FITZROY, Australia — The tipping point for climate change, after which many of its most destructive effects will become irreversible, strongly suggests that atmospheric CO2 must be reduced from its current level of 390 ppm to "well below 350 ppm‚ significantly closer to pre-industrial concentrations of 285 ppm," according to a recent report by Beyond Zero Emissions, an Australian nonprofit organization.
To achieve such reductions, however, it will be necessary for the US to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero within ten years. Because "Australia has about the same per-capita emissions as the USA," according to the report, it too would have to pursue the same goal.
The report, entitled Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan, "outlines a technically feasible and economically attractive way for Australia to transition to 100 percent renewable energy within ten years." The plan specifies that the 100 percent renewable grid be "based on proven technologies that are already commercially available and that have already been demonstrated in large industries."
In addition to assuming a significant reduction in energy consumption by means of implementing efficiency measures, the plan asserts that 98 percent of Australia's energy needs can be met by wind generation and large-scale Concentrating Solar Thermal with molten salt storage. According to the plan, wind turbines will meet 40 percent of demand, and solar will provide the remaining 60 percent.
In addition to reducing Australia's GHG emissions to zero, the plan will create up to 80,000 jobs from renewable energy installations, and an additional 45,000 jobs in operations and maintenance. According to the report, the transition to renewable energy will create many more jobs "than are lost with the phasing out of coal and gas from the stationary energy supply chain."
The total cost of implementing the plan would be $370 billion, or three percent of Australia's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The plan is characterized by higher upfront investment, but lower ongoing costs than continuing reliance on the stationary energy sector.
The plan does not specify funding mechanisms; however, a letter [PDF] published last December by the United Nations' Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) addressed "the important role that capital markets, institutional investors and private finance, will play if the global community is to deliver the needed transformation to a low–carbon and resource-efficient global economy."
This article originally appeared on SocialFunds.com, and is reprinted with permission.













Uh, that's 100% renewable
Uh, that's 100% renewable electricity, right? Wind and solar with no baseline power is going to be extremely tricky since they are by their nature intermittent, and there's plenty of CO2 emission (half or more?) from mobile sources and chemical manufacturing that is not addressed by this plan. Silly misleading article--missed the word "stationary" in the title of the report.
Actually, the report clearly
Actually, the report clearly shows how baseload power can be replaced with a mix of baseload solar thermal and wind - with a small biomass and hydro backup. The baseload problem has been solved my friend!
Australia should do it for
Australia should do it for the original people of Australia.
The maintenance jobs are not that complicated. It would help to reduce the problem of low educated Indigenous people without jobs.
China and India will
China and India will overwhelm anything Australia and the US can do with conservation, alternate energy sources, and even reduced standards of living unless MUCH better technology succeeds.
If such projections are accepted for warming, they must be accepted for China and India's economic and population growth--and habitable earth's reciprocal chances-- absent Asia's firm commitment to change, and apparently their acceptance of continued relative poverty. It seems unlikely.
Mostly, it's the timing and population projections that are most terrifying, assuming the ostensible science really is reliable science. Any doubt of reliability in the mind of an old man is just that the world has failed to end so many terrifying times before, after making so many rich.
It's 370 Billion (thousand
It's 370 Billion (thousand million) Australian dollars. "In a 10 year plan the total" guy was off by a factor of 1000. And let's not forget that these trial balloons are usually off by a factor of 2 to 5. "The plan does not specify funding mechanisms"- right, well, if it works anything like it does in the US, the guvmint will print money to write checks ("capital markets") to the developers, which imaginary (fiat) money will then devalue the currency driving up costs for other goods and services.
In a 10 year plan the total
In a 10 year plan the total cost is not going to be completely incurred until the final year. So in other words the $370M won't all be spent in the first year, and like the other guy said, it would be spent over the 10 years. So in that case, 3% is right. But I can see why at first glance it looks like a math error.
I am assuming they mean 3%
I am assuming they mean 3% gdp per year, spread over 10 years.
That is what i assumed when i read it, as its talking about a 10 year plan.
Then why say "total cost" for
Then why say "total cost" for the plan is 3% then? It's not much of a total if it's only counting one year....
I like this plan, don't get me wrong, but let's be careful to represent things correctly otherwise someone may accuse us of having stock in solar panel manufacturers :-P
ZBB a renewable And green
ZBB a renewable And green battery plant in Wisconsin in cooperation with a Australian company/ Wisconsin & Fed grants,is making huge advances in the Green/Renewable Battery advancement-
You have a math error.
You have a math error. Australias GDP is a little over 1 trillion dollars so it would be more like %30 of GDP - a much heftier investment.
The project is to take place
The project is to take place over the next 10 years. approximately 3% of the GDP over that 10 year course.