EcoRadio

Category: Uncategorized

  • RET cuts will slash green investment, destabilise grid, lift prices

    RET cuts will slash green investment, destabilise grid, lift prices

    By on 12 March 2014
    Print Friendly

    A new report has found that the winding back or scrapping of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target would set new-build energy generation back by 10 years, cost billions in lost renewables investments, drive up power prices and destabilise the grid.

    Published by Intelligent Energy Systems Advisory Services (IES), the report also warns that changes to the RET could increase coal-fired generation by as much as 9 per cent, jeopardising Australia’s ability to meet its 5 per cent by 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol.

    The IES study uses electricity market modelling to assess the impact on Australia’s National Electricity Market if the current 41,000 GWh renewable energy target is cut to a “real” 20 per cent (as some incumbent generators want), or scrapped entirely from 2015 (as others want) – two of the more commonly predicted outcomes of the Abbott government’s current RET review.

    “Under a reduced LRET, investments in electricity generation will fall dramatically,” says the report, with around 5,080MW less capacity expected to be built under the zero RET scenario, and 2,940MW less under the 20 per cent LRET scenario. The main victim will be wind generation.

    “Wind project development will reduce by 2,280MW under the 20 per cent LRET scenario, and by 5,100MW under the zero RET scenario, resulting in the loss of investment opportunity of $4.5 billion and over $10 billion respectively.”

    Even with the support of the LRET, the report notes wind developers are struggling to develop economically viable wind projects, with PPA (power purchase agreement) prices of below $90 per MWh offered by gentailers.

    Under a revised or scrapped RET scenario, and with the likely repeal of carbon tax, the picture looks bleak, with worsening project economics and difficulty in obtaining debt finance predicted to cause the stalling or cancellation of more than 2900MW of planned large-scale wind and other renewables projects.

    As you can see in the chart below, under the zero RET scenario, wind and other renewable generation falls by more than 50 per cent compared to the base case.

    Screen Shot 2014-03-12 at 9.32.12 AM

    As for solar, IES says around 223MW of large-scale solar PV or thermal solar developments were modelled in its study. “However, at LCOE of over $150/MWh these projects would not be economically viable without substantial government subsidies in place, even under the base case scenario.”

    Screen Shot 2014-03-12 at 9.32.08 AM

    Coal-fired power plants, meanwhile, would move up in the generation merit order, with black coal and brown coal generation predicted to increase by 9 per cent under the zero RET scenario and by 5.6 per cent under the 20 per cent LRET scenario compared to the base case scenario.

    The boost to coal would be largely due to rising gas prices, the removal of carbon prices and decreased LGC prices, which the IES estimates would be halved under the 20 per cent LRET scenario, falling 55 per cent lower than prices under the base case till 2024 – an effect IES says “will negatively impact the profitability and investment decisions of large-scale renewable projects.”

    Screen Shot 2014-03-12 at 9.32.19 AM

    The report also warns that a relatively low level of generation capacity investments could restrain economic growth and lower the level of services to consumers.

    “Potential under-investment in generation capacity in the NEM can create many challenges to network operators with increased network constraints and higher frequency of blackouts, and to independent retailers, industrials and consumers, inducing wholesale price volatility, difficulties in hedging and risk management, and weaker market competition,” says IES.

    Notably, it says, electricity prices under the zero RET scenario would be higher than prices under the 20% LRET scenario, with the reduction in renewable generation pushing up electricity pool prices.

    “This will at least partially counteract cost savings effected from scrapping the RET,” says the report.

    In conclusion, says the IES, “a halt to the LRET may not clearly outweigh the benefits of a well-set long term large-scale renewable energy target, nor will it result in the lowest electricity prices due to restrained investments in generation capacity.”

    The findings of the IES report will fan the fears of many in the renewable energy industry, who have long argued that the Renewable Energy Target is crucial to the health of the burgeoning and potentially lucrative sector.

    “If the review recommends a cut to the RET, it’ll be clear they’re looking after their fossil-fueled friends, not the interests of Australians,” said Leigh Ewbank, renewables spokesperson for Friends of the Earth, on Tuesday.

    Ewbank argues that, as well as driving up coal use and emissions, the dilution or scrapping of the RET would also cost Australia jobs.

    “The Renewable Energy Target review threatens 3,556 construction jobs and up to 600 full time jobs, Ewbank said, quoting SKM analysis commissioned by the Clean Energy Council.
    “For every megawatt of installed capacity, 0.7 jobs are created. It shows a typical 50 megawatt wind farm employs between five and six full-time staff.”

    S

  • European Flood Risk Could Double By 2050

    Site » News stories

    News

    European Flood Risk Could Double By 2050

    03.03.2014

    03.03.2014 07:26 Age: 9 days

    New research projects a massive increase in financial losses due to floods in Europe over coming decades as the risk of flooding doubles, concludes a paper published online this week in Nature Climate Change.

     

    Major floods, such as those that affected countries across Europe in June 2013 and that are currently afflicting parts of southern England, are expected to become more common under climate change, putting increasing pressure on disaster risk finance at both the national and the EU level.

    Brenden Jongman and colleagues show that peak monthly water discharges from European river sub-basins are a good indicator of flood risk. They find a high degree of correlation between peak discharges across sub-basins, which is due to large-scale weather patterns. This means that different rivers often flow high at the same time, threatening floods across large regions. The researchers also model present and future potential flood losses, taking into account both projected climate change and socio-economic development. Their computer simulations suggest that average annual flood losses could increase by 500% from now to 2050, with the frequency of extreme events — leading to losses due to floods of the magnitude suffered in 2013 (€12 billion) — approximately doubling over that period.

    Although the magnitude and distribution of losses can be contained by investing in flood protection, and their effects mitigated by increasing insurance coverage or by expanding current public compensation funds, the results of the study show that these measures have vastly different efficiency, equity and acceptability implications. The authors conclude that it may become increasingly necessary for European counties to help each other financially when major floods strike.

     

    Here is the text of a news release issued by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis which discusses this research.

    Losses from extreme floods in Europe could more than double by 2050, because of climate change and socioeconomic development. Understanding the risk posed by large-scale floods is of growing importance and will be key for managing climate adaptation.

    Current flood losses in Europe are likely to double by 2050, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), the Institute for Environmental Studies in Amsterdam, and other European research centres. Socioeconomic growth accounts for about two-thirds of the increased risk, as development leads to more buildings and infrastructure that could be damaged in a flood. The other third of the increase comes from climate change, which is projected to change rainfall patterns in Europe.

    “In this study we brought together expertise from the fields of hydrology, economics, mathematics and climate change adaptation, allowing us for the first time to comprehensively assess continental flood risk and compare the different adaptation options,” says Brenden Jongman of the Institute for Environmental Studies in Amsterdam, who coordinated the study.

    The study estimated that floods in the European Union averaged €4.9 billion a year from 2000 to 2012. These average losses could increase to €23.5 billion by 2050. In addition, large events such as the 2013 European floods are likely to increase in frequency from an average of once every 16 years to a probability of once every 10 years by 2050.

    The analysis combined models of climate change and socioeconomic development to build a better estimate of flood risk for the region. IIASA researcher Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler led the modeling work on the study.

    He says, “The new study for the first time accounts for the correlation between floods in different countries. Current risk-assessment models assume that each river basin is independent. But in actuality, river flows across Europe are closely correlated, rising and falling in response to large-scale atmospheric patterns that bring rains and dry spells to large regions.”

    “If the rivers are flooding in Central Europe, they are likely to also be flooding Eastern European regions,” says Hochrainer-Stigler. “We need to be prepared for larger stress on risk financing mechanisms, such as the pan-European Solidarity Fund (EUSF), a financial tool for financing disaster recovery in the European Union.”

    For example, the analysis suggests that the EUSF must pay out funds simultaneously across many regions. This can cause unacceptable stresses to such risk financing mechanisms. Hochrainer-Stigler says, “We need to reconsider advance mechanisms to finance these risks if we want to be in the position to quickly and comprehensively pay for recovery.”

    IIASA researcher Reinhard Mechler, another study co-author, points out the larger implications arising from the analysis. He says, “There is scope for better managing flood risk through risk prevention, such as using moveable flood walls, risk financing and enhanced solidarity between countries. There is no one-size-fits all solution, and the risk management measures have very different efficiency, equity and acceptability implications. These need to be assessed and considered in broader consultation, for which the analysis provides a comprehensive basis.”

    End of news release.

     

    Abstract

    Recent major flood disasters have shown that single extreme events can affect multiple countries simultaneously, which puts high pressure on trans-national risk reduction and risk transfer mechanisms. So far, little is known about such flood hazard interdependencies across regions and the corresponding joint risks at regional to continental scales. Reliable information on correlated loss probabilities is crucial for developing robust insurance schemes and public adaptation funds, and for enhancing our understanding of climate change impacts. Here we show that extreme discharges are strongly correlated across European river basins. We present probabilistic trends in continental flood risk, and demonstrate that observed extreme flood losses could more than double in frequency by 2050 under future climate change and socio-economic development. We suggest that risk management for these increasing losses is largely feasible, and we demonstrate that risk can be shared by expanding risk transfer financing, reduced by investing in flood protection, or absorbed by enhanced solidarity between countries. We conclude that these measures have vastly different efficiency, equity and acceptability implications, which need to be taken into account in broader consultation, for which our analysis provides a basis.

     

    Citation

    Jongman, B, S Hochrainer-Stigler, et. al. (2014). Increasing stress on disaster risk finance due to large floods. Nature Climate Change (letter). doi: 10.1038/nclimate2124

    Read the abstract and see the paper here.

    Sources

    Press release from Nature.

    News release from the the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis issued via the EurekAlert! Service of the AAAS here.

  • Kelvin Thompson re GDP

    Thomson, Kelvin (MP)
    11:06 AM (28 minutes ago)
    to Kelvin
    Dear All,
    Please see the following article questioning the value of GDP as a measure of economic progress.
    Regards,
    Kelvin Thomson MP

  • Long term Warming Likely to Be Significant Despite Recent Slowdown

    Text Size
    March 11, 2014
    RELEASE 14-073
    Long-Term Warming Likely to Be Significant Despite Recent Slowdown
    Earth Right Now. Your planet is changing. We're on it.
    Five new NASA Earth science missions are launching in 2014 to expand our understanding of Earth’s changing climate and environment.

    A new NASA study shows Earth’s climate likely will continue to warm during this century on track with previous estimates, despite the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming.This research hinges on a new and more detailed calculation of the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to the factors that cause it to change, such as greenhouse gas emissions. Drew Shindell, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, found Earth is likely to experience roughly 20 percent more warming than estimates that were largely based on surface temperature observations during the past 150 years.

    Shindell’s paper on this research was published March 9 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

    projection of Earth warming by 2099
    A new NASA study suggests that projections of Earth’s future warming should be more in line with previous estimates that indicated a higher sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
    Image Credit:
    NASA SVS/NASA Center for Climate Simulation

    Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade — even as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise at a rate similar to previous decades. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas generated by humans.

    Some recent research, aimed at fine-tuning long-term warming projections by taking this slowdown into account, suggested Earth may be less sensitive to greenhouse gas increases than previously thought. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was issued in 2013 and was the consensus report on the state of climate change science, also reduced the lower range of Earth’s potential for global warming.

    To put a number to climate change, researchers calculate what is called Earth’s “transient climate response.” This calculation determines how much global temperatures will change as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase – at about 1 percent per year — until the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has doubled. The estimates for transient climate response range from near 2.52 F (1.4 C) offered by recent research, to the IPCC’s estimate of 1.8 F (1.0 C). Shindell’s study estimates a transient climate response of 3.06 F (1.7 C), and determined it is unlikely values will be below 2.34 F (1.3 C).

    Shindell’s paper further focuses on improving our understanding of how airborne particles, called aerosols, drive climate change in the Northern Hemisphere. Aerosols are produced by both natural sources – such as volcanoes, wildfire and sea spray – and sources such as manufacturing activities, automobiles and energy production. Depending on their make-up, some aerosols cause warming, while others create a cooling effect. In order to understand the role played by carbon dioxide emissions in global warming, it is necessary to account for the effects of atmospheric aerosols.

    While multiple studies have shown the Northern Hemisphere plays a stronger role than the Southern Hemisphere in transient climate change, this had not been included in calculations of the effect of atmospheric aerosols on climate sensitivity. Prior to Shindell’s work, such calculations had assumed aerosol impacts were uniform around the globe.

    This difference means previous studies have underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols. When corrected, the range of likely warming based on surface temperature observations is  in line with earlier estimates, despite the recent slowdown.

    One reason for the disproportionate influence of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly as it pertains to the impact of aerosols, is that most man-made aerosols are released from the more industrialized regions north of the equator. Also, the vast majority of Earth’s landmasses are in the Northern Hemisphere. This furthers the effect of the Northern Hemisphere because land, snow and ice adjust to atmospheric changes more quickly than the oceans of the world.

    “Working on the IPCC, there was a lot of discussion of climate sensitivity since it’s so important for our future,” said Shindell, who was lead author of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report’s chapter on Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. “The conclusion was that the lower end of the expected warming range was smaller than we thought before. That was a big discussion. Yet, I kept thinking, we know the Northern Hemisphere has a disproportionate effect, and some pollutants are unevenly distributed. But we don’t take that into account. I wanted to quantify how much the location mattered.”

    Shindell’s climate sensitivity calculation suggests countries around the world need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the higher end of proposed emissions reduction ranges to avoid the most damaging consequences of climate change. “I wish it weren’t so,” said Shindell, “but forewarned is forearmed.”

    For more information about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, visit:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov

    -end-

    Steve Cole
    Headquarters, Washington
    202-358-0918
    stephen.e.cole@nasa.gov

    Leslie McCarthy
    Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York
    212-678-5507
    leslie.m.mccarthy@nasa.gov

    NASA news releases and other information are available automatically by sending an e-mail message with the subject line subscribe to hqnews-request@newsletters.nasa.gov.
    To unsubscribe from the list, send an e-mail message with the subject line unsubscribe to hqnews-request@newsletters.nasa.gov.

     

  • All Give and No Take Monbiot

    2 of 42
    Why this ad?
    HostGator – Start Your Website Today – Get your website online today for just a penny!

    Monbiot.com

    Inbox
    		 x

    George Monbiot news@monbiot.com via google.com
    6:03 PM (51 minutes ago)
    to me

    Monbiot.com
    All Give and No Take

    Posted: 10 Mar 2014 01:05 PM PDT

    Do those negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have any interest in democracy? Here’s a test.
    By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 11th March 2014

    Nothing threatens democracy as much as corporate power. Nowhere do corporations operate with greater freedom than between nations, for here there is no competition. With the exception of the European parliament there is no transnational democracy, anywhere. All other supranational bodies – the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, trade organisations and the rest – work on the principle of photocopy democracy (presumed consent is transferred, copy by copy, to ever greyer and more remote institutions) or no democracy at all(1).

    When everything has been globalised except our consent, corporations fill the void. In a system that governments have shown no interest in reforming, global power is often scarcely distinguishable from corporate power. It is exercised through backroom deals between bureaucrats and lobbyists.

    This is how negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) began. TTIP is a proposed single market between the United States and the European Union, described as “the biggest trade deal in the world”(2). Corporate lobbyists secretly boasted that they would “essentially co-write regulation”(3). But, after some of their plans were leaked and people responded with outrage(4,5), democracy campaigners have begun to extract a few concessions. The talks have just resumed, and there’s a sense that we cannot remain shut out.

    This trade deal has little to do with removing trade taxes (tarriffs). As the EU’s chief negotiator says, about 80% of it involves “discussions on regulations which protect people from risks to their health, safety, environment, financial and data security”(6). Discussions on regulations means aligning the rules in the EU with those in the US. But Karel de Gucht, the European Trade Commissioner, maintains that European standards “are not up for negotiation. There is no ‘give and take’”(7). An international treaty without give and take? That is a novel concept. A treaty with the USA without negotiation? That’s not just novel, that’s nuts.

    You cannot align regulations on both sides of the Atlantic without negotiation. The idea that the rules governing the relationship between business, citizens and the natural world will be negotiated upwards, ensuring that the strongest protections anywhere in the trading bloc will be applied universally, is simply not credible when governments on both sides of the Atlantic have promised to shred what they dismissively call red tape. There will be negotiation. There will be give and take. The result is that regulations are likely to be levelled down. To believe otherwise is to live in fairyland.

    Last month the Financial Times reported that the US is using these negotiations “to push for a fundamental change in the way business regulations are drafted in the EU to allow business groups greater input earlier in the process.”(8) At first the European trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht, said this was “impossible”. Then he said he is “ready to work in that direction”(9).  So much for no give and take.

    But this is not all that democracy must give so that corporations can take. The most dangerous aspect of the talks is the insistence on both sides on a mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)(10). ISDS allows corporations to sue governments at offshore arbitration panels of corporate lawyers, bypassing domestic courts. Inserted into other trade treaties, it has been used by big business to strike down laws that impinge on its profits: the plain packaging of cigarettes; tougher financial rules; stronger standards on water pollution and public health; attempts to leave fossil fuels in the ground(11).

    At first Mr de Gucht told us there was nothing to see here(12). But in January the man who doesn’t do give and take performed a handbrake turn and promised that there would be a three-month public consultation on ISDS, beginning in “early March”(13). The transatlantic talks resumed on Monday. So far there’s no sign of the consultation.

    And still there remains that howling absence: a credible expanation of why ISDS is necessary. As Kenneth Clarke, the British minister promoting TTIP, admits, “it was designed to support businesses investing in countries where the rule of law is unpredictable, to say the least.”(14) So what is it doing in a US-EU treaty? A report commissioned by the UK government found that ISDS “is highly unlikely to encourage investment” and is “likely to provide the UK with few or no benefits.”(15) But it could allow corporations on both sides of the ocean to sue the living daylights out of governments that stand in their way.

    Unlike Mr de Gucht, I believe in give and take. So instead of rejecting the whole idea, here are some basic tests which would determine whether or not the negotiators give a fig about democracy.

    First, all negotiating positions, on both sides, would be released to the public as soon as they are tabled. Then, instead of being treated like patronised morons, we could debate these positions and consider their impacts. Secondly, every chapter of the agreement would be subject to a separate vote in the European parliament. At present the parliament will be invited only to adopt or reject the whole package: when faced with such complexity, that’s a meaningless choice. Thirdly, TTIP would contain a sunset clause. After five years it would be reconsidered(16). If it has failed to live up to its promise of enhanced economic performance, or if it reduces public safety or public welfare, it could then be scrapped. I accept that this would be almost unprecedented: most such treaties, unlike elected governments, are “valid indefinitely”(17). How democratic does that sound?

    So here’s my challenge to Mr de Gucht and Mr Clarke and the others who want us to shut up and take our medicine: why not make these changes? If you reject them, how does that square with your claims about safeguarding democracy and the public interest? How about a little give and take?

    www.monbiot.com

    References:

    1. George Monbiot, 2003. The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order. Harper Perennial, London.

    2. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/

    3. US Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope, October 2012. Regulatory Cooperation in the EU-US Economic Agreement.

    http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/businesseurope-uschamber-paper.pdf

    4. eg: http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2013/12/leaked-proposal-eu-us-trade-deal-increases-business-power-decision-making

    5. and: http://corporateeurope.org/trade/2013/11/leaked-european-commission-pr-strategy-communicating-ttip

    6. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1007

    7. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-12_en.htm

    8. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e9b7190-9a65-11e3-8e06-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2uEHV6YIc

    9. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e9b7190-9a65-11e3-8e06-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2uEHV6YIc
    10. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy

    11. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/02/transatlantic-free-trade-deal-regulation-by-lawyers-eu-us

    12.  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/18/wrong-george-monbiot-nothing-secret-eu-trade-deal

    13. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-56_en.htm

    14. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/eu-us-trade-deal-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-democracy

    15. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260380/bis-13-1284-costs-and-benefits-of-an-eu-usa-investment-protection-treaty.pdf

    16. This idea came up during a discussion with John Healey MP, who, while broadly in favour of TTIP, is campaigning for better transparency and accountability in the agreement.

    17. John Healey’s researcher kindly asked the Commons research service to look into renewable agreements. They produced a few examples: the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreements, a number of treaties between India and Tanzania and India and Bangladesh, the Lomé Convention trade-and-aid agreements between the EU and some African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries, and its successor, the Cotonou Agreement.

  • Antony Green’s Election Guide The Battle for the ‘Hinge’ Seats

    Antony Green’s Election Guide

    The Battle for the ‘Hinge’ Seats

    The multi-member nature of the Hare-Clark electoral system means that Tasmania does not have ‘key’ seats as we describe them in single member electoral systems.

    With each electorate having five members, all five electorates are key contests. However, only one and sometimes two seats in each electorate play a part in determining which party or parties win the election.

    We can call these seats ‘hinge’ seats, as in the same way that hinges are the point around which a door swings, so under the Hare-Clark electoral system it is the hinge seats on which electoral swing impacts.

    At every election, two of the five seats in each Tasmanian electoral will be won by parties of the left, and two by parties of the right. It is the fifth seat, the hinge seat, that determines whether left or right wins a majority in an electorate, or whether a third party wins the balance.

    With one hinge seat in each electorate, the party that wins the majority of the hinge seats wins a majority in the House of Assembly.

    The diagram below shows the party composition of the five members elected for each electorate at the 2010 election. Both the Labor and Liberal Parties won two seats in each electorate. The five hinge seats in the middle were won by the Greens, creating the current hung parliament.

    The above diagram is not meant to represent the Greens as the middle ‘balance of power’ party. It can be argued that the median Tasmanian voter is closer to both the Labor and Liberal Parties than they are to the Greens.

    However, to explain how hinge seats work, it is best to set out the diagram with the Labor Party on one side and the Liberal Party on the other, with majority government achieved if either party can push its way into the central hinge seats.

    The diagram below sets out the results of the 2006 election in the same format, and shows how Labor achieved a majority by winning four of the five hinge seats.

    In 2010 Labor lost the hinge seat in Braddon to the Greens, but in Denison, Franklin and Lyons, it was Labor losing seats to the Liberal Party that changed the balance of power and pulled the Greens into the hinge seats.

    With polls indicating the Liberal Party is on the cusp of achieving majority government, the election will be decided by how many of the hinge seats can be won by the Liberal Party. It does not matter whether the Liberal Party win these seats from Labor or the Greens, just whether a third Liberal member ends up occupying the hinge seat.

    Three hinge seats would deliver the Liberal Party 13 seats and a one seat majority. Four hinge seats gives 14 seats and a three seat majority, while winning all five hinge seats would deliver the Liberal Party 15 seats and a landslide five seat majority.

    One problem confronting the Liberal Party is the near record field of candidates and the emergence of the Palmer United Party. If some of the swing away from Labor and the Greens is captured by minor parties, then the Liberal Party’s quest for the hinge seats may be blocked and another hung parliament becomes possible.

    The hinge seats will determine if the Liberal Party can form majority government. Beyond the hinge seats, what happens to Labor and Green support will determine the composition of the new parliamentary opposition.

    So what are the prospects for candidates and parties in each electorate?

    Bass

    At the last three elections Bass has displayed divided loyalties, electing two Labor MPs, two Liberal MPs and one Green. Bass was the only electorate that did not deliver three of its five seats to the Labor Party at the 2002 and 2006 elections.

    In 2010 the Liberal Party polled 2.56 quotas (42.6%), the Labor Party 2.07 quotas (34.5%) and the Greens 1.26 quotas (21.0%). Based on current polling, the 2014 election will see the Liberal Party poll close to if not more than three quotas, winning Bass’s hinge seat. Labor looks set to slip below two quotas, delivering Labor only one certain seat and leaving Labor’s second placed candidate battling with the Greens for the fifth and final seat.

    As in 2010, Liberal Michael Ferguson will easily attract more than a quota in his own right, while party colleague Peter Gutwein should increase his vote enough to capture a quota of his own. The surpluses of Ferguson and Gutwein will then determine which of Sarah Courtney, Barry Jarvis or Leonie McNair win the hinge seat for the Liberal Party.

    On Labor’s ticket, Michelle O’Byrne attracted more than a quota in her own right in 2010, but the decline in Labor’s vote means she may fall short of a quota in 2014. O’Byrne should still be the highest polling Labor candidate and be elected, leaving second Labor MP Brian Wightman battling with Greens MP Kim Booth for the final seat.

    Vote for the Greens is usually heavily concentrated with Booth, where Labor’s vote will be more evenly divided between candidates. If the Green vote remains above one quota (16.7%), then Booth will win the final seat. If the Green vote falls below a quota and is roughly equivalent to Labor’s surplus beyond its first quota, Booth will still be advantaged because there will be more opportunities for votes to leak out Labor’s more evenly divided ticket. The Greens polled only 7.9% in Bass at last September’s Federal election, and it would take a similar collapse in Green support at the state election to allow Wightman to win a second seat for Labor at the expense of Booth.

    Braddon

    Over the last two decades the electorate of Braddon has played an important part in determining majority or minority government. In 1989 it was the Green victory in Braddon that deprived the Gray Liberal government of its majority. The Greens lost their seat in Braddon when the Parliament was downsized in 1998, Labor winning three of the five seats in Braddon in 1998, 2002 and 2006. The Green victory in Braddon in 2010 has coincided with another spell of minority government.

    In 2010 the Liberal Party polled 2.71 quotas (45.2%), Labor 2.41 quotas (40.2%) and the Greens 0.83 quotas (13.8%). In 2014 polls indicate the Liberal Party vote will be up, delivering the critical third hinge seat to the party. The Liberal party’s biggest concern would be if increase in their vote stalls because of the high profile campaign being run in support of Palmer United Party’s Kevin Morgan.

    The problem for the Greens in Braddon is that Labor can lose six percentage points of support and still poll above two quotas, where any loss of Green support would see their support slip below the Liberal surplus beyond two quotas. Unless there is substantial support for Palmer United, the mostly likely result is the Liberal Party taking a seat off the Greens.

    On the Liberal ticket, both Jeremy Rockliff and Adam Brooks will be re-elected, with Roger Jaensch maybe better placed that Kyron Howell and Joan Rylah to win the third Liberal seat. Braddon is a seat of regions, and there is an advantage for candidates able to draw on votes from their home region but also poll well in other areas.

    On the Labor ticket, Deputy Premier Bryan Green should retain his seat, as should Brenton Best unless there is a catastrophic collapse in the Labor vote. Labor voters in Braddon would be in little doubt of Best’s antipathy to Labor having formed government with the Greens.

    Also on the Labor ticket, agricultural scientist and former rower Shane Broad is having his second run at Braddon. Victory looks unlikely, but he would be well placed at any by-election re-count if either Green or Best retire.

    The re-election chances of the Green’s Paul O’Halloran look bleak. The Green vote in Braddon more than halved to 5.2% at last September’s Federal election, while Kevin Morgan polled 9.3% as the Palmer United Party candidate. In 2014 the Greens may be left with only core supporters, as the presence of both Palmer United and the revived National Party provide voters with several alternatives to cast a protest vote against the major parties.

    Denison

    Denison has been described as being Australia’s greenest electorate, and it is the seat where the Liberal Party are least likely to win three seats at the 2014 election. The hinge seat in Denison looks set to stay with the Greens, unless the weakened Labor ticket sees a collapse in support and a larger than expected swing to the Liberal Party.

    In 2014 Labor polled 2.18 quotas (36.3%), the Liberal Party 1.79 quotas (29.8%) and the Greens 1.49 quotas (24.9%). Also on the ballot paper ahead of his successful Federal bid, Andrew Wilkie polled 0.41 quotas (8.4%).

    In 2010 the Liberal Party had a weak ticket following the retirement of the late Michael Hodgman. Two Liberals were elected, Matthew Groom and Elise Archer, and both should be easily re-elected in 2014 as the Liberal vote rises above two quotas. It seems unlikely that the Liberal Party could win a third seat, but if it did, the choice is between motivational speaker and cancer survivor Deborah De Williams, and two lower profile businessman in Rene Kling and Robert Mallett. For technical reasons to do with the conduct of the count, the Liberal Party’s chance of winning three seats in Denison might be helped if both Groom and Archer fall short of winning full quotas.

    Reaching three quotas looks an unlikely prospect for the Liberal Party, but with 10 columns and 30 candidates on the ballot paper, a higher than normal rate of exhausted preferences might see the final seat filled with less than a quota of votes. The final member elected could be the candidate left standing with the highest total of votes.

    Labor goes into the 2014 election with a weaker ticket than in 2010. Then Labor had three sitting members, Premier David Bartlett plus Lisa Singh and Graeme Sturges. Singh and Sturges were defeated, newcomer with Scott Bacon winning the second Labor seat. Bartlett has since retired from Parliament, Graeme Sturges elected at the by-election re-count, but he will be retiring at the 2014 election.

    Scott Bacon will easily top the Labor ticket, but Labor has had to dig into the past by nominating Julian Amos, a former MP who has twice before been defeated. Amos’s antipathy to the Greens is well known and might go down well with Labor’s traditional base at the Glenorchy end of the electorate. Madeleine Ogilvie will have her second tilt at the seat, the Labor ticket rounded out by Sharon Carnes and Alphonse Mulumba. The presence of Andrew Wilkie makes the Federal election result a poor guide, but there is still probably enough Labor votes, especially in the Glenorchy end of the electorate, to elect a second Labor MHA, even if it is unclear who that would be.

    The Greens have gone beyond their usual ‘Snow White and the four dwarves’ tactic by nominating several strong candidates. Sitting member Cassy O’Connor should be easily elected, and Hobart City Councillors Bill Harvey and Philip Cocker should bolster the Green vote, or at least divide it between candidates in a more effective way. The odds are still that only O’Connor will be elected, but Harvey and Cocker will be on the ballot and eligible for any by-election re-count should O’Connor retire in the next parliament.

    Complicating Denison is a full ticket of Plamer United Party candidates, including former Integrity Commissioner Barbara Etter. She is no doubt hoping to appeal to the 38.1% ‘anti-party’ vote for Andrew Wilkie at last September’s Federal election. Given Labor’s weak ticket, the likelihood of a decline in Green support, and how much the Liberal vote would have to rise to win a third seat, Etter’s chances of victory can’t be ignored.

    Rounding out the Hobart City Council putsch in Denison are councillors Marti Zucco and Leo Foley, repeat candidates who have obtained enough signatures to each have their own columns on the ballot paper. All six independents will be hoping to attract some of the 38% of Denison voters who backed Andrew Wilkie at last September’s Federal election.

    Were Etter to win the hinge seat in Denison, it would mean the Liberal Party could not win more than 14 seats and give greater importance to the hinge seats in the other four electorates.

    Franklin

    Franklin is an unusual contest in 2014 because all three party leaders represent the seat. It is a seat where Will Hodgman’s personal vote will dominate the Liberal ticket, but will it be large enough to take a seat of Labor’s ticket headed by Premier Lara Giddings, or the Greens headed by that party’s leader Nick McKim?

    In 2010 the Liberal Party polled 2.47 quotas (41.2%), Labor 1.83 quotas (30.5%) and the Greens 1.64 quotas (27.4%). Labor’s ticket had been weakened in 2010 by the retirements of Paul Lennon and Paula Wriedt in the preceding term of parliament.

    It seems certain that the Liberal vote will rise, approaching three quotas, with Will Hodgman likely to get in excess of two quotas in his own right. His surplus should re-elect the seat’s other Liberal MHA Jacquie Petrusma, while recently resigned Huon MLC Paul Harriss should be able to harness his local support to win a third Liberal Franklin’s hinge seat.

    Any Liberal gain looks most likely to come at Labor’s expense. Premier Lara Giddings should top Labor’s ticket, which would leave Police Minister David O’Byrne facing defeat. Only a collapse in the Green vote can save Labor’s second seat.

    The Greens have polled above 19% at the last three Tasmanian election, rising to their record level in 2010. The Green vote fell from 20.9% to 12.2% at last September’s Federal election, but Nick McKim has a strong personal vote.

    The lead Palmer United Party candidate is Debra Thurley, but realistically the most likely result in Franklin is Paul Harriss grabbing the hinge seat for the Liberal Party, most likely at the expense of Labor’s David O’Byrne. That is unless O’Byrne can outpoll his Premier on the Labor ticket.

     

    Lyons

    Lyons is the most geographically diverse of Tasmania’s electorates and it is unusual for any candidate to poll more than a quota in their own right. The usual tactic of the Labor and Liberal Parties is to select balanced tickets with candidates from different regions of the electorate in an attempt to use local support for candidates to maximise the overall party vote.

    In 2010 the Labor party polled 2.57 quotas (42.8%), Liberal party 2.17 quotas (36.1%) and the Greens 1.27 quotas (21.1%). The seat held by Labor’s Heather Butler was lost to Liberal Mark Shelton, while long serving Labor MHA David Llewellyn was defeated by Rebecca White.

    In 2014 Labor will be disadvantaged by the retirement of 42 year veteran Michael Polley, while the Liberal Party have chosen a high profile and geographically balanced ticket.

    Both sides will have paid attention to last September’s Federal result when Dick Adams became only the second Federal member in 70 years to taste defeat in Lyons. There was a 12% shift of first preference support, the Liberals polling 44.4%, Labor 36.8% and the Green vote halving to 8.3%. The Federal result points to the Liberal Party having a strong chance of grabbing the hinge seat in Lyons.

    On the Liberal ticket, long serving MP Rene Hidding will be re-elected, as should Mark Shelton. The Liberal Party start from a low base looking at the 2010 result, but will be encouraged by the Liberal surge last September. Best placed to capitalise on this will be former Senator Guy Barnett, based in the north of the electorate but known across the state for his past national role. Campaigning on the east coast is flamboyant French-born Mayor of Glamorgan Spring Bay Council Bertrand Cadart. The Mayor of Derwent Valley Martyn Evans rounds out the Liberal ticket.

    After her upset victory in 2010, Rebecca White should easily win the first Labor seat. Having lost Michael Polley from the ticket, Labor has returned to David Llewellyn, though it seems he would be unlikely to improve much on the vote that saw him defeated in 2010. Former Forestry Tasmania head Bob Gordon has been backed by former federal MP Dick Adams and AWU boss Paul Howes, so will stand a chance of election if Labor’s vote can stay in the vicinity of two quotas.

    The Greens have polled above 15% at the last three elections, but Greens MP Tim Morris will be under pressure if there is a substantial fall in Green support. Liberal chances of winning the hinge seat looking strong, so Morris is likely to be in a contest with the second placed Labor candidate to win the final seat in Lyons.

    Antony Green

    Antony Green is the ABC’s election analyst.

    Antony has worked on every federal, state and territory election since his first election with the ABC in Queensland in 1989.

    He has appeared regularly on camera since the 1993 Federal election, when he was the first to call the return of the Keating government.

    15 March Election

    The Tasmanian election will be held on the 15 March 2014.

    For all information on electoral enrolment, when and how to vote, visit the Tasmanian Electoral Commission website.

    Other Elections

    For other elections, visit the ABC elections site or go directly to the South Australian election.

    Send your feedback

    To make a comment or suggest a change to the Election Guide, please contact us.

    Site Map