Fish species such as the much-loved blue groper will be at risk if the O'Farrell government permanently allows recreational fishing in sensitive marine areas, a former government scientist has warned.
At risk: The blue groper could be targeted by fishers. Photo: Sarah Speight
On Monday cabinet is due to consider making permanent an amnesty on recreational line fishing from beaches and headlands in so-called ''sanctuary zones'' - marine areas that purportedly provide the highest level of protection for wildlife.
It is understood that cabinet is likely to allow line fishing in some of these zones. Under one option being considered, this would occur in about half the state's sanctuary zones, which are designated in marine parks around Batemans Bay, Cape Byron, Jervis Bay, Lord Howe Island, Port Stephens and Solitary Islands. It would mean reinstating a ban on fishing in the remaining sanctuary zones.
A former scientist at the now-defunct Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre, Kevin Rowling, said the move could devastate stocks of some fish species including the blue groper, red rock cod and eastern blue devil fish. ''Recreational fishing can have a major impact,'' he said.
''There are millions of [fishermen] and it all adds up.
''A lot of the fish that live [around rocky headlands] … are slow growing and there are many species we don't know the biology of.''
The state's most recent update on fish species status was conducted in 2008-09 and he questioned how fishing could be allowed when stock levels were unknown.
''They could be overfished … or they could be wiped out in particular areas,'' he said.
The designation of sanctuary zones has been highly politicised. The Coalition accused the former Labor government of establishing new protection zones in the Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands marine parks before the last election to attract Greens' preferences.
But the Opposition and the NSW Greens said the government had bowed to the Shooters and Fishers Party by opening sanctuary zones to fishing in March last year.
Save our Marine Life Alliance spokeswoman Cate Faehrmann said sanctuary zones around popular Wategos Beach and the Pass, near Byron Bay, were likely to be permanently opened to line fishing despite the presence of a dolphin nursery.
''Recreational fishers already have 93 per cent of the state's waters in which they can fish … no other government in the world has wound back sanctuary zones in this way,'' Ms Faehrmann said.
President of the NSW Amateur Fishing Clubs Association, Sydney branch, Carlo Dicello said the impact of recreational line fishing was ''minimal''.
''The ocean looks like a big place, but unfortunately the good fishing spots are very small and confined. The [sanctuary zones] are our prime spots,'' he said.
A spokesman for Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson said the Marine Estate Expert Knowledge Panel carried out a risk assessment during the amnesty which ''thoroughly considered ecological, social and economic values''.
A department spokeswoman said fish assessment was carried out each year.
A PORT-based fishing charter business operator says she expects industry consultation on plans for an artificial reef off Port Macquarie.
Carolyn Wagstaff, who owns and operates Deep End Fishing Charters, based at the Port Macquarie Marina, says the reef plan sounds good.
"I read the article in the Port News and we are expecting to be contacted by the Department of Primary Industries," she said.
"It is early days, but I'd expect the department would want some feedback from us. There would also be a detailed environmental assessment required along with discussions with commercial and rec fishers.
"We ... hope that the department would be talking to us. But I think it will be wonderful. Anyone who fishes in Port Macquarie would be pleased with this news.
"Not that we are lacking in fish numbers but you want to be sustaining your stock levels."
Mrs Wagstaff also called for a restriction zone to be included in the plan.
"I wouldn't be surprised to have that zone around the site. This would enable more fish to breed," she said. "We pay fishing licences and, being a rec fishing charter, we are allowed to take locals and tourists out fishing and they don't need to purchase a separate fishing licence.
"It is good to see our money being spent well. I'd definitely give it the thumbs up."
Another supporter of the project is Ned Kelly's Bait 'n' Tackle owner Jason Isaac.
He described the plan as a fantastic idea and a brilliant concept.
"This is a terrific scheme they have going," he said. "What they look at doing is creating something out of nothing. Off Port Macquarie, we have large tracts of sand which are baron as far as rec fishing is concerned.
"But we need to give this time to implement and time for growth."
Mr Isaac said once the structure was in place, weed growth would be visible within a month with six to 12 months required to attract enough growth to attract bait fish.
"This would then attract predatory fish," he said. "And the longer the better. This is a tremendous attraction for off-shore fishos.
"Once established, the vast majority of off-shore fishos would visit this area. Visiting anglers will certainly fish the area ... I think it would be an extremely well-patronised area."
Mr Isaac also said the project was fishing licence money being put to good use.
The state government on Thursday announced the $900,000 investment to create the artificial reef.
The reef will be the third of its kind in New South Wales and is expected to further cement the Hastings' reputation as a tourism mecca.
Global warming is increasing the risk of heatwaves. This isn’t a hypothetical abstraction that our grandchildren may experience in the distant future. Heatwaves are currently getting hotter, they’re lasting longer and they’re happening more often. This is happening right now.
Tony Abbott has pledged to help drought-stricken farmers while dismissing the link to climate change. Photo: AAP
Of course, heatwaves have happened in the past, including before humans started altering the climate. But it’s faulty logic to suggest that this means they’re not increasing now, or that it’s not our fault.
Sadly, this logical fallacy pervades the debate over heatwaves, not to mention other extreme events such as droughts, bushfires, floods and storms and even climate change itself. What’s more, we’re hearing it with worrying regularity from our political leaders.
Heatwaves on the rise
First, the science. As the Climate Council has reported, hot days have doubled in Australia over the past half-century. During the decade from 2000 to 2009, heatwaves reached levels not expected until the 2030s. The anticipated impacts from climate change are arriving more than two decades ahead of schedule.
The increase in heatwaves in Australia is part of a larger global trend. Globally, heatwaves are happening five times more often than in the absence of human-caused global warming. This means that there is an 80% chance that any monthly heat record is due to global warming.
As the figure below indicates, the risk from heatwaves is expected to increase in the near future. Assuming our greenhouse gas emissions peak around 2040, heat records will be about 12 times more likely to occur three decades from now.
Increase in the number of heat records compared to those expected in a world without global warming. Image: Coumou, Robinson, and Rahmstorf
This is the point at which some people’s logic tends to go off the rails, distorting the science and insidiously distracting us from the risks. The reasoning is that as heatwaves have happened throughout Australia’s history, it follows that current heatwaves must also be entirely natural. This is a myth.
This is the classic logical fallacy of non sequitur – Latin for “it does not follow”. It’s equivalent to arguing that as humans died of cancer long before cigarettes were invented, it therefore follows that smoking does not cause cancer.
"Australia has had fires and floods since the beginning of time. We’ve had much bigger floods and fires than the ones we’ve recently experienced. You can hardly say they were the result of anthropic global warming."
Like a magician’s misdirection, this false argument distracts from the fact that the risk is increasing. Fire danger has been rising across many Australian locations since the 1970s. Fire danger days are happening not just in summer but also in spring and autumn.
“I looked up what Wikipedia says for example, just to see what the rest of the world thought, and it opens up with the fact that bushfires in Australia are frequently occurring events during the hotter months of the year. Large areas of land are ravaged every year by bushfires. That’s the Australian experience.”
“If you look at the records of Australian agriculture going back 150 years, there have always been good times and bad times. There have always been tough times and lush times and farmers ought to be able to deal with the sorts of things that are expected every few years.”
This argument overlooks the relationship between climate change and drought. Global warming intensifies the water cycle, making wet areas get wetter while drying other regions such as Australia’s south and east. Drier conditions, along with increased heatwaves, also drive the increase in bushfire danger.
Abbott doesn’t restrict his fallacies to extreme weather. Several years ago, he also presented the non sequitur to a classroom of schoolchildren, arguing that past climate change casts doubt on whether humans are now causing global warming:
“OK, so the climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. And then during what they called the Dark Ages it was colder. Then there was the medieval warm period. Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays.”
It is greatly concerning that Australian policy is being dictated by science-distorting false logic. The science is sending us a clear message: human-caused global warming is increasing the risk of heatwaves as well as other extreme weather events such as floods, drought and bushfires. We need to look this problem square in the face, rather than have our attention misdirected.
John Cook created and maintains the Skeptical Science website
Feral pigs, wild dogs and cars are just a few of the threats facing the turtles that nest along the Queensland coast.
The Queensland and Federal Governments are launching a joint $7 million dollar campaign, they say will protect these vulnerable creatures and continue the so-called 'the war on pests'.
Reef Turtle. Photo ABC
Indigenous rangers are welcoming the investment, saying there needs to be a focus on employment.
Traditional owner Jim Gaston has watched out for turtles for decades.
"They've been around for as long as we have, maybe longer, so we've got to look after them for the next generation."
In his years patrolling beaches, he's seen, first hand, the type of destruction that pests do to turtles' nests.
"They eat the eggs and destroy the nests," he says.
One north Queensland conversation group says the joint campaign is merely a 'minuscule gesture' when 'major action' is needed to protect marine wildlife and the reef.
Co-ordinator Wendy Tubeman says 7 million dollars won't go far.
"It's the case of putting a band-aid on your finger, and ignoring the cancer."
Wildlife authorities are ramping up efforts to prevent a fatal crocodile attack amid a population spike in waters around Broome.
Crocodile trap in waters near Broome. A permanent crocodile trap has been installed in Dampier Creek amid an increase in crocodile numbers. Photo: ABC News, Erin Parke
The Department of Parks and Wildlife's Dave Woods says for the first time, a $4,000 trap will be permanently installed at a popular fishing spot to help rangers deal with the increasing number of crocodiles in local waterways.
The five-metre aluminium contraption has a trapdoor system on it which is attached to a bait.
Night patrols are planned, and computer technology will be used to map where and when the animals come close to shore.
The program is part of a push to raise awareness of the risks of crocodiles, and Western Australia is looking to the Northern Territory for pointers.
"The Northern Territory have been the leaders in crocodile management for some time, and rather than reinventing the wheel, we're pretty much drawing on what they've learnt," Mr Woods said.
"We're following a standard operating procedure that the Northern Territory Department of Parks and Wildlife is using."
He said the department was going through a process of increasing skills and undertaking extra training.
Rising sea levels are typically written about as a “threat to future generations” – something to worry about by 2050 or 2100, not now. But if you want to see why even relatively small increases in sea levels matter, come to Darwin.
Riding underwater on Darwin’s most popular bike path, on 1 February 2014. Photo: Andrew Campbell
The Arafura and Timor Seas off northern Australia are a global hotspot for warming oceans and rising sea levels. Image: CSIRO
Australia’s top end is a global hotspot for rising sea levels. In Darwin and the World Heritage-listed floodplains of Kakadu National Park, we’re seeing how the combination of gradual sea level rise and “normal” weather events - such as storms and king tides - can have surprisingly big impacts.
Small changes adding up to big damage
Storms and heavy rain are not unusual in the Darwin wet season. But recent weather has been spectacular, as monsoonal onshore winds coincided with king tides to batter the shoreline. Crowds gathered to see waves crashing over cliffs and jetties that usually overlook calm seas. Tragically, two people got into trouble in these rough seas, losing their lives, and a young boy drowned in a flooded stormwater drain.
Sea levels around Darwin, which abuts the warm, shallow Arafura Sea, have risen by about 17 centimetres over the past 20 years. As the CSIRO noted in its last State of the Climate report, the rates of sea-level rise to the north and northwest of Australia have been 7 to 11 millimetres per year, which is two to three times the global average. Along the eastern and southern coasts of Australia, rates of sea-level rise are around the global average.
Sea-level rise rates around Australia, as measured by coastal tide gauges (circles) and satellite observations (contours) from January 1993 to December 2011. Source: CSIRO State of the Climate 2012
Seventeen centimetres may not seem much, especially with a 7 to 8 metre daily tidal range. However, raising the underlying base makes a big difference, not just to the ultimate penetration of big tides and storm surges, but also in the everyday hydrodynamic fluxes on beaches, estuaries and floodplains.
The impact of recent Darwin weather on infrastructure — both built and natural — has profound implications for coastal planning, design, management and regulation. The recent confluence of 8-metre king tides with strong onshore winds after weeks of wet monsoonal weather was unusual, but well short of being even a Category 1 cyclone.
By Darwin standards, there has been nothing exceptional about this wet season’s wind or tides. There was heavier than average rain last month - but even that has been a long way short of the records, or even a 1-in-10 year event.
The chunk of bitumen with the white line used to be the bike path. Photo: Andrew Campbell
Yet the damage we are seeing in Darwin has been considerable. Near where we live, a significant stretch of the city’s most popular bike path (right) was washed away. Further north, a large casuarina tree, which 10 years ago stood atop the landward side of two dunes, toppled into the surf. A blowhole emerged where waves had undercut the cliffs.
And as global maps in a recent article in the journal Nature showed, Darwin is just one of many cities - including heavily populated centres such as New York City, Kolkata and Shanghai - at growing risk of coastal flooding, in part due to accelerating sea-level rise.
How can we manage change better?
In Darwin, like other low-lying coastal settlements, we essentially have three options: start managing our retreat from the sea; try to engineer coastal defences; or get used to much more volatile and risky life on the edge, and modify our systems, policies and behaviour accordingly.
Of course, we could simply do nothing. But we contend that is the least credible and potentially most expensive option in the long run.
The other three options of managed retreat, investment in coastal defences, and accepting greater risk are not mutually exclusive. They can be blended within a well-conceived long-term strategy.
Managed retreat is the most confronting option, which some communities are already facing. Some low-lying coastal areas simply cannot be defended cost-effectively, and even the best adaptation strategies may be inadequate.
But there are also significant opportunities to reconfigure coastal settlement in ways that minimise social disruption.
In places with valuable assets, such as parts of some cities or Kakadu, we can improve coastal defences, natural and/or engineered.
On the Tommycut Creek: this used to be a freshwater melaleuca forest, like those seen in the film Ten Canoes, but saltwater intrusion has turned it into a hypersaline swamp. Photo: Eric Valentine
After our recent storms, Darwin’s coasts were more intact in sections where mangroves, trees and shrubs protected the soil. While the shoreline did retreat, damage was less than in cleared sections. We need to be replanting the dunes we want to keep, and retaining or restoring mangroves in estuarine and low-lying areas.
The North Australian Biodiversity Hub is working with Kakadu Traditional Owners to look at options for managing the impacts of weeds and sea level rise on the floodplains that are so important for food for local people, and more broadly for Top End fishing and tourism experiences.
A casuarina tree that used to be on the landward side of two dunes, now toppled on the beach. Photo: Andrew Campbell
In Darwin, hard protection of foreshore made some difference. But even rock-walled sections were disassembled in places, with the rocks dragged back into the sea or thrown, with astonishing force, onto the tops of cliffs.
If expensive hard protection is going to be used, it needs to be done at a scale that is engineered to last for decades and withstand extreme weather events, taking into account projected future sea levels.
Darwin residents protest against a proposed residential island between Nightcliff and East Point. Photo: Andrew Campbell
The latest climate science suggests that northern Australia may have less frequent cyclones in future, but a higher proportion of extremely intense (Category 5 or worse) tropical cyclones.
Thirdly, the construction of new residential or tourism infrastructure in exposed zones of the coastal environment is inherently risky. At the very least, coastal planning must take into account the amplified risks from continuing sea-level rise.
Prepare now, or pay later
What we are seeing now in Darwin is a taste of things to come in many coastal areas of the world if we don’t take preventative and adaptive measures.
This has major implications for residents, investors, insurers, planners and policymakers. It also promises to create fertile grounds for litigation in the future, if people approving developments are not seen to be basing their decisions on the best available information.
Recent events in Darwin underline that sea level, especially in the monsoonal north, is rising fast, and old assumptions should no longer hold.
So we need to think long-term about which bits of coastal infrastructure we want to try to keep, and for how long, while steadily moving essential services to more secure places.
And we should remember that recent storms have been mild compared to the cyclone that will likely whack Darwin again sooner or later.
The Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods undertakes research and monitoring in Darwin Harbour and other coastal areas in northern Australia and south-east Asia, funded by a wide range of NT and Commonwealth agencies and industry, including the Bushfires and Natural Hazards CRC.
Stephen Garnett receives funding from the Australian Research Council for research on Indigenous land and sea management and has received funding from the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility on climate change adaptation for birds.
The source of a bright orange plume in Botany Bay is still a mystery after early tests by the NSW Environmental Protection Authority.
The orange shore at Botany Bay. Photo: Roger Pearce
People walking on Foreshore Beach in south Sydney noticed about a square kilometre of ocean coloured bright orange on Monday afternoon.
Foreshore Beach at Botany Bay. Photo: NSW EPA
"I saw this orange and thought it must be that rain we had," Roger Pearce said.
Shells stained orange at Foreshore Beach. Photo: Roger Pearce
"But I'm looking at the shells on the beach and they're bleached orange."
Walking back along the shore, Mr Pearce said security guards told him that he had to get off the sand. But he returned on Tuesday afternoon and found the water still stained the unusual colour.
Sydney Ports has closed the beach to swimming and fishing as a precaution.
The Authority has tested the plume and the preliminary results show that while it is high in iron, it is not toxic.
It does not yet know where the plume comes from, but it might be from natural causes.
An "insignificant" amount of algae is associated with the orange plume, but is not the cause of the colour, the Authority said.
A MELBOURNE-based PhD student is assessing the conservation risk for freshwater fish in the Kimberley in the belief many are in danger of extinction but are not listed as threatened.
This Prince Regent Hardyhead (Craeterocephalus lentiginosus) is also endemic to the Kimberley region. Photo: M. Le Feuvre/J. Shelley
University of Melbourne PhD student Matthew Le Feuvre says 50 of Australia’s 250-odd freshwater fish species live in the Kimberley and about 18 are only found in the region.
He says about 20 per cent of the country’s freshwater fish are listed as threatened by the Commonwealth Government but none of those are from the Kimberley.
Mr Le Feuvre has spent six months in the Kimberley studying freshwater fish in the last year and a half, focusing on the northern and eastern parts of the region and predominantly between the Ord and Prince Regent rivers.
The project has mainly surveyed rivers with road access but the research team has also used a helicopter to fly into more remote areas.
Some of the rivers have only been surveyed once, in the 1970s.
Mr Le Feuvre says “very, very little” is known about freshwater fish species endemic to the Kimberley.
He points to the Mitchell gudgeon, a fish found only within 10km of river either side of the Mitchell Falls, as an example of a species at risk.
“If there was development in that region or rainfall levels changed with climate change and those sorts of processes it might mean that species could get wiped out very easily,” Mr Le Feuvre says.
“Then there are other species that are found in single river systems such as the long-nose sooty grunter, which appears to be an entirely piscivorous fish, so it just eats other fish.”
Mr Le Feuvre says the Kimberley is an incredibly biodiverse part of Australia and we have a “unique opportunity” to study it before any major development happens.
As well as collecting data about the distribution and abundance of freshwater species, Mr Le Feuvre is studying the fishes’ diet, life history traits such as growth rate, age of reproduction and longevity and their ability to respond to climate change.
He is using a “triple jeopardy” hypothesis to determine the risk of extinction.
This means a species is considered to be at the greatest risk if it is range-restricted, is not very abundant where it is found and has specialised dietary, habitat, physiology or reproductive requirements.
“With those three factors against them they may be at incredibly high risk of extinction,” Mr Le Feuvre says.
“It makes intuitive sense but very few people have managed to actually empirically test that.”
COMMUNITY groups and schools are being encouraged to host an event for the inaugural Connect to Your Creek Week.
Community groups and schools are being encouraged to host an event focused on their local creek.
Healthy Waterways chief executive Julie McLellan said the aim of the campaign, from May 17-25, was to improve waterway health by increasing community stewardship of local waterways so people valued and cared for their local creek.
"Throughout the week, there will be a variety of events across South East Queensland to celebrate the diversity and beauty of our waterways," she said.
"We encourage all community groups and schools to join us by hosting an event focused on their local creek."
Examples of events that groups might host include tree plantings, kayaking tours, litter cleanups, guided walks, documentary screenings and workshops.
People have until February 24 to register their interest in hosting an event by completing the online form at http://www.healthywaterways.org.
Environment Minister Andrew Powell said the Queensland Government was proud to partner with Healthy Waterways on the exciting new initiative.
"One of the many reasons people love living in Queensland is our beautiful environment and our outdoor lifestyle," he said.
"In south-east Queensland our waterways play a major role in the way we enjoy ourselves outdoors. Whether it's visiting a cafe near the Brisbane River or taking a family camping trip near a favourite creek or waterhole.
"I look forward to celebrating our connections to our favourite waterways and attending some of the Connect to your Creek Week events."
Australia’s Renewable Energy Target looks likely to be weakened or even axed, with the Prime Minister saying the scheme needs to be reviewed because it is causing “pretty significant price pressure”.
Cooling towers at Yallourn, one of Victoria’s major brown coal power generators. Photo: Flickr/ccdoh1
But does $15 a year sound like a “pretty significant” cost to you?
According to the last national review of the Renewable Energy Target, $15 a year from now to 2031 is all that an average Australian household would save if we scrapped our national scheme to drive extra investment in renewable power.
That review - by the independent Climate Change Authority, with economic modelling by global consultants Sinclair Knight Merz - was completed just over a year ago, in December 2012.
So just what is the Renewable Energy Target? And what does it really cost an average Australian household - not just now, but in the future - according to the reviews and reports done on it before?
What are we aiming for?
The Renewable Energy Target (RET) is designed to encourage additional investment in renewable energy generation. It does this by requiring wholesale electricity consumers (mainly big power retailers) to purchase a certain percentage of renewable energy, which increases each year. This incurs a cost to retailers - companies like AGL and Origin - which is passed on to consumers through electricity bills.
The current scheme is a more ambitious version of the scheme first set up by the Howard government in 2001. In 2009, the target was increased five-fold (under the Rudd government, with Coalition support) to mandate that 45,000 gigawatt hours of Australia’s electricity generation must come from renewable resources by 2020. At the time the RET was legislated, this was projected to be the equivalent of 20% of total energy supplied in 2020.
It wasn’t controversial at the time; in fact, then opposition MP Greg Hunt wrote an article that year, questioning why it was taking so long to introduce.
What does the renewable target cost you?
Currently, around 3-4% of your bill can be attributed to the Renewable Energy Target. For a typical residential consumer, that works out to be about $50-$70 per year, out of an average bill of about $1800-$2200. So in that sense, the Prime Minister is right about there being some additional cost.
But let’s put that in perspective. As the graph below shows, the main reason for “pretty significant price pressure” on retail power prices is increasing network costs. According to the Australian Energy Market Commission, these have and will continue to dominate electricity price increases.
You have to look hard to even see the costs associated with renewable energy.
Components of residential electricity tariffs. The Renewable Energy Target scheme costs are shown in yellow (SRES: Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme) and red (LRET: Large-scale Renewable Energy Target). Data from the Australian Energy Market Commision
Increased competition, lower costs
When you consider the way renewables interact with the wholesale electricity market, the overall cost is even less.
Adding more renewable energy into the mix of our electricity supplies actually has the effect of lowering wholesale electricity prices. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but it is simply the laws of supply and demand at work.
If you increase supply and competition in a market, prices can be expected to fall. In the case of renewables, it is exacerbated by the low marginal cost of generation, and is known as the “merit order effect”.
The merit order effect is often overlooked in discussions of renewable energy costs. If lower wholesale prices were passed through to consumers, the overall cost of the Renewable Energy Target scheme would be even lower.
In fact, some energy users may be effectively overcompensated, and benefiting from this effect. Trade exposed industries (such as aluminium smelting) are exempt from paying 90% of the Renewable Energy Target costs, but may benefit from lower wholesale prices.
Why not tinker with the target?
In the few years since the Renewable Energy Target was set, demand for electricity has dropped, meaning the amount of power we’re likely to consume in 2020 has been revised significantly downwards. Under current arrangements, that means that the RET scheme would end up providing more than 20% of total power demand in 2020 - probably more like 26%.
One option being pushed by Origin Energy is for a “25% by 2025” target. That might sound like an increase - but actually that would mean less renewable energy in 2025 than Australia is currently on track to build by 2020.
On the weekend, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann was asked if the government planned to scrap or weaken the RET on Sky News. Senator Cormann said the government was looking for “sensible adjustments” to bring down power prices, since that would boost our international competitiveness while “helping families with cost of living pressures”.
So let’s say Australia adjusted its current target to make sure we don’t build any more than 20% renewable energy by 2020. How much would it help families with cost of living pressures?
The previous review for the federal government looked at just that option. And including the impacts on the wholesale market, the saving for an average Australian consumer was estimated to be between $0 and $10 per year.
Going further, and scrapping the Renewable Energy Target entirely, would save just $15 per year.
With such a relatively small impact on retail prices, why all the fuss about needing to change the target?
The existing fossil fuel electricity generators have been hit hard by the impact renewables has had on the market: not only are they being displaced by renewables and selling less energy, they are receiving a lower wholesale price.
In the past, the demands of the existing power industry to protect their own interests have easily won out against the emerging renewable industry. For instance, a 2011 Victorian Auditor-General’s Report noted that a state renewable energy scheme was weakened:
primarily to alleviate the concerns of brown coal generators that the 10 per cent target would deliver too much renewable energy generation too quickly, which would reduce wholesale electricity prices and adversely affect existing generators.
Will that happen all over again, this time at a national level?
