price will be commensurately high.  As a result of the attempted abolition of the Renewable Energy Target by the L/NP (the right-wing coalition which rules Australia at the Federal level), there was a slump in new investment in renewables.  But the attempt failed. In the end, Labor persuaded the government just to reduce the RET (to 33,000 GWh from 40,000 GWh), not abolish it, and investment restarted. 

However, the price of the renewable energy certificates zoomed, because of the absence of new renewable investments.  The RECs depend on how much renewable output is generated relative to the target, and the target kept on rising but investment stopped.  After the drought caused by Abbott's attempt to abolish the RET (which drove up the price of RECs) , there is currently a flood of new investment in wind and solar (18 GW of capacity, which will produce roughly 6 GW of new output or 52,560 GWh per year), which will increase renewables generation way above the target, and drive down the price of RECs to zero. This is reflected in the future price for RECs which drops from $84 this year to $40 next, and will likely reach zero before 2022. Moreover, the constant chatter from Abbott and others on the climate denialist right about abolishing the RET means that the certificates might in fact be worthless even before that.

Like the Production Tax Credit in the USA, the renewable energy certificates are earned for each MW of renewable electricity when they are produced, not upfront. So the calculation of how much RECs are worth to a new renewables generator is how much they will earn over the lifetime of the project (25- 30 years)? To get that (ignoring interest charges/discount rates), add up the price of RECs for 25/30 years and divide by 25/30 to get the effective upfront benefit.

The RET will end in 2020, but certificates will continue to be earned (though not for new generators) until 2030. For the last 15 or so years of the life of a renewable electricity project (say from 2030 to 2045), the price of RECs will by definition be zero. But because the price of RECs fluctuates, and is likely to slump as new renewables come on stream, even the near years (until 2030) are uncertain.

Right now, new renewable generation capacity is being planned by investors on the assumption that there will be little or no benefit from RECs. The current high price of RECs is a windfall to existing "green" generators, but no one in the industry expects it to last. You can't base a 25-30 year investment on one year's windfall.

There is no "massive subsidy" to renewables, whatever the Right and the Murdochcracy say.  Wind and solar farms will not go on earning $84 per MWh from RECs indefinitely into the future.  The only way the prices of RECs would rise from now on instead of falling rapidly to zero would be if the Renewable Energy Target were extended past 2020 and materially increased.   Even with Labor's 50% target by 2030, that would only happen if the flood of renewable investment were to slow, which as I have argued here is very unlikely.