Green/Left surrenders: Eraring, Australia's largest coal-fired powerplant to remain open in order to prevent shortages and blackouts

That wonderful coal! Very hard to replace

The life of Australia's largest coal-fired power station will be extended for at least two years in order to prevent power shortages and blackouts in NSW.

Origin Energy has been in talks with the NSW government about extending the life of the Eraring power station after a review warned the scheduled August 2025 retirement could result in electricity shortfalls and price hikes, leaving a 25 per cent gap in NSW's power requirements.

In a statement on Thursday, the state government described the agreement as 'temporary and targeted' in order to guarantee a minimum supply of electricity until the new expected closure date.

'A temporary extension of Eraring will provide time to deliver the renewable energy, storage and network infrastructure projects required to replace the power station,' it said.

The NSW government and Origin have agreed to an underwriting arrangement under which the state will not make any up-front payments to the energy company to operate Eraring.

Instead, Origin will need to decide by March 31 in 2025 and 2026 whether it wishes to opt in to the underwriting arrangement for the following financial year and share up to $40million per year of any profits it earns from the facility.

If the power station operates at a loss, Origin will be able to claim no more than 80 per cent of the sum from the state government.

Those claims will be capped at $225million each year, if the company does opt in.

Environmental groups and progressive think-tanks have long railed against Eraring receiving any lifeline.

'To keep Eraring open beyond its closure date will make the national job of decarbonising our energy grid all that much harder,' Australian Conservation Foundation climate policy adviser Annika Reynolds said.

Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen in March said delaying Eraring's retirement would not imperil Australia's 2030 emissions reduction target.

Eraring was privatised under the former coalition government in a 2013 deal that resulted in Origin being paid $75 million to take over the ageing asset.

NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe emphasised today's decision was a 'temporary and targeted agreement' to ensure reliability, however she said the state was still prioritising a transition to green energy.

'NSW is stepping up the transition to cheap, clean, reliable renewable energy. But to keep the lights on and prices down, we need to make sure new renewable infrastructure and storage capacity is online before coal-fired generators reach the end of their life,' she said.

'This temporary and targeted agreement will provide financial support only if it's needed, and only for as long as needed, during an orderly exit of coal-fired power.

'This is a proactive and sensible step to ensure a plan is in place, if needed, to avoid electricity outages and rising power prices.'

The government has stressed Thursday's announcement would protect NSW taxpayers.

'This agreement gets the balance right. It means the clean energy transition can continue without exposing families and businesses to extreme bill shocks during a severe cost-of-living crisis,' said NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey.

'Taxpayers are well-protected. We won't be handing over a $3 billion cheque to Origin as some said we would. Instead, this agreement incentivises Origin to only use the underwrite if there is a sudden change in market conditions.

'Had Eraring remained in public ownership, an agreement like this would not have been necessary.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13449639/Eraring-Australias-largest-coal-fired-powerplant-remain-open-order-prevent-shortages-blackouts.html

****************************************************

Age restrictions on social media are bound to fail

The rush by political leaders to rescue teenage Australians from the evils of social media is a simplistic solution to a problem too complicated to be resolved by good intentions.

While it goes without saying that not all social media is evil, there are sites best left to adults: Research from the eSafety commissioner found 75 per cent of Australian children aged 16 to 18 had viewed porn online. Nearly 40 per cent had first accessed it before they were 13 years old, and just under 10 per cent saw it before they were 10.

So governments across Australia are gearing up to explore banning social media for some young people to protect them from harmful content and the negative impacts of excessive time online. As a start, both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton are on the same page on the issue, after the eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, recommended an age verification trial 14 months ago.

Albanese said at the weekend every Australian parent was concerned about the impact of social media. “I think it’s the number-one topic on the sidelines of football, netball and school sports that’ll be conducted on any weekend in any part of Australia,” he said.

Albanese has announced a $6.5 million age assurance trial aimed at preventing children from accessing pornography and harmful content as part of its broader response to gendered violence. It will assess the effectiveness of the technologies designed to verify the ages of social media users.

Further, NSW, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia are united in a push for age minimums on tech platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. In fact, NSW Premier Chris Minns plans a social media summit later this year to discuss protecting children from online harm while SA Premier Peter Malinauskas had engaged former High Court chief justice Robert French to explore how his state could ban children under 14 from making social media accounts. The proposal would force 14- and 15-year-olds to gain parental consent.

But going down that road is a fraught undertaking. Not only do the proposals raise questions about privacy, but many will be concerned at what sort of penalty is appropriate and enforceable for a teenager or provider breaking such rules? Besides, surrendering personal information and documents is also open to such abuses as identity theft.

And as Elon Musk’s recent High Court victory over Canberra’s demand to remove offensive material from X following last month’s stabbing at Christ The Good Shepherd Church shows, social media owners do not take direction from foreign governments easily.

As it stands in Australia, platforms already require users to be 13 to create an account, but sign-up systems can often be circumvented. Some overseas jurisdictions, including the EU and some US states, have attempted age verification reforms to control access to some websites; the UK is currently trialling a scheme that only applies to adult sites, not social media. It requires sites to check with banks, mobile providers or credit card companies or requires users to provide ID or upload a photo for facial age estimation.

The pile-on in Australia over protecting under-16s from some social media has exposed the yawning gulf between politicians wanting to ban access to social media and explaining how their proposals will work. There is definitely a national discussion to be had on the impact of social media, but using the age of 16 as a blunt weapon is both blundering and simplistic and sets up reforms for a fail.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/age-restrictions-on-social-media-are-bound-to-fail-20240522-p5jfn3.html

*****************************************************

Australia’s SUV obsession could wipe out emissions gains from EV sales and efficiency standards

Australia’s love for SUVs and utes could wipe out the emissions reductions from fuel efficiency standards and the uptake of electric vehicles, a new government report has warned.

On Wednesday the infrastructure department released a roadmap on achieving net zero emissions in the transport sector, warning that without further action it “is projected to be Australia’s highest emitting sector by 2030”.

The roadmap asks for feedback on a range of possible solutions that are not yet government policy, such as targets or incentives for “active” transport options – such as cycling or walking – and public transport and greater support for e-bikes and scooters.

It described the fact “Australians increasingly prefer heavy passenger vehicles like SUVs [sports utility vehicles] and utes” as a “potential challenge to decarbonising light vehicles”. The report noted that “sales of bigger and heavier cars such as SUVs are the fastest growing vehicle segment”.

SUVs accounted for more than 50% of new vehicles sold in Australia in 2022, a share that has almost doubled over the past decade “despite higher registration fees for heavier vehicles”, the roadmap said.

“These trends have the potential to offset any reduction in emissions we may see from fuel efficiency improvements and the increased adoption of electric vehicles.

“These vehicles consume more energy and fuel per kilometre than smaller vehicles, resulting in higher emissions and effectively cancelling out the savings made by higher EV sales.”

The roadmap said the new vehicle efficiency standard – which passed the Senate earlier in May – “will encourage manufacturers to supply the next generation of electric SUVs and utes for the Australian market”.

In March the Albanese government watered down the laws aimed at disincentivising the use of high-polluting cars and hastening the importation of cleaner vehicles amid pressure from the auto industry.

Under the changes, a raft of Australia’s most popular SUVs – including the Toyota LandCruiser, Ford Everest, Isuzu MU-X, Nissan Patrol and Mitsubishi Pajero Sport – were reclassified from passenger vehicles to the light commercial category.

The government’s preferred model, unveiled in February, was expected to cut 369m tonnes of CO2 by 2050, while the watered-down standard will cut 321m tonnes by 2050.

The roadmap said that in 2023 transport emissions increased by 8.7%, due to increased travel after Covid-19 travel restrictions were lifted. Since 2005, transport emissions have increased by 19%.

Transport accounts for 21% of Australia’s emissions, of which the biggest share is road transport (83%). Emissions from light vehicles are the single biggest source of emissions in the sector at about 60% of Australia’s transport emissions.

The roadmap confirms the government is “working with states and territories on long‑term options for zero emission vehicle road user charging” but contains no timeframe for the reform, which is considered to be on the back burner.

In a statement the transport minister, Catherine King, and the energy minister, Chris Bowen, said the roadmap was “intended to identify tangible and achievable changes that can help navigate the path to a cleaner future in a way that is economically responsible, creates jobs and eases cost of living”. Consultation closes on 26 July.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/23/australia-ev-electric-vehicle-sales-emissions-suvs-net-zero

****************************************************

More Than 3,600 Children ‘Targeted’ With COVID-19 Fines in NSW

Legal advocacy groups are calling for reform of the New South Wales (NSW) fines system after 3,628 children received COVID-19 fines during the pandemic in the Australian state.

A 2024 report looking into children and COVID-19 fines in NSW found that the “penalty notice regime” implemented in NSW was “unsuitable” for achieving public health outcomes for children.

However, NSW Police have defended their response amid the rapidly evolving public health orders at the time, which required compliance and enforcement to limit movement regardless of people’s age.

The report, authored by academics at the University of NSW, University of Wollongong, and University of Technology Sydney, noted more than half of the fines issued to children were fixed at $1,000 (US$665).

The Redfern Legal Centre, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, and Aboriginal Legal Service commissioned the research, which considered statistical data and interview responses from lawyers and youth workers.

Meanwhile, some of the fines were as high as $5,000, despite the authors noting the maximum fine a child can get when found guilty of an offence in the NSW Children’s Court is $1,100.

“Children were liable to the same penalty notice fine as adults for almost all PHO offences, with the exception of two general age-based offences that concerned the failure to wear a face covering,” the report said.

The report noted the public health orders were changed and repealed frantically during the pandemic, with 266 public health orders put out between March 15, 2020, and Jan. 31, 2022.

In addition, a new public health order was brought in or modified every one and a half days during the Delta wave of COVID-19.

“The frequent changes made it especially hard for children to understand the rules, and contributed to errors in police decisions that a person had breached a PHO,” the report said.

One interviewee who spoke to the report authors said there were kids working off COVID fines who “probably shouldn’t have been issued with one in the first place.”

Analysis by the authors found that children in socioeconomically disadvantaged suburbs were “over policed” during the pandemic.

Authors said more than half of the top 30 suburbs where children received the largest number of penalty notices between March 2020 and June 2022 were in the bottom 25 percent of the social economic index.

Discussing the findings, Redfern Legal Centre chief executive officer Camilla Pandolfini said children cannot pay heavy fines and the deterrent effect is low.

“Fines are oppressive, discriminatory, and ineffective when used against children. We call for changes to policy, practice, and procedure to ensure that fines do not compound existing disadvantage and criminalise children,” she said.

Police Note Serious Nature of COVID-19 Led to Rapid Orders

A spokesperson for NSW Police explained public health order compliance was required for the safety of the community. Police could respond to breaches of the orders no matter what the age.

“The virulent nature and serious illness from the Delta variant of COVID-19 resulted in rapidly evolving Public Health Orders, including Local Government Areas of Concern being nominated by NSW Health,” the spokesperson told The Epoch Times.

“A compliance and enforcement response was required to limit movement and ensure compliance with Public Health Orders in these areas to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and protect the community.

“Outside of these identified areas of concern, police still had the ability to respond to breaches of relevant Public Health Orders by issuing infringement notices—regardless of the age of the person involved.”

Meanwhile, report author Julia Quilter called for police to “stop issuing fines to kids” and engage in diversionary and creative problem-solving policing.

“Policing kids by issuing heavy fines during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted, in extreme form, the problems with our fines system more generally. Kids have no or little capacity to pay fines and saddling them with crippling debts only sets them up for future failure,” she said.

“This is especially troubling given that fines are disproportionately issued by police to vulnerable kids already experiencing socio-economic and other forms of disadvantage.”

The CEO of Aboriginal Legal Service Karly Warner called for a reform of the “archaic” and “unjust” fines system.

“Aboriginal communities set the gold standard for caring for one another during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet our children paid a higher price because of the government’s punitive approach to enforcing public health orders,” she stated.

Public Interest Advocacy Centre CEO Jonathon Hunyor added, “Creating massive debts for children and families simply amplifies disadvantage and builds distrust in the system.”
Police Faced Challenges During the COVID-19 Response: Inquiry

Meanwhile, the Police Federation of Australia (PFA), which represents 65,000 police officers, including more than 17,000 in NSW, have raised a number of issues in response to the federal government’s COVID-19 Response Inquiry.

In its submission (pdf), PFA noted access to appropriate personal protective equipment for a police “became an issue of concern” during COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns.
“Whilst it is accepted that in normal circumstances it would be the responsibility of the employer, in our case, the respective police forces, to provide such equipment, no provision appears to have been made for a national response to such a crisis,” the association noted.

In addition, the submission noted the pandemic impacted police resources and community attitudes towards police in a range of high profile incidents.

Meanwhile, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) noted extra law enforcement duties during COVID-19 took its toll on frontline police (pdf).

“The burden of the extra workload over the COVID-19 period was felt by the AFP, in particular the frontline officers, who were required to enforce mandated COVID-19 restrictions,” the AFP said.

“On an individual level, policing during the pandemic increased the risk of members contracting the COVID-19 virus through interactions with the public, as well as spreading the virus to family and friends.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/more-than-3600-children-targeted-with-covid-19-fines-in-australian-state-5653944

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************