Category: Environment & Jobs

  • Manufacturing the Energy Revolution

    Manufacturing the Energy Revolution

    Australia’s Position in the Global Race for Sustainable Manufacturing
    by Charlie Joyce and Jim Stanford

    Australia needs to respond quickly to powerful new incentives for sustainable manufacturing now on offer in the U.S. and several other industrial countries, or risk being cut out of lucrative new markets for manufactured products linked to renewable energy systems.

    That is the finding of a major new report from the Centre for Future Work. The report catalogues new incentives for production of batteries, electric vehicles, renewable energy generation and transmission equipment, and other renewable energy products provided under the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act and parallel public programs.

    Many other industrial countries, including the EU, China, Japan, Korea, and Canada have already implemented major new incentives to support the expansion of the manufactured products and technologies that will be required for those systems.

    Australia is considering its response, but with no clear announced strategy yet.

    The report provides evidence that the U.S. incentives and content requirements are sparking an unprecedented expansion in manufacturing investment in the U.S. and other industrial countries.

    This response confirms that active climate industrial policies are having an outsized effect on the volume and location of sustainable manufacturing investment. It also confirms that Australia must move quickly to respond to this new industrial landscape, or risk losing its chance to leverage our renewable energy resources into lasting, diversified industrial growth.

    The report notes that Australia has many advantages in the global race for sustainable manufacturing – including an unmatched endowment of renewable energy sources and ample deposits of critical minerals. However, the painful legacy of decades of policy neglect for domestic manufacturing has left Australia’s industrial base in poor shape to seize the opportunities being opened up by the global energy transition.

    The report estimates the proportional fiscal effort that would be required to match the American IRA in the Australian context. The government would need to commit $83 to $138 billion over 10 years in fiscal supports and incentives to match U.S. benchmarks.

    The report also catalogues several qualitative best practices that should be incorporated in the Australian response to the IRA, to generate maximum economic, social and environmental impact: including strong labour and environmental standards attached to subsidized projects, public equity participation, and parallel investments in training for workers to fill the new jobs.

    The paper was released at the 4th National Manufacturing Summit, being held at Old Parliament House in Canberra from 830am to 430 pm on Thursday, August 3, co-sponsored by Weld Australia, the Centre for Future Work, and several industry bodies.



    Full report

    Share

  • Sustainable Industrial Jobs in the Hunter

    Sustainable Industrial Jobs in the Hunter

    Aluminium Manufacturing and Australia’s Energy Advantage
    by Jim Stanford and Alia Armistead

    New research from the Centre for Future Work shows that the rapid transformation of Australia’s aluminium facilities to sustainable sources of electricity would spark substantial economic benefits: for the aluminium industry, its supply chain, and for the burgeoning renewable energy sector (which would achieve greater critical mass from major new power supply contracts).

    The report, by Jim Stanford (the Centre’s Director) and Alia Armistead, looks in detail at the Tomago aluminium smelter in the Hunter region of NSW. It is Australia’s largest smelter, and is currently powered through electricity mostly sourced from coal-fired generation. The facility has pledged to move to renewable power sources by 2030 – and the new report confirms that this would underpin long-term industrial and economic benefits felt in all parts of the country.

    The report reviews the worrisome deindustrailisation of Australia’s foothold in the global aluminium industry. Australia’s exports of raw bauxite have grown rapidly, but value-added aluminium manufacturing (including smelting) has declined. This undermines employment, exports, and spin-off jobs.

    The study also reports results of macroeconomic simulations of the overall impacts of the Tomago facility on the national economy (including employment, incomes, GDP, and government revenue). These effects, because of the economic linkages between the smelter, its supply chain, and the consumer goods and services industries which depend on its continued existence, are very large.  Our results indicate the Tomago facility ultimately supports:

    • Over $1.2 billion in national GDP per year, with production benefits experienced in all states (70% in NSW).
    • Household disposable incomes of almost $500 million.
    • Direct and indirect employment of over 6000 jobs: in the smelter, in its various suppliers, and in downstream consumer industries.
    • Incremental government revenues worth $465 million per year: two-thirds of which is captured by the Commonwealth, and $120 million by the NSW state government.

    The study makes several recommendations for supporting Tomago’s transition to renewable energy, and enhancing Australia’s value-added aluminium presence. These include:

    • A clear and sustained commitment to rapid roll-out of renewable energy sources: Government should assist and accelerate Tomago’s transition to renewable power with clear, powerful measures to support expanded renewable energy developments, appropriate capacities (including batteries and pumped hydro) for backing up variable renewable power supplies, and fiscal measures that acknowledge the contribution Tomago could make (through the scale of its renewable energy purchases, as well as its potential role in demand-response measures that stabilise the regional electricity grid) to support NSW’s transition to renewable energy.
    • Full-cycle financial support and public equity: Our simulations confirm a large fiscal payback to state and Commonwealth governments arising from the operation of the Tomago smelter, its supply chain, and the downstream consumer industries which depend on its continued operation. This gives both levels of government a major fiscal stake in Tomago’s continuing operation. For that reason, in addition to supporting the roll-out of renewable energy, both governments should negotiate other forms of fiscal support for future capital improvements (including those tied to developments of renewable energy supply for the smelter).
    • Leveraging public infrastructure and procurement: Considerable demand for aluminium products will be forthcoming in future years as a result of the unprecedented investments being made by governments at all levels in new physical infrastructure: ranging from transportation to utilities to public buildings. The business case for continued aluminium manufacturing in Australia can be incrementally strengthened with pro-active efforts on the part of government to ensure that these investments (which are ultimately paid for by Australian taxpayers) embody maximum Australian-made content in all building materials and inputs, including aluminium.
    • A value-added trade policy: Australia’s laissez faire approach to international trade has concentrated Australia’s exports in the extraction and export of unprocessed or barely processed non-renewable resources; this has been coincident with a severe decline in domestic manufacturing and value-added activity, and a precarious dependence on imports to meet most domestic manufacturing needs. A rethinking of Australian trade policy could help reverse this damaging deindustrialisation. This must include active interventions to limit the inflow (often at prices below cost of production) of aluminium products from other countries which are not making reciprocal purchases of value-added merchandise from us. Trade policy should actively discourage exports of unprocessed bauxite, and instead require at least preliminary processing (and better yet, smelting) of Australian bauxite in Australian facilities.



    Full report

    Share

  • Rebuilding Vehicle Manufacturing in Australia

    Rebuilding Vehicle Manufacturing in Australia

    Industrial Opportunities in an Electrified Future
    by Mark Dean

    Global automotive manufacturing is rapidly transitioning to the production of Electric Vehicles (EVs) in line with technological advancements and the global community’s commitment to addressing climate change. This transition presents an enormous opportunity for Australia to rebuild its vehicle manufacturing industry, taking advantage of our competitive strengths in renewable energy, extractive industries, manufacturing capabilities, and skilled workers.

    Australia possesses many of the crucial elements for an EV manufacturing industry: rich mineral reserves, an advanced industrial base, a highly skilled workforce, and consumer interest. But what it lacks is an overarching, coordinating and strategic national industry policy. Global experience shows that this is central to EV-oriented industrial transformation. Australia can play an important role in global EV manufacturing industries but developing a strategy to realise this will require active government policy responses to both the challenges and opportunities at hand.

    Australia’s natural resource endowments and industrial capabilities make EV industry development a viable economic and social strategy. Our moral obligations to create a sustainable future make it essential public policy. This report illustrates how Australia can rebuild a vehicle manufacturing industry, on a sustainable ecological foundation, and meet our international environmental obligations. The report covers several important related dimensions of the issue:

    • How an EV manufacturing strategy can add value to Australia’s existing exports of primary resources – connecting them to innovative, sustainable manufacturing industries;
    • Developing supply and value chain linkages to the global EV industry by increasing the capability for innovation and advanced manufacturing amongst small and medium-sized enterprises;
    • The central role of Australia’s education systems in delivering sustainable industry-focused training and skills development, to provide workers with career pathways shaped by lifelong access to education and learning;
    • How active government intervention can coordinate economic sectors in an innovative and strategically oriented industry policy driving sustainable economic and technological transformation; and
    • Understanding the importance of automotive manufacturing to our industrial future, its role in redesigning transport systems, investing in new technology and gearing production systems to meet social and environmental requirements.

    To make the case for a national EV manufacturing policy, this paper reviews existing literature and presents relevant data to show that an EV industry in Australia is not just desirable – but it can also lead the sustainable transformation of Australia’s economy.

    The paper is arranged as follows. The next section provides an overview of the Australian national EV policy landscape and the international context, to identify trends and opportunities in EV manufacturing.

    The bulk of the paper is then dedicated to reviewing four key ‘Building Blocks’ of an industry policy: the resources sector, skilled labour, supply chain capabilities and capital assets, and the capacity of government to develop a policy response that assembles these key elements as the foundation for rebuilding Australian manufacturing with EVs at the centre.

    In mapping this foundation of an EV manufacturing policy, the subsequent section cautions that an EV industry is not a panacea for addressing the broader climate crisis and creating a sustainable economy. It argues, however, that a sustainable EV industry should be considered as a major driver of industrial transformation alongside other positive cultural and environmental changes within Australian society.

    The conclusion summarises the paper’s overarching theme that Australia can build a strong EV manufacturing industry with the right policy settings and government actions. It makes several specific recommendations to get the ball rolling on developing these settings – including recommendations touching on industry planning, energy requirements, consumer demand, resource use, supply chain developments, skills and training, and government support.



    Full report

    Share

  • Missing a Stitch in Time:

    Missing a Stitch in Time:

    The Consequences of Underinvestment in Proper Upkeep of Australia’s Electricity Transmission and Distribution System

    Australia’s electricity industry constitutes a large and critical component of our national economic infrastructure. The industry produces $25 billion per year in value- added. It employs around 50,000 Australians, paying out $6 billion per year in wages and salaries. It makes $45 billion in annual purchases from a diverse and far-reaching supply chain, that provides the sector with inputs ranging from resources to equipment to construction to services.

    Most important, of course, the industry literally keeps the lights on: it provides an essential input, electric energy, without which no other industry could function and the safety and comfort of Australians would be immediatel jeopardised. In this regard, electricity is clearly an essential service: a utility vital to virtually everything else that occurs in the economy and society.

    Given that critical importance, we would assume that investing in the proper capitalisation, modernisation, upgrading and maintenance of this system would be a top priority of economic policy and corporate decision-making. Unfortunately, however, irrational and unintended consequences arising from the business-friendly, market-driven regulatory regime presently governing Australia’s electricity sector have produced exactly the opposite result. A structural pattern of sustained underinvestment in the upkeep and quality of the transmission and distribution grid is jeopardising the safety and reliability of the network – and harming both the people who work in this industry and the customers they serve.

    The present system was established on the assumption that profit-seeking behaviour of private businesses, with appropriate regulatory supervision, will best ensure an efficient allocation of resources, top quality service, and lowest possible prices for consumers. On every one of these grounds, however, the system has failed. Alongside chronic underinvestment in the system’s equipment and reliability, there is abundant evidence of an enormous waste of resources by self-dealing, rent-seeking corporate entities – diverting billions of dollars of expenditure away from necessary upkeep, redirected to ultimately unproductive activities (including overlapping corporate bureaucracies, frenetic selling and re-selling within the industry, and intense financialisation) that have nothing to do with the production and delivery of reliable, affordable energy. The national grid is unable to meet several challenges to its safety and reliability: including its ability to safely withstand extreme heat and severe weather events, and its capacity to adjust to the accelerating roll-out of variable and distributed renewable generation investments. The workforce in the industry has lost jobs and real incomes. And consumers (both residential and industrial) have faced an unprecedented and unjustified inflation of electricity prices.

    To be sure, this privatised, fragmented, and badly regulated industry has been consistently and increasingly profitable for its owners. Given the monopoly power these energy businesses have been granted over a critical piece of public infrastructure, these profits are hardly a surprise. What is surprising (and disappointing), however, is how Australia’s regulatory regime has failed to recognise and respond to these perverse outcomes. Despite growing evidence of deteriorating efficiency and reliability, and the inflation of both prices and profits, regulators continue with a business-as-usual approach to managing the industry. This approach routinely turns back legitimate requests for needed upgrades, modernisation, and maintenance on the system’s real capital base – while turning a blind eye to the rampant waste of resources on unproductive and self-serving corporate functions. Given the increasing pressures associated with climate change, more severe and frequent bushfires, population growth, and the shift to renewable generation, this business-as-usual approach cannot continue.

    A timeless adage reminds us that ‘a stitch in time saves nine.’ Prudent attention to maintaining productive assets in top quality condition, and upgrading capital in line with new technology and evolving best practices, is a hallmark of efficient and successful management. Australia’s electricity industry is controlled by self-seeking private businesses, and a few state-owned corporations directed to act just like them. They are governed by a regulatory system which places far too much faith in the inherent efficiency of private sector actors. Hence the industry is failing to make that stitch in time. Australians will pay the price for the chronic neglect of proper maintenance and upkeep of our electricity system in many ways: through a system that is inefficient, unreliable, cannot meet the challenges of the coming energy revolution, is unduly expensive to consumers, and which in many cases is unsafe for both workers and the public at large.

    This report provides evidence of a pattern of systematic underinvestment in the upkeep and capability of Australia’s electricity grid, drawing on three major sources of data:

    • A project to gather original qualitative data from dozens of power industry workers employed on the front lines of maintaining Australia’s transmission and distribution network. Their personal and professional experience attests to a widespread and sustained pattern of underinvestment and neglect, and provides worrisome details regarding the consequences of that underinvestment for the well-being of workers, communities, and the environment.
    • A review of other research and findings in the public domain (including several government commissions and inquries) regarding the importance of a top-quality, well-maintained electricity grid for our economy and society. These previous studies have also warned that the current system is falling behind in safe and efficient upkeep of its capital assets.
    • A review of available quantitative data – from the Australian Energy Regulator, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and from individual companies. This review confirms the steady decline in allocations of real resources to the capitalisation and good operating condition of the transmission and distribution grid. And it documents the erosion of real maintenance and upkeep according to several indicators, alongside evidence of unprecedented inflation in both electricity prices and industry profits.

    The main findings of this comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis include the following:

    • First-hand accounts from dozens of electricity sector workers in various roles and all parts of the country confirm the ongoing failure of the current system to allocate adequate resources to pro-active maintenance, upgrades, and safety, with serious consequences for workers, community safety, and the environment.
    • Real spending by the transmission and distribution sectors on operations and maintenance of the grid has been reduced by at least $1 billion per year since 2012.
    • Adjusted for inflation and the expanded base of customers in the network, real operating expenditures per customer have declined by 28-33 per cent since 2006.
    • Even within that contracting overall envelope of spending on maintenance and operations, several indicators confirm a reallocation of resources away from concrete system operation and maintenance, in favour of corporate overhead functions, re-selling, and financial activities.
    • The transmission and distribution system now employs 40 per cent more managers and office-based professionals than electricians.
    • Capital investment, spending on materials and equipment, capitalised own-use activity, and employment of electricians, linespersons, and related specialists have all declined markedly in the past several years.
    • Fundamental measures of efficiency in the industry (including total factor and average labour productivity) have also deteriorated, dragged down by misallocation of resources to corporate and overhead functions.
    • The squeeze on maintenance and upgrading expenses resulting from a combination of AER pressure and corporate profit-seeking has not produced savings for consumers. To the contrary, prices for both residential and industrial users have soared dramatically (almost doubling in real terms) since 2000.
    • High electricity prices have boosted revenues and profits in the industry – which have doubled in nominal terms since 2006, and grown substantially as a share of the industry’s total value-added. The AER’s superficial and ineffective oversight processes have not prevented private energy businesses from profiting through underinvestment in the industry’s asset base, and exploitation of consumers andworkers alike.

    After reviewing this worrisome evidence of systematic underinvestment in the quality and capability of Australia’s electricity grid, the report concludes with seven concrete recommendations to begin repairing and reversing these irrational and destructive outcomes. These include:

    1. AER determinations of allowable capital, upgrading and maintenance investments by regulated businesses should be ascertained on the basis of concrete bottom-up auditing of system capability, reliability and performance, undertaken by independent arms-length technical experts. Regulation of capital and maintenance expenditures needs to be ‘grounded’ in analysis of real-world challenges and constraints facing the system – including assessments of additional requirements arising from climate change and severe weather, risk mitigation (including bushfire prevention and vegetation management), and challenges related to the growth of distributed renewable generation. A broader economic benefit test should be applied to ensure the interests of workers and the community are factored into decision-making around capital investments and upkeep.
    2. Once appropriate levels of system capital and maintenance expenditures have been identified, explicit mechanisms must be established to reflect and recover those costs in regulated electricity prices.
    3. When adverse events (such as severe weather, bushfires, or other occurrences) necessitate capital or repair expenditures above and beyond previously approved regulated levels, provisions for additional cost recovery must also be accessible.
    4. Costing of capital installation, upgrading, and maintenance expenditure must take explicit account of the need for high-quality skilled, certified labour to perform that work – including appropriate wages, entitlements and working conditions in line with industry best practices.
    5. The accelerating transition to renewable energy sources, through both utility- scale projects and distributed sources, poses a unique and historic challenge to the capabilities of the national transmission and distribution grid. The AER, in conjunction with the AEMO and other industry bodies, should undertake a thorough assessment of the investments and system changes that will be required to meet the new requirements of an increasingly renewables-focused power system. This assessment must incorporate a broader economic and social cost-benefit lens, rather than the current narrowly-defined conception of economic costs. The findings of this assessment must then inform the AER’s subsequent determinations regarding allowable capital and maintenance expenditures by regulated businesses.
    6. Businesses which underspend allowed capital and maintenance budgets should be issued financial penalties which offset the impact of this underspending on their operating margins. This would eliminate the current perverse incentive for private transmitters and distributors to artificially suppress needed maintenance and upgrades in the interests of a short-term bonus over and above their already-substantial profit margins.
    7. The AER must undertake more detailed reviews of the submitted overhead, marketing, and financial activities of regulated energy businesses. Instead of providing blanket approval for whatever operating expenses companies deem to be in their interests, within an overall ceiling that is not differentiated with respect to specific cost activities, the regulator should focus on reducing the deadweight costs of duplicated, self-serving corporate bureaucracies.

    It is past time for those in charge of Australia’s electricity system – both private owners and government regulators – to acknowledge the widening tears in the fabric of this vital public service. And it is well past time for them to begin making the necessary repairs.



    Full report

    Share

  • Employment Aspects of the Transition from Fossil Fuels in Australia

    Employment Aspects of the Transition from Fossil Fuels in Australia

    by Jim Stanford

    New research by the Centre for Future Work, commissioned by health care industry super fund HESTA, finds that a planned transition of Australia’s labour market away from fossil fuel jobs could occur without involuntary layoffs or severe disruption to communities—if governments focus on a planned and fair transition. That transition needs to include: a clear, long-term timeline, measures to facilitate inter-industry mobility and voluntary severance as fossil fuels are phased-out, and generous retraining and diversification policies.

    Released following the UN Climate Ambition Summit (12 Dec), which highlighted the need for Australia to accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels, the report finds that delaying climate policy cannot protect the quantity or quality of fossil fuel jobs, which will inevitably decline as the global energy system shifts quickly to renewables. To best protect these workers and communities, pro-active transition planning must start now.

    Key findings of the report include:

    • With strong commitments to alternative employment creation (including, but not limited to, jobs in renewable energy projects), a transition away from fossil fuels can occur without involuntary layoffs or severe disruption to communities.
    • Direct employment in fossil fuel industries is relatively small, just 1% of total Australian employment, and in any single year the overall economy produces twice as many new jobs, as are employed in total in fossil fuel industries.
    • Health care and social services employs 13 times as many people as fossil fuels. At current rates, it would take just two years of new work in health care alone to fully offset all current jobs in fossil fuel industries.
    • Fossil fuel jobs are especially important in some communities, but the number of such communities is small. In just 11 out of 350 Australian communities do fossil fuel jobs make up over 5% of local employment. Strong, focused supports, paid for by the country as a whole, can help those communities adapt to the coming change.
    • Examples of previous transitions in other countries (including Germany, Canada, and Spain) confirm that fossil fuel sectors can be phased out with no involuntary redundancies.

    Dr Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work, and author of the report, highlighted the benefits of long-term planning, an announced timetable, and pro-active transition supports (including supported early retirement, job mobility across sites as fossil fuels phase out, and ambitious regional development and diversification efforts) to avoiding involuntary redundancies or economic damage to regional communities.

    “In fact if managed well, most people currently employed in the fossil fuel industry will not even need to find alternative work: as the industry gradually winds down, most will transition directly from fossil fuel work into retirement, or other forms of voluntary severance.”

    The report was commissioned by HESTA, the industry super fund in the health care sector, and a leader in adjusting its investment portfolio to be consistent with the movement toward net-zero emissions. Mary Delahunty, HESTA’s Head of Impact, noted that “Investment back into a nation’s ‘caring economy’ – health, education and social services – is the most effective way to stimulate economic activity and creates higher-quality, more sustainable, long-term growth.”

    “This report demonstrates that with appropriate investment this can go even further, supporting a manageable, sustainable phase-out of fossil fuel jobs,” Delahuunty added.

    “HESTA was the first major Australian super fund to commit to a total portfolio ‘net zero by 2050’ emissions target as part of our ambitious Climate Change Transition Plan. Supporting a planned transition is crucial to us achieving these ambitious goals and to protecting the long-term value of our members’ investments.”



    Full report

    Share

  • Heat Stress and Work in the Era of Climate Change

    Heat Stress and Work in the Era of Climate Change

    What We Know, and What We Need to Learn
    by Elizabeth Humphrys, Freya Newman and James Goodman

    New research has confirmed that climate change is contributing to the growing problem of heat stress in a wide range of Australian workplaces.

    This report provides first-hand accounts of dangerous levels of heat stress experienced in a range of occupations – including construction, outdoor maintenance work, and food delivery riders.

    The report, by a team of authors based at the Climate Justice Research Centre at UTS in Sydney, interviewed workers and trade union officials in several industries, and confirmed that working in excess heat is becoming a more common occupational health and safety risk. The report documents the negative effects of excess heat on physical health, mental alertness, and stress. It also compiled an inventory of union initiatives and workplace best practices for reducing and manage the risks of heat stress.

    Key findings:

    • Heat stress poses serious health and safety risks for many workers across Australia, and Australia must act on the causes of rising temperatures and changing weather patterns.
    • Four key groups of workers are at high risk of heat stress:
      • Workers who work inside, in environments with poor climate control, or whose work requires them to be exposed to heat and humidity;
      • Outdoor workers, especially those who are weather-exposed;
      • Workers moving between different climates as part of their work (i.e., moving between extreme heat and cold); and
      • Workers whose roles expose them to situational extreme heat, such as emergency workers and firefighters.
    • Current labour protections, including health and safety laws, are inadequate.
      • Many workers say that OHS policies might appear to offer protection, but in practice it is simply not the case.
      • Workers say that employers do not want work to stop even when heat stress risk is very high, and that employers priorise productivity over worker health and safety.
      • The hazardous heatwaves, air quality, and bushfire smoke over the recent Black Summer has emphasised the inadequacy of current OHS regulations.
    • The conditions of a person’s employment fundamentally shape their experience of heat stress. Workers who are employed casually, who work in labour hire arrangements, or who are gig workers, often have less capacity to take action on the effects of heat stress.
    • Recommendations include:
      • The Australian Federal and State Governments must urgently review the management of the current and likely impacts of climate change for workers, and develop national and state-based regulatory frameworks that provide strong protection in relation to heat stress and bushfire smoke.
      • Governments and employers must be required to provide adequate resourcing for at-risk workers.
      • Policymakers should strengthen current laws to ensure workers do not lose income when unable to work due to heat stress.

    “Last year’s devastating Black Summer bushfires highlighted that for many workers across Australia, appropriate policies and plans are not always in place to ensure that they are protected from dangerous heat stress related conditions that could cause illness or injury to themselves or others,” said Dr. Elizabeth Humphrys, associate at the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work and co-author of the report.

    “Workers need to be afforded greater protections to ensure their health and safety are paramount in extreme heat conditions. Our research shows that current workplace conditions are woefully inadequate, while climate change will only serve to make conditions worse.

    “To protect workers and the wider community, not only must policymakers act to mitigate the impacts of heat stress, but they must also act on the causes of the climate heating, itself.”

    “Our research shows that while existing OHS rules are supposed to protect workers against heat stress in theory, in practice those standards are not adequate, and they are poorly enforced.”

    “Many workers say that employers do not want work to stop even when heat stress is very high, and that employers prioritise productivity over workers’ health.”

    “Improving workplace practices for identifying and managing heat stress, and empowering workers to refuse work under unsafe heat conditions, must be urgent priorities for employers, trade unions, and regulators.”



    Full report

    Share

  • Powering Onwards

    Powering Onwards

    Australia’s Opportunity to Reinvigorate Manufacturing through Renewable Energy
    by Dan Nahum

    With disruptions in international supply chains for essential products (like medical equipment and supplies) disrupted in the current COVID pandemic, Australians have a new appreciation for the importance of retaining a flexible, high-quality, domestic manufacturing capacity. And the ongoing transformation of Australia’s energy industry, with rapid expansion of renewable energy sources, would add momentum to the renaissance of Australian manufacturing.

    That is the conclusion of a new study written by Dan Nahum, Economist at the Centre for Future Work.

    The report notes that power from renewable energy sources (both solar and wind) are now substantially less expensive than fossil fuel generation on a full lifecycle cost basis – and moreover, that cost advantage will grow in coming years. The report simulates the annual power cost savings to manufacturers if the sector’s current use of fossil fuel-fired power was fully transferred to renewables (as existing generating facilities are retired and replaced). The sector’s power bill would decline by an estimated $1.6 billion per year, or 23%, compared to the current fuel mix. The saving swells to $2.2 billion (in constant dollars) by 2050.

    The paper also provides numerous examples of manufacturing industries which are already making use of renewable power to capture cost and reliability advantages, as well as various manufacturing industries which hold great potential to supply Australian-made manufactured inputs to renewable power systems (from lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles, to public transportation rolling stock, to green hydrogen). The paper reports international evidence showing that companies which have reduced greenhouse gas emissions more successfully have attained greater success in manufacturing output and exports than Australia.

    The paper also shows there is a strong majority overlap between Australians regarding the manufacturing sector as important, and those in favour of expanding the use of renewables, making this a viable dual public policy goal for governments.



    Full report

    Share

  • Principles for Meaningful Transition Support for Workers in Carbon-Intensive Industries

    Principles for Meaningful Transition Support for Workers in Carbon-Intensive Industries

    by Jim Stanford

    As Australia and other countries shift their economies toward lower-carbon forms of energy and production, problems of displacement and transition for workers in carbon-intensive industries must be addressed as a top priority.  The coal-fired electricity generation industry is on the front lines of this challenge.

    Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford was recently invited to give testimony to a Senate of Australia reference committee studying the future transition of the coal-fired electricity sector.

    Offering meaningful and concrete job and income protection for workers in affected industries (like coal-fired power) is not only fair: after all, those workers should not bear disproportionate costs from policies that benefit broader society and the environment.  It is also politically important, because it refutes oft-made claims that environmental protection is incompatible with job security and economic prosperity.  Environmental advocates often speak of the need for a “just transition” for affected workers, although that idea is often described in broad, vague terms.  Developing specific, concrete programs to facilitate fair and effective employment transitions in carbon-intensive industries will be an important priority for the overall strategy to phase-out this highly-polluting energy form.

    Dr. Stanford reviewed for the Senate committee the experience of employment transitions in other jurisdictions, and identified key principles for minimising the cost of those transitions for the affected workforce.



    Full report

    Share