Coal Will Be Top Enemy in Fighting Global Warming
By Alister Doyle
Reuters
Friday 29 September 2006
Oslo - Cheap coal will be the main enemy in a fight against global warming in the 21st century because high oil prices are likely to encourage a shift to coal before wind or solar power, a top economist said on Thursday.
Coal emits far more greenhouse gases, blamed by most scientists for a rise in world temperatures, per unit of energy when burnt in power plants or factories than oil or natural gas.
"The most important environmental problem in the 21st century is coal, or you could say coal is the most important enemy," Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, told Reuters.
"Coal is cheap, it is plentiful and it is quite evenly distributed over the entire planet," he said, noting that oil was more concentrated in a few regions such as the Middle East.
Many countries, led by the United States, are trying to create "clean coal" technologies to strip heat-trapping gases from the exhausts of power plants or factories. The gases could then be buried below ground.
"Coal plays an important geopolitical role, and for the next 300 years it will be plentiful," he said. With oil prices above about US$50-US$60 a barrel "then it is competitive to go from liquids to coal".
Electricity can be generated more cheaply and easily from coal than from renewable energy sources.
Without restraints on greenhouse gases from coal "the next substitution process is not from oil to wind power, or to solar power or to biomass," he said. "The next step would be liquids to coal," he said.
Switching to coal would be less attractive if there were a global penalty for emitting carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, he said.
Cut Emissions
Countries bound by the UN's Kyoto Protocol have agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. The European Union has set up a system for trading carbon dioxide from industry in a bid to cut emissions.
In the European market for carbon dioxide, prices for CO2 emissions are around 12.6 euros (US$16.02) per tonne. Burning a tonne of coal typically releases more than 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The scientific panel that advises the United Nations says that rising temperatures are likely to disrupt the climate and trigger ever more floods, heatwaves, erosion and drive up world sea levels by 9-88 cm (3.5-34.6 inches) by 2100.
Coal represented 25.1 percent of total world energy supply in 2004, little changed from 24.8 percent in 1973, according to the International Energy Agency which advises governments in rich nations.
It forecasts that coal's share of rising energy use will dip to 23.1 percent in 2010 and to 22.9 percent by 2030.
President George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, arguing that it would cost US jobs and unfairly left out developing nations from the first set of targets for 2012.
Source:Trouthout.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
LG to pay $3m after false energy claims
SMH
September 29, 2006
ONE of Australia's largest electronic companies is facing a restitution bill of more than $3 million after being found guilty of misrepresenting the energy efficiency of its appliances.
LG Electronics Australia agreed yesterday to establish a $3.1 million consumer rebate fund after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found the company had inflated the energy efficiency star rating system of more than 15,000 air-conditioners sold between 2002 and 2005.
Independent tests showed that in two of the five deficient models, the star rating on the LG label was double the accurate rating, while the energy efficiency of one model did not meet the State Government's mandatory Minimum Energy Performance Standard.
As a result, the commission concluded, it was likely that the five air-conditioner models tested were using more electricity and consequently costing consumers more to run than LG had claimed.
"The integrity of the Australian energy star rating system is important because it provides a powerful market-driven incentive for manufacturers to improve the energy performance of their products," said the commission's chairman, Graeme Samuel.
"Consumers need to have confidence that they can use the star rating of an air-conditioner to make an informed choice between competing brands."
Together with LG, the commission has calculated the potential difference in operating costs for each of the five models, and LG has agreed to refund the difference to consumers. A rebate table has been posted on the company's website.
In a statement issued by LG yesterday, the company also pledged to use independent testing facilities to rate the energy efficiency of its air-conditioners.
Kelly Burke
September 29, 2006
ONE of Australia's largest electronic companies is facing a restitution bill of more than $3 million after being found guilty of misrepresenting the energy efficiency of its appliances.
LG Electronics Australia agreed yesterday to establish a $3.1 million consumer rebate fund after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found the company had inflated the energy efficiency star rating system of more than 15,000 air-conditioners sold between 2002 and 2005.
Independent tests showed that in two of the five deficient models, the star rating on the LG label was double the accurate rating, while the energy efficiency of one model did not meet the State Government's mandatory Minimum Energy Performance Standard.
As a result, the commission concluded, it was likely that the five air-conditioner models tested were using more electricity and consequently costing consumers more to run than LG had claimed.
"The integrity of the Australian energy star rating system is important because it provides a powerful market-driven incentive for manufacturers to improve the energy performance of their products," said the commission's chairman, Graeme Samuel.
"Consumers need to have confidence that they can use the star rating of an air-conditioner to make an informed choice between competing brands."
Together with LG, the commission has calculated the potential difference in operating costs for each of the five models, and LG has agreed to refund the difference to consumers. A rebate table has been posted on the company's website.
In a statement issued by LG yesterday, the company also pledged to use independent testing facilities to rate the energy efficiency of its air-conditioners.
Kelly Burke
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Howard’s Policy Embarrassing for Australia and a Blow for Regional NSW
Greens Senator Kerry Nettle today condemned the federal Government for its head in the sand response to climate change, stating that their inaction is directly hurting communities throughout regional NSW.
“As long as the Government remains stubborn about this issue, droughts across the state are getting worse.” Senator Nettle said.
“Band-aid efforts to assist drought-stricken areas do not address the much bigger problem of climate change which the CSIRO link to the threat of worsening drought conditions in the future
Recent drought figures from the NSW Farmers Association have revealed that the percentage of NSW which is officially drought-declared has increased to over 60% (up from 46% in April, 24% in January and 18% in December 2005).
Last week the Prime Minister indicted that even through President Bush is planning to reverse his stance on climate change, he is happy for Australia to go it alone in defying the international consensus on climate change.
“It would be an enormous embarrassment if Australia was the only country in the world not acting to address climate change.” Senator Nettle said.
“This is one of the biggest issues facing the world at the moment, and with the present Government attitude we are becoming an environmental rogue state.
“The Greens recognise the need to tackle climate change head on by transitioning our economy away from carbon based fuels to renewable energy sources. Such measures will ensure a secure, productive future for regional NSW.”
“As long as the Government remains stubborn about this issue, droughts across the state are getting worse.” Senator Nettle said.
“Band-aid efforts to assist drought-stricken areas do not address the much bigger problem of climate change which the CSIRO link to the threat of worsening drought conditions in the future
Recent drought figures from the NSW Farmers Association have revealed that the percentage of NSW which is officially drought-declared has increased to over 60% (up from 46% in April, 24% in January and 18% in December 2005).
Last week the Prime Minister indicted that even through President Bush is planning to reverse his stance on climate change, he is happy for Australia to go it alone in defying the international consensus on climate change.
“It would be an enormous embarrassment if Australia was the only country in the world not acting to address climate change.” Senator Nettle said.
“This is one of the biggest issues facing the world at the moment, and with the present Government attitude we are becoming an environmental rogue state.
“The Greens recognise the need to tackle climate change head on by transitioning our economy away from carbon based fuels to renewable energy sources. Such measures will ensure a secure, productive future for regional NSW.”
Miliband tells UK to wake up over climate change
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Wednesday September 27, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
People are not concerned enough about the threat of climate change, the environment secretary said today, as he warned that the UK was in danger of "sleepwalking towards catastrophe" over the issue.
Mr Miliband revealed that he had been "kidding himself" over the dangers of rising sea levels and temperatures when he took over the environment post five months ago.
The environment secretary, often tipped as a future Labour leader, told his party's conference in Manchester that he was pledging £10m towards a public/private scheme to construct wind power facilities on public buildings such as hospitals and government offices.
Article continues
But, in a politely received speech, he made no reference to one of the most controversial aspects of the third-term Labour government: its moves towards advocating a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Mr Miliband told delegates: "The debate [about global warming] is over; the reckoning has begun.
"The truth is staring us in the face. Climate change is here, in our country; it is an issue for our generation as well as future generations, and those who deny it are the flat-earthers of the 21st century."
He added: "Five months ago, when I started this job, I thought that I had a reasonable layman's knowledge of the scale of the threat to our world.
"Twenty weeks in this job have taught me I was kidding myself.
"The risk is that we are sleepwalking towards catastrophe."
Earlier he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the country should be more scared than it is.
He said: "I think we should be quite scared [about climate change]. It's important not to be alarmist about it but it's important to be alarmed."
Mr Miliband told delegates: "At the moment we are living, Britons in the 21st century, as if there are three planets to support us when in fact we have only got one.
"We are consuming the natural resources of three planets - burning the fossil fuels of three planets, pumping out enough carbon dioxide for three planets - yet we only have one planet to live on.
He used the speech to announce a new venture. Partnership for Renewables will link up with private sector organisations to develop on-site renewable energy projects with local authorities, hospitals, and other public sector bodies.
"The scheme will lead to primarily 3-5megawatt wind turbine projects, constructed or under development within the next five years."
State funding of £10m over two years should unlock up to half a billion pounds of private investment, he promised.
Wednesday September 27, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
People are not concerned enough about the threat of climate change, the environment secretary said today, as he warned that the UK was in danger of "sleepwalking towards catastrophe" over the issue.
Mr Miliband revealed that he had been "kidding himself" over the dangers of rising sea levels and temperatures when he took over the environment post five months ago.
The environment secretary, often tipped as a future Labour leader, told his party's conference in Manchester that he was pledging £10m towards a public/private scheme to construct wind power facilities on public buildings such as hospitals and government offices.
Article continues
But, in a politely received speech, he made no reference to one of the most controversial aspects of the third-term Labour government: its moves towards advocating a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Mr Miliband told delegates: "The debate [about global warming] is over; the reckoning has begun.
"The truth is staring us in the face. Climate change is here, in our country; it is an issue for our generation as well as future generations, and those who deny it are the flat-earthers of the 21st century."
He added: "Five months ago, when I started this job, I thought that I had a reasonable layman's knowledge of the scale of the threat to our world.
"Twenty weeks in this job have taught me I was kidding myself.
"The risk is that we are sleepwalking towards catastrophe."
Earlier he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the country should be more scared than it is.
He said: "I think we should be quite scared [about climate change]. It's important not to be alarmist about it but it's important to be alarmed."
Mr Miliband told delegates: "At the moment we are living, Britons in the 21st century, as if there are three planets to support us when in fact we have only got one.
"We are consuming the natural resources of three planets - burning the fossil fuels of three planets, pumping out enough carbon dioxide for three planets - yet we only have one planet to live on.
He used the speech to announce a new venture. Partnership for Renewables will link up with private sector organisations to develop on-site renewable energy projects with local authorities, hospitals, and other public sector bodies.
"The scheme will lead to primarily 3-5megawatt wind turbine projects, constructed or under development within the next five years."
State funding of £10m over two years should unlock up to half a billion pounds of private investment, he promised.
Climate change 'terror'
KARA PHILLIPS, POLITICAL REPORTER
September 28, 2006 12:15am
Article from: The Advertiser
A NEW "terrifying" climate change report shows temperature change predictions for the state's coast have already grown by 0.3C in just three years.
Premier Mike Rann tabled the Government-commissioned CSIRO report in Parliament yesterday, warning that "no nation in the world will be more affected by global warming than Australia".
The CSIRO used computer modelling to determine the impact of global warming in SA from now until 2070 and the report updates a 2003 CSIRO study using the same models.
The CSIRO report predicts average temperatures in the south will increase up to 4.7C by 2070, up from the prediction of 4.4C as outlined in the 2003 report. Meanwhile, rainfall will decline by up to 35 per cent, up from predictions of 30 per cent in 2003.
The state's energy resources will be even more stressed by 2070, through greater use of reliance on airconditioning.
Mr Rann described the report as "terrifying".
"It is a glimpse of the future here in Australia," he said.
"This report demonstrates that the dry spells we are currently experiencing may become more frequent in the future, but that there may also be wet spells and an increase of flood and bushfires."
Yesterday, the Conservation Council SA, the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace issued a plea for the State Government to "close the loopholes" quickly in its new climate change legislation.
They warned that hundreds of species could become extinct.
Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham said the draft Climate Change Bill would provide "no teeth" to the renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2014. "There is no mechanism in place to ensure the target will be achieved, unlike in Victoria where the Bracks Government passed legislation two weeks ago, and already nearly $1 billion of new investment in renewable energy has been confirmed," he said.
Cuts to key conservation programs in last week's Budget had Wilderness Society state president Peter Owen and Conservation Council SA campaigner Julia Winefield "gravely concerned" for the future of the state's biodiversity. Mr Owen said the NatureLinks program and the Marine Protected Area Programs were inadequately funded, making it impossible to implement the key goals in the Government's Biodiversity Strategy.
The Rann Government was the first in Australia to bring in climate change laws and Mr Rann yesterday vowed more announcements would be made within weeks.
September 28, 2006 12:15am
Article from: The Advertiser
A NEW "terrifying" climate change report shows temperature change predictions for the state's coast have already grown by 0.3C in just three years.
Premier Mike Rann tabled the Government-commissioned CSIRO report in Parliament yesterday, warning that "no nation in the world will be more affected by global warming than Australia".
The CSIRO used computer modelling to determine the impact of global warming in SA from now until 2070 and the report updates a 2003 CSIRO study using the same models.
The CSIRO report predicts average temperatures in the south will increase up to 4.7C by 2070, up from the prediction of 4.4C as outlined in the 2003 report. Meanwhile, rainfall will decline by up to 35 per cent, up from predictions of 30 per cent in 2003.
The state's energy resources will be even more stressed by 2070, through greater use of reliance on airconditioning.
Mr Rann described the report as "terrifying".
"It is a glimpse of the future here in Australia," he said.
"This report demonstrates that the dry spells we are currently experiencing may become more frequent in the future, but that there may also be wet spells and an increase of flood and bushfires."
Yesterday, the Conservation Council SA, the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace issued a plea for the State Government to "close the loopholes" quickly in its new climate change legislation.
They warned that hundreds of species could become extinct.
Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham said the draft Climate Change Bill would provide "no teeth" to the renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2014. "There is no mechanism in place to ensure the target will be achieved, unlike in Victoria where the Bracks Government passed legislation two weeks ago, and already nearly $1 billion of new investment in renewable energy has been confirmed," he said.
Cuts to key conservation programs in last week's Budget had Wilderness Society state president Peter Owen and Conservation Council SA campaigner Julia Winefield "gravely concerned" for the future of the state's biodiversity. Mr Owen said the NatureLinks program and the Marine Protected Area Programs were inadequately funded, making it impossible to implement the key goals in the Government's Biodiversity Strategy.
The Rann Government was the first in Australia to bring in climate change laws and Mr Rann yesterday vowed more announcements would be made within weeks.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
The locals shaping our future
Futuremakers are everywhere. This month brought news of more voices calling for a sustainability revolution, more ways to adapt to and avoid the changes to the climate coming our way.
Some were inspired by books, others by natural disasters or just the simple realisation that it feels better to do something than rail against those who aren't.
On Australian beaches, urban school yards and farms in the tropical north, Futuremakers are gathering to make a difference. All believe it's a grassroots movement worth fighting for and, well, a bit of fun too.
Sue Lewis, a former Sydney school teacher, joined a merry band of parents and other unlikely agitators to put a stop to Australia burning coal for energy.
Jan Cameron, the president of Australian Women in Agriculture, faced a three year drought and watched the tropical rainforests near her north Queensland dairy farm wither until that fateful day in March when Cyclone Larry arrived.
Orthopaedic surgeon Matthew Nott was reading Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers when ferocious 42° summer winds blew off Tathra Beach, on the NSW south coast. It was a day he'll never forget.
Whether it is a change in the weather or a shift in understanding, these three Futuremakers are among thousands pushing for solutions to our looming climate change crisis.
Solutions come in the form of breeding sturdier cattle and replanting rainforests, swimming frozen lakes for publicity, rallying 3,000 locals for a beachside protest, galvanising principals of inner city schools to make way for solar power and, in whatever way they can, bringing on the sustainability revolution.
Urban renewable
Sue Lewis and the Climate Change Balmain-Rozelle group, have a vision. It's to see all the roofs of schools across their inner western Sydney peninsular, glint with solar panels.
Kogarah Council in Sydney has embraced alternative energy sources and installed solar panels in some buildings. Is your council supporting clean energy?
© WWF-Canon/Adam OSWELL
They've been given $40,000 worth of panels and inspired offers of help and admiration from fans across Australia.
"It really helps to have creative thinkers in the group - we've got a Kilowatt Count Challenge so people can boast about how they're cutting their energy and we're taking our banners to protest the use of coal when we can," says Sue.
They are also rounding up the merchants of Balmain's main drag, the upmarket Darling Street, to provoke a street-wide uptake of green energy.
"It is about our right to say no to a future fuelled by coal - everybody has that right. Everybody can say no," says Sue.
Adapting for an age of reason
Jan Cameron says the best way to cope with the cyclones of the future will be in the form of replanting hardy native species in "shelter belts" and flood-proofing farms. Breeding tougher dairy cattle with "good legs and feet" will help with further deluges like the one she is still experiencing months after Cyclone Larry hit. "The challenges to adapt and tidy up are all around - we lost power for 10 days, it hasn't stopped raining for months and we've lost about 10% of our milk production," says Jan.
Snapped like twigs - Cyclone Larry wove a path of destruction through north Queensland.
© larinalou
"Yet a few months before the cyclone we had had three failed wet seasons and they were putting dams in on the tablelands - people would have thought you were crazy doing that up until then."
The erratic weather is teaching farmers more about what is to come and valuable lessons for the future. "We found that pine trees are a disaster because they snap like twigs, no one will be planting trees along fence lines again because they take down the whole fence and really it's native shrubby trees and rainforest species as protection that are going to be our best bet."
Beachside blessings for a better future
After Matthew Nott's fateful day at the beach he spent three weeks on the phone calling lawn bowling fans, rural fire brigades, school groups, theatre staff and sports collectives. More than 10% of the Bega Shire turned up one Sunday to create a human sign spelling 'Clean energy for eternity' which dissolved and reformed to spell 'Imagine'. The story went around the world and the local ABC radio station's website received thousands of extra hits as others searched for Bega's impressive display of people power.
"It was The Weather Makers that inspired me this summer, it says so clearly what we are facing that I decided I would give it my all," says Matthew.
"Getting 3,000 people to turn up to the beach is just a start. We're looking at large scale art installations, bumper sticker campaigns and lots more local action."
Matthew's power to persuade even saw him and a mate swim six kilometres of Lake Jindabyne last week during a snowy southerly gale as an "awareness raiser".
"I guess its all about getting people to wake up; it's about getting the town to talk about these issues and it's about local councils and MPs in this marginal electorate knowing what the community really wants - clean energy, reducing consumption and getting on with it now," Matthew says.
"We're going to have some fun with all of this but we're serious too - this is about our future."
Your story
These are just three of the many great stories about Futuremakers around Australia. Perhaps you are, or know, of someone making a better future?
Tell us your story - we'd love to hear from you.
How you can help
Here are three simple things that you can do to help create a better future:
If you're haven't already, sign up to become a Futuremaker
Recycle your mobile
Start a group or volunteer
Some were inspired by books, others by natural disasters or just the simple realisation that it feels better to do something than rail against those who aren't.
On Australian beaches, urban school yards and farms in the tropical north, Futuremakers are gathering to make a difference. All believe it's a grassroots movement worth fighting for and, well, a bit of fun too.
Sue Lewis, a former Sydney school teacher, joined a merry band of parents and other unlikely agitators to put a stop to Australia burning coal for energy.
Jan Cameron, the president of Australian Women in Agriculture, faced a three year drought and watched the tropical rainforests near her north Queensland dairy farm wither until that fateful day in March when Cyclone Larry arrived.
Orthopaedic surgeon Matthew Nott was reading Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers when ferocious 42° summer winds blew off Tathra Beach, on the NSW south coast. It was a day he'll never forget.
Whether it is a change in the weather or a shift in understanding, these three Futuremakers are among thousands pushing for solutions to our looming climate change crisis.
Solutions come in the form of breeding sturdier cattle and replanting rainforests, swimming frozen lakes for publicity, rallying 3,000 locals for a beachside protest, galvanising principals of inner city schools to make way for solar power and, in whatever way they can, bringing on the sustainability revolution.
Urban renewable
Sue Lewis and the Climate Change Balmain-Rozelle group, have a vision. It's to see all the roofs of schools across their inner western Sydney peninsular, glint with solar panels.
Kogarah Council in Sydney has embraced alternative energy sources and installed solar panels in some buildings. Is your council supporting clean energy?
© WWF-Canon/Adam OSWELL
They've been given $40,000 worth of panels and inspired offers of help and admiration from fans across Australia.
"It really helps to have creative thinkers in the group - we've got a Kilowatt Count Challenge so people can boast about how they're cutting their energy and we're taking our banners to protest the use of coal when we can," says Sue.
They are also rounding up the merchants of Balmain's main drag, the upmarket Darling Street, to provoke a street-wide uptake of green energy.
"It is about our right to say no to a future fuelled by coal - everybody has that right. Everybody can say no," says Sue.
Adapting for an age of reason
Jan Cameron says the best way to cope with the cyclones of the future will be in the form of replanting hardy native species in "shelter belts" and flood-proofing farms. Breeding tougher dairy cattle with "good legs and feet" will help with further deluges like the one she is still experiencing months after Cyclone Larry hit. "The challenges to adapt and tidy up are all around - we lost power for 10 days, it hasn't stopped raining for months and we've lost about 10% of our milk production," says Jan.
Snapped like twigs - Cyclone Larry wove a path of destruction through north Queensland.
© larinalou
"Yet a few months before the cyclone we had had three failed wet seasons and they were putting dams in on the tablelands - people would have thought you were crazy doing that up until then."
The erratic weather is teaching farmers more about what is to come and valuable lessons for the future. "We found that pine trees are a disaster because they snap like twigs, no one will be planting trees along fence lines again because they take down the whole fence and really it's native shrubby trees and rainforest species as protection that are going to be our best bet."
Beachside blessings for a better future
After Matthew Nott's fateful day at the beach he spent three weeks on the phone calling lawn bowling fans, rural fire brigades, school groups, theatre staff and sports collectives. More than 10% of the Bega Shire turned up one Sunday to create a human sign spelling 'Clean energy for eternity' which dissolved and reformed to spell 'Imagine'. The story went around the world and the local ABC radio station's website received thousands of extra hits as others searched for Bega's impressive display of people power.
"It was The Weather Makers that inspired me this summer, it says so clearly what we are facing that I decided I would give it my all," says Matthew.
"Getting 3,000 people to turn up to the beach is just a start. We're looking at large scale art installations, bumper sticker campaigns and lots more local action."
Matthew's power to persuade even saw him and a mate swim six kilometres of Lake Jindabyne last week during a snowy southerly gale as an "awareness raiser".
"I guess its all about getting people to wake up; it's about getting the town to talk about these issues and it's about local councils and MPs in this marginal electorate knowing what the community really wants - clean energy, reducing consumption and getting on with it now," Matthew says.
"We're going to have some fun with all of this but we're serious too - this is about our future."
Your story
These are just three of the many great stories about Futuremakers around Australia. Perhaps you are, or know, of someone making a better future?
Tell us your story - we'd love to hear from you.
How you can help
Here are three simple things that you can do to help create a better future:
If you're haven't already, sign up to become a Futuremaker
Recycle your mobile
Start a group or volunteer
MRET and Sliver Solar Technology
Hi All
There is a good chance that if the Commonwealth increases Australia's MRET, industry will invest in solar technology, specifically the SLIVER cell technology developed at the ANU.
www.SLIVER.com.au
Indeed, if this were the case, then perhaps we could consider the SLIVER manufacturing factory to be located at Berridale or Bega!
Acacia
There is a good chance that if the Commonwealth increases Australia's MRET, industry will invest in solar technology, specifically the SLIVER cell technology developed at the ANU.
www.SLIVER.com.au
Indeed, if this were the case, then perhaps we could consider the SLIVER manufacturing factory to be located at Berridale or Bega!
Acacia
How corporations have hijacked the climate change debate
The Age
September 27, 2006
Important public issues should be subject to transparent discussion, writes George Monbiot.
THE campaign of dissuasion about the science of climate change funded by ExxonMobil and the tobacco company Philip Morris has been devastatingly effective.
By insisting that man-made global warming is either a "myth" or not worth tackling, it has given the media and politicians the excuses for inaction they wanted.
Partly as a result, in the US at least, these companies have helped to delay attempts to tackle the world's most important problem by a decade or more. Should we not confront this?
It is unclear how much covert corporate lobbying has been taking place, but evidence in the US and Britain suggests some overlap between Exxon and the groups it has funded and the operations of the tobacco industry.
The story begins with a body called the International Policy Network (IPN). As with many other organisations that have received money from Exxon, it describes itself as a think tank or an independent educational charity, but a more accurate description, it seems to me, would be lobby group.
The BBC in Britain has frequently allowed IPN's executive director, Julian Morris, to present IPN's case without declaring its backers. IPN has so far received $US295,000 ($A390,000) from Exxon's corporate headquarters in the US. Morris told me that he runs his US office "solely for funding purposes".
IPN argues that attempts to prevent (or mitigate) man-made climate change are a waste of money. It would be better to let it happen and adapt to its effects. The Network published a book this year arguing that "humanity has until at least 2035 to determine whether or not mitigation will also be a necessary part of our strategy to address climate change … attempting to control it through global regulation of emissions would be counterproductive".
Morris has described Britain's chief scientist, Sir David King — who has campaigned for action on global warming — as "an embarrassment to himself and an embarrassment to his country".
And like many of the groups that have been funded by ExxonMobil, IPN has also received money from the cigarette industry. Morris admits it has been given £10,000 ($A23,000) by a US tobacco company.
In the archives that the cigarette companies were forced to open as part of the settlement of a class action in the US, there is a document entitled Environmental Risk. It is an application to another tobacco company, RJ Reynolds, to pay for a book about "the myth of scientific risk assessment".
"The principal objective of this book is to highlight the uncertainties inherent in 'scientific' estimates of risk to humans and the environment."
Among the myths it would be contesting were the adverse health effects of passive smoking. Morris, who was listed as a planned editor of the book, insists that his name was added to the proposal without his consent. He says he had "nothing" to do with the book.
It was published in 1997 under the title What Risk? and claims that passive smoking is no more dangerous than "eating 50 grams of mushrooms a week", and attacks "politically correct" beliefs such as "passive smoking causes lung cancer" and "mankind's emissions of carbon dioxide will result in runaway global warming". Morris is the first person thanked in the acknowledgments, for his "editorial suggestions".
The book's editor, Roger Bate, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute — which has received $US1.6 million from ExxonMobil — and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received $US2 million.
Until 2003, he was Morris' predecessor as head of IPN. When the book was written, he ran the European Science and Environment Forum (Esef), which published What Risk?. The registered owner of Esef's website is Morris. He claims he had nothing to do with Esef, and registered the name "as a favour to a friend".
The investigative group PRWatch alleges that Esef was originally called Scientists for Sound Public Policy (SSPP), and was founded by a public relations agency working for the tobacco company Philip Morris.
Other public relations firms were vying for Philip Morris' account. Burson Marsteller's proposal argued that "industrial resistance" to regulation is "perceived as protection of commercial self-interests". A different "countervailing voice" was required, consisting of "international opinion formers supported financially by the industry". Their role would be "educating opinion leaders, politicians and the media".
The group would also seek funding from other industries. Some of those Esef recruited as "academic members" were people working for US lobby groups later funded by Exxon, who have made false claims about climate change.
There is no law against taking money from corporations, or against advancing arguments in the media that are in tune with theirs. Nor should there be.
The problem is what appears to be a failure to declare an interest. When someone speaks on an issue of public importance, we should be allowed to see who has been paying them. This should apply to all advocates, pressure groups and think tanks, from Greenpeace to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
George Monbiot is a columnist for The Guardian.
September 27, 2006
Important public issues should be subject to transparent discussion, writes George Monbiot.
THE campaign of dissuasion about the science of climate change funded by ExxonMobil and the tobacco company Philip Morris has been devastatingly effective.
By insisting that man-made global warming is either a "myth" or not worth tackling, it has given the media and politicians the excuses for inaction they wanted.
Partly as a result, in the US at least, these companies have helped to delay attempts to tackle the world's most important problem by a decade or more. Should we not confront this?
It is unclear how much covert corporate lobbying has been taking place, but evidence in the US and Britain suggests some overlap between Exxon and the groups it has funded and the operations of the tobacco industry.
The story begins with a body called the International Policy Network (IPN). As with many other organisations that have received money from Exxon, it describes itself as a think tank or an independent educational charity, but a more accurate description, it seems to me, would be lobby group.
The BBC in Britain has frequently allowed IPN's executive director, Julian Morris, to present IPN's case without declaring its backers. IPN has so far received $US295,000 ($A390,000) from Exxon's corporate headquarters in the US. Morris told me that he runs his US office "solely for funding purposes".
IPN argues that attempts to prevent (or mitigate) man-made climate change are a waste of money. It would be better to let it happen and adapt to its effects. The Network published a book this year arguing that "humanity has until at least 2035 to determine whether or not mitigation will also be a necessary part of our strategy to address climate change … attempting to control it through global regulation of emissions would be counterproductive".
Morris has described Britain's chief scientist, Sir David King — who has campaigned for action on global warming — as "an embarrassment to himself and an embarrassment to his country".
And like many of the groups that have been funded by ExxonMobil, IPN has also received money from the cigarette industry. Morris admits it has been given £10,000 ($A23,000) by a US tobacco company.
In the archives that the cigarette companies were forced to open as part of the settlement of a class action in the US, there is a document entitled Environmental Risk. It is an application to another tobacco company, RJ Reynolds, to pay for a book about "the myth of scientific risk assessment".
"The principal objective of this book is to highlight the uncertainties inherent in 'scientific' estimates of risk to humans and the environment."
Among the myths it would be contesting were the adverse health effects of passive smoking. Morris, who was listed as a planned editor of the book, insists that his name was added to the proposal without his consent. He says he had "nothing" to do with the book.
It was published in 1997 under the title What Risk? and claims that passive smoking is no more dangerous than "eating 50 grams of mushrooms a week", and attacks "politically correct" beliefs such as "passive smoking causes lung cancer" and "mankind's emissions of carbon dioxide will result in runaway global warming". Morris is the first person thanked in the acknowledgments, for his "editorial suggestions".
The book's editor, Roger Bate, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute — which has received $US1.6 million from ExxonMobil — and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received $US2 million.
Until 2003, he was Morris' predecessor as head of IPN. When the book was written, he ran the European Science and Environment Forum (Esef), which published What Risk?. The registered owner of Esef's website is Morris. He claims he had nothing to do with Esef, and registered the name "as a favour to a friend".
The investigative group PRWatch alleges that Esef was originally called Scientists for Sound Public Policy (SSPP), and was founded by a public relations agency working for the tobacco company Philip Morris.
Other public relations firms were vying for Philip Morris' account. Burson Marsteller's proposal argued that "industrial resistance" to regulation is "perceived as protection of commercial self-interests". A different "countervailing voice" was required, consisting of "international opinion formers supported financially by the industry". Their role would be "educating opinion leaders, politicians and the media".
The group would also seek funding from other industries. Some of those Esef recruited as "academic members" were people working for US lobby groups later funded by Exxon, who have made false claims about climate change.
There is no law against taking money from corporations, or against advancing arguments in the media that are in tune with theirs. Nor should there be.
The problem is what appears to be a failure to declare an interest. When someone speaks on an issue of public importance, we should be allowed to see who has been paying them. This should apply to all advocates, pressure groups and think tanks, from Greenpeace to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
George Monbiot is a columnist for The Guardian.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
It's clean and it's green, but Howard isn't interested in it
SMH
Suzy Freeman-Greene
September 26, 2006
IN MAY, John Howard called for a "full-blooded debate" on nuclear power. When the Prime Minister asks for debate, we oblige, and the issue has attracted headlines since. But while nuclear, wind power and even carbon geosequestration are the subject of spirited discussion as we grapple with global warming, there's a clean, green power source that barely seems to rate a mention. It's solar power.
Australia is one of the world's sunniest countries and an innovator in solar research. "We used to be a world leader in solar power," says the Australian Conservation Foundation's Erwin Jackson. "Now we're falling abysmally behind countries like Japan."
For more than a decade, according to the New Internationalist, the Japanese Government has paid subsidies to householders who install photovoltaic panels on their roofs. The subsidies are being phased out but capacity is still expected to grow by 20 per cent a year.
Germany, meanwhile, has installed more than 100 times Australia's grid-connected solar capacity. "Yet if you put the same panel on a roof in Australia (where it's sunnier) it would produce twice as much capacity," says Jackson.
But in Australia, the Federal Government is quietly phasing out the rebates available to homeowners who install panels. The rebate has been replaced by the $75 million Solar Cities project, in which four locations will be used to demonstrate and trial solar technology. In North Adelaide, the first "solar city", panels and "smart meters" will be installed in 1700 homes.
The project will run until 2012-13. While worthy, it will be limited to just a few locations and seems small fry compared with what's going on elsewhere. In Spain, the Government has legislated to require solar panels in all new and renovated shopping centres, offices, hotels or warehouses. Jackson says about 70 per cent of the panels made at BP Solar's Sydney manufacturing plant are sold overseas.
It costs about $10,000 to $15,000 to put panels on your roof. We have the technology. We just need to make it cheaper. Says Haydn Fletcher from Melbourne firm Going Solar: "We already know how to become solar cities … What we need is policy change." He says the past 10 months have been the quietest he's seen.
No single power source can replace our reliance on coal; we need diversity. Solar is not the panacea. But there's so much more we could do to foster an affordable, large-scale industry. Far from a fringe affair, the foundation says solar PV is the fastest-growing energy technology in the world, with growth rates of 60 per cent annually over the past five years.
One effective way to encourage investment in solar power is to reward panel owners for the unused power they can feed into the electricity grid. Many in the local solar industry are calling for the introduction of a "feed-in tariff", where a small levy is added to all power bills. The money is then used to pay households or businesses for their excess solar power at a higher rate than that paid to dirtier sources.
Governments in Germany, Italy, China, Indonesia, Spain, South Korea and Switzerland have kick-started their industry with such a tariff. A draft proposal prepared by BP Solar and Conergy, says a feed-in tariff would cost the typical power consumer the equivalent of one cup of coffee a year (presumably about $3).
Things are happening slowly here. Melbourne firm Solar Systems has proposed a $420 million solar power station in north-western Victoria that could power 40,000 homes. Solar Systems and Boeing have developed the project using PV technology designed for satellites. They have applied for federal funding from the low emission technologies fund.
The State Government has legislated to require electricity retailers to meet 10 per cent of their energy needs through renewable sources by 2016. But the Victorian Opposition has pledged to scrap the scheme.
When the Prime Minister spoke in May, he described nuclear power, which produces radioactive waste, as "cleaner and greener than other forms of power".
Whose debate do we want to have? The one framed by politicians in thrall to the mining lobby or a discussion about genuinely clean forms of power? Clearly the Government wants to boost our coal and uranium industries, but in 100 years' time will there even be an economy around to protect?
Suzy Freeman-Greene is a staff writer.
Suzy Freeman-Greene
September 26, 2006
IN MAY, John Howard called for a "full-blooded debate" on nuclear power. When the Prime Minister asks for debate, we oblige, and the issue has attracted headlines since. But while nuclear, wind power and even carbon geosequestration are the subject of spirited discussion as we grapple with global warming, there's a clean, green power source that barely seems to rate a mention. It's solar power.
Australia is one of the world's sunniest countries and an innovator in solar research. "We used to be a world leader in solar power," says the Australian Conservation Foundation's Erwin Jackson. "Now we're falling abysmally behind countries like Japan."
For more than a decade, according to the New Internationalist, the Japanese Government has paid subsidies to householders who install photovoltaic panels on their roofs. The subsidies are being phased out but capacity is still expected to grow by 20 per cent a year.
Germany, meanwhile, has installed more than 100 times Australia's grid-connected solar capacity. "Yet if you put the same panel on a roof in Australia (where it's sunnier) it would produce twice as much capacity," says Jackson.
But in Australia, the Federal Government is quietly phasing out the rebates available to homeowners who install panels. The rebate has been replaced by the $75 million Solar Cities project, in which four locations will be used to demonstrate and trial solar technology. In North Adelaide, the first "solar city", panels and "smart meters" will be installed in 1700 homes.
The project will run until 2012-13. While worthy, it will be limited to just a few locations and seems small fry compared with what's going on elsewhere. In Spain, the Government has legislated to require solar panels in all new and renovated shopping centres, offices, hotels or warehouses. Jackson says about 70 per cent of the panels made at BP Solar's Sydney manufacturing plant are sold overseas.
It costs about $10,000 to $15,000 to put panels on your roof. We have the technology. We just need to make it cheaper. Says Haydn Fletcher from Melbourne firm Going Solar: "We already know how to become solar cities … What we need is policy change." He says the past 10 months have been the quietest he's seen.
No single power source can replace our reliance on coal; we need diversity. Solar is not the panacea. But there's so much more we could do to foster an affordable, large-scale industry. Far from a fringe affair, the foundation says solar PV is the fastest-growing energy technology in the world, with growth rates of 60 per cent annually over the past five years.
One effective way to encourage investment in solar power is to reward panel owners for the unused power they can feed into the electricity grid. Many in the local solar industry are calling for the introduction of a "feed-in tariff", where a small levy is added to all power bills. The money is then used to pay households or businesses for their excess solar power at a higher rate than that paid to dirtier sources.
Governments in Germany, Italy, China, Indonesia, Spain, South Korea and Switzerland have kick-started their industry with such a tariff. A draft proposal prepared by BP Solar and Conergy, says a feed-in tariff would cost the typical power consumer the equivalent of one cup of coffee a year (presumably about $3).
Things are happening slowly here. Melbourne firm Solar Systems has proposed a $420 million solar power station in north-western Victoria that could power 40,000 homes. Solar Systems and Boeing have developed the project using PV technology designed for satellites. They have applied for federal funding from the low emission technologies fund.
The State Government has legislated to require electricity retailers to meet 10 per cent of their energy needs through renewable sources by 2016. But the Victorian Opposition has pledged to scrap the scheme.
When the Prime Minister spoke in May, he described nuclear power, which produces radioactive waste, as "cleaner and greener than other forms of power".
Whose debate do we want to have? The one framed by politicians in thrall to the mining lobby or a discussion about genuinely clean forms of power? Clearly the Government wants to boost our coal and uranium industries, but in 100 years' time will there even be an economy around to protect?
Suzy Freeman-Greene is a staff writer.
Earth close to hottest climate in million years
SMH
September 26, 2006 - 1:23PM
The Earth's rapid warming has pushed temperatures to their hottest level in nearly 12,000 years and within a hair's breadth of a million years, a study by the US space agency showed on Sunday.
Global warming, which has added 0.2 of a degree a decade over the past 30 years, has caused temperatures to reach and now pass through the warmest levels in the current interglacial period, which lasted almost 12,000 years, said the study led by James Hansen, a leading climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The study, published in the September 26 of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said that Earth was now within about 1 degree of the maximum estimated temperature of the past million years.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration researcher said that was the most important finding of the team's research.
"That means that further global warming of 1 degree Celsius defines a critical level. If warming is kept less than that, effects of global warming may be relatively manageable. During the warmest interglacial periods, the Earth was reasonably similar to today," Hansen said.
"But if further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."
Hansen pointed out that the last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about 3 million years ago, when the sea level was estimated to have been about 25 metres higher than today.
The researchers recalled that a study published in 2003 by the British science journal Nature showed that 1700 varieties of plants and animal and insect species had migrated toward the North Pole at an average six kilometres a decade in the second half of the 20th century.
AFP
September 26, 2006 - 1:23PM
The Earth's rapid warming has pushed temperatures to their hottest level in nearly 12,000 years and within a hair's breadth of a million years, a study by the US space agency showed on Sunday.
Global warming, which has added 0.2 of a degree a decade over the past 30 years, has caused temperatures to reach and now pass through the warmest levels in the current interglacial period, which lasted almost 12,000 years, said the study led by James Hansen, a leading climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The study, published in the September 26 of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said that Earth was now within about 1 degree of the maximum estimated temperature of the past million years.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration researcher said that was the most important finding of the team's research.
"That means that further global warming of 1 degree Celsius defines a critical level. If warming is kept less than that, effects of global warming may be relatively manageable. During the warmest interglacial periods, the Earth was reasonably similar to today," Hansen said.
"But if further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."
Hansen pointed out that the last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about 3 million years ago, when the sea level was estimated to have been about 25 metres higher than today.
The researchers recalled that a study published in 2003 by the British science journal Nature showed that 1700 varieties of plants and animal and insect species had migrated toward the North Pole at an average six kilometres a decade in the second half of the 20th century.
AFP
Monday, September 25, 2006
'Parrot risk' wind farm to move turbines
The Age
Ewin Hannan
September 25, 2006
FEDERAL Environment Minister Ian Campbell has won a concession from the developer of the Bald Hills wind farm, with the company agreeing to move six turbines out of the potential flight path of the orange-bellied parrot.
Senator Campbell blocked the wind farm in April, claiming a threat to the parrot, and the company's move is an acknowledgment the turbines would have been on the potential migratory path of the endangered bird.
The minister has agreed to reconsider the wind farm after legal action by the company. Opponents of the project said yesterday the company's decision was an admission of guilt and showed the original proposal threatened the bird.
The parrot's migratory path is mostly within 2km of the coast. Six of the 52 turbines proposed for Bald Hills are within 2km of the Victorian coast or along the 2km boundary.
A director of Wind Power, Andrew Newbold, told The Australian the company had decided to move the six turbines 150m back from the 2km line.
Mr Newbold said the decision was "definitely" a concession.
"We have done that to avoid any ambiguity about the migratory path, removing that ... as a possible reason for further rejection," he said.
Coastal Guardians spokesman Tim Le Roy said the shifting of the turbines and the company's offer to spend $750,000 on orange-bellied parrot recovery programs contradicted its claims the wind farm would have no impact on the bird.
"It is an admission of guilt that they're putting money in and moving the turbines," Mr Le Roy said. "We consider the proposal is still unacceptable. You can't put a price on an endangered species. They think they can throw money at it to make them feel better."
Mr Le Roy said if Senator Campbell approved the revised proposal, his group would take action in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have the project stopped.
But Mr Newbold said the company had spent $2 million on the project, including $300,000 in legal fees.
In its new submission to the Government, the company has provided advice from wildlife expert Brett Lane to rebut Senator Campbell's reasons for rejecting the wind farm.
Mr Lane said he was unaware of any record of the parrot within 5km of the proposed wind farm site, and there was no suitable habitat for the bird at the site.
He said the Biosis report used by Senator Campbell to veto the project overestimated the risk of parrots hitting the wind turbines.
While Senator Campbell claimed the wind farm had the potential to kill one parrot a year, the claim was based on the cumulative impact of 17 wind farms - most of which have not been built - and on assumptions unsupported by sightings or empirical evidence.
"Taken at its highest, the Biosis modelling supports a finding that the potential impact of the Bald Hills wind farm would be the death of one orange-bellied parrot every thousand years," he said.
Federal Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said: "The expert advice tells us what we all knew - less than one parrot might die at the site in 1000 years, despite the minister's claims to the contrary. The dodgy science is exposed."
Ewin Hannan
September 25, 2006
FEDERAL Environment Minister Ian Campbell has won a concession from the developer of the Bald Hills wind farm, with the company agreeing to move six turbines out of the potential flight path of the orange-bellied parrot.
Senator Campbell blocked the wind farm in April, claiming a threat to the parrot, and the company's move is an acknowledgment the turbines would have been on the potential migratory path of the endangered bird.
The minister has agreed to reconsider the wind farm after legal action by the company. Opponents of the project said yesterday the company's decision was an admission of guilt and showed the original proposal threatened the bird.
The parrot's migratory path is mostly within 2km of the coast. Six of the 52 turbines proposed for Bald Hills are within 2km of the Victorian coast or along the 2km boundary.
A director of Wind Power, Andrew Newbold, told The Australian the company had decided to move the six turbines 150m back from the 2km line.
Mr Newbold said the decision was "definitely" a concession.
"We have done that to avoid any ambiguity about the migratory path, removing that ... as a possible reason for further rejection," he said.
Coastal Guardians spokesman Tim Le Roy said the shifting of the turbines and the company's offer to spend $750,000 on orange-bellied parrot recovery programs contradicted its claims the wind farm would have no impact on the bird.
"It is an admission of guilt that they're putting money in and moving the turbines," Mr Le Roy said. "We consider the proposal is still unacceptable. You can't put a price on an endangered species. They think they can throw money at it to make them feel better."
Mr Le Roy said if Senator Campbell approved the revised proposal, his group would take action in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have the project stopped.
But Mr Newbold said the company had spent $2 million on the project, including $300,000 in legal fees.
In its new submission to the Government, the company has provided advice from wildlife expert Brett Lane to rebut Senator Campbell's reasons for rejecting the wind farm.
Mr Lane said he was unaware of any record of the parrot within 5km of the proposed wind farm site, and there was no suitable habitat for the bird at the site.
He said the Biosis report used by Senator Campbell to veto the project overestimated the risk of parrots hitting the wind turbines.
While Senator Campbell claimed the wind farm had the potential to kill one parrot a year, the claim was based on the cumulative impact of 17 wind farms - most of which have not been built - and on assumptions unsupported by sightings or empirical evidence.
"Taken at its highest, the Biosis modelling supports a finding that the potential impact of the Bald Hills wind farm would be the death of one orange-bellied parrot every thousand years," he said.
Federal Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said: "The expert advice tells us what we all knew - less than one parrot might die at the site in 1000 years, despite the minister's claims to the contrary. The dodgy science is exposed."
Friday, September 22, 2006
Planet is on thin ice
Narooma News
By Stan Gorton
Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Moruya lawyer Julia Mayo-Ramsay last Sunday was fortunate enough to be invited to the premier of Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth" at Fox Studios in Sydney where she got to meet the former US vice president.
In the documentary, Mr Gore criticises Australia and the United States as the only countries not to ratify the Kyoto protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"Climate change is a bigger threat to world security than terrorism and the world's industrial countries must cut their greenhouse gas pollution before they can demand developing nations take action", Mr Gore said.
Climate change looms as the defining issue of the 21st century, and among the most persistent threats to life on the planet as we know it.
"With our low lying coastal towns, and forestry, dairy and fishing industries already subject to delicate balances, the Eurobodalla stands to be an early victim of global warming if nothing is done," Ms Mayo-Ramsey said.
Mr Gore is on a mission to tackle the problem of global warming at a grassroots level by changing the way people buy, use and consume.
"We too are trying to tackle the problem of climate change at a local level and following on from the Tathra Clean Energy for Eternity rally and public meeting in Bega on August 21, we will be organising a number of community meetings in the Eurobodalla over the next few months, to discuss global warming and involve people at the grassroots level in setting targets for change," she said.
By Stan Gorton
Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Moruya lawyer Julia Mayo-Ramsay last Sunday was fortunate enough to be invited to the premier of Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth" at Fox Studios in Sydney where she got to meet the former US vice president.
In the documentary, Mr Gore criticises Australia and the United States as the only countries not to ratify the Kyoto protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"Climate change is a bigger threat to world security than terrorism and the world's industrial countries must cut their greenhouse gas pollution before they can demand developing nations take action", Mr Gore said.
Climate change looms as the defining issue of the 21st century, and among the most persistent threats to life on the planet as we know it.
"With our low lying coastal towns, and forestry, dairy and fishing industries already subject to delicate balances, the Eurobodalla stands to be an early victim of global warming if nothing is done," Ms Mayo-Ramsey said.
Mr Gore is on a mission to tackle the problem of global warming at a grassroots level by changing the way people buy, use and consume.
"We too are trying to tackle the problem of climate change at a local level and following on from the Tathra Clean Energy for Eternity rally and public meeting in Bega on August 21, we will be organising a number of community meetings in the Eurobodalla over the next few months, to discuss global warming and involve people at the grassroots level in setting targets for change," she said.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Cycle for Sustainability in Bega
Cycle for Sustainability
Cycle for Sustainability is a sustainability education road-show, motivating and empowering individuals and communities to take action toward sustainability. The campaign is inspired by Gandhi’s philosophy of ‘be the change you wish to see in the world’. The ride coincides with the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014).
The C4S 2006 organisers seek to create a healthy, mobile community of individuals with the energy to ride and enthusiasm to engage and educate the broader community on sustainability issues. In recognising the importance of promoting sustainable living practices the team are committed to a journey which is smoke and drug free.
The group will be in Bega on Saturday 30 September, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Calls for global legislation to achieve global energy targets
ABC News Online
20/9/2006
A new report has found wind energy could provide up to a third of the world's electricity by the year 2030, if governments around the globe legislate to support renewable energy.
The report was prepared for the Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace.
The director of Greenpeace International's Renewable Energy Campaign, Sven Teske, says Australian states like South Australia and Victoria have already taken positive steps towards mandating renewable energy targets.
He says the state and federal governments need to do more by stopping subsidies for fossil fuels.
"It doesn't make sense to talk about targets when there is no mechanism in place to achieve those targets," he said.
"So a very important first step is an ambitious target and a second one is to put measurements in place and programs to achieve those targets, that's very crucial."
20/9/2006
A new report has found wind energy could provide up to a third of the world's electricity by the year 2030, if governments around the globe legislate to support renewable energy.
The report was prepared for the Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace.
The director of Greenpeace International's Renewable Energy Campaign, Sven Teske, says Australian states like South Australia and Victoria have already taken positive steps towards mandating renewable energy targets.
He says the state and federal governments need to do more by stopping subsidies for fossil fuels.
"It doesn't make sense to talk about targets when there is no mechanism in place to achieve those targets," he said.
"So a very important first step is an ambitious target and a second one is to put measurements in place and programs to achieve those targets, that's very crucial."
Wind farm pledges to save parrot
The Australian
Ewin Hannan
September 20, 2006
THE Bald Hills wind farm developer has promised to spend almost $1.4 million, including $750,000 to protect the orange-bellied parrot, in a bid to revive the $220 million project.
Wind Power Pty Ltd has submitted a revamped proposal for the Victorian wind farm, which was blocked by federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell because of a claimed threat to survival of the parrot.
Senator Campbell agreed to reconsider the project after the company took legal action.
If the proposal is approved, almost $4million in public and private funds will be spent on the parrot. Senator Campbell had previously announced that $3.2million in taxpayers' funds would be spent to protect the bird.
Wind Power director Andrew Newbold said yesterday the company would also commit $625,000 towards local community projects.
The $1.375 million will be spent over the 25-year life of the wind farm.
Senator Campbell called yesterday for public submissions on the company's proposal, which will be put on the minister's website by the end of today. Submissions will be accepted for 21 days.
"The information will be assessed thoroughly and as promptly as possible," he said yesterday. "I want all stakeholders to have the opportunity to have their say."
But Victorian Planning Minister Rob Hulls said the project had already "been through an exhaustive and independent public consultation process - and now Senator Campbell wants people in a clandestine way to write to him without any public mechanism for testing those submissions".
"This has been a debacle from the moment Ian Campbell laid eyes on it," Mr Hulls said.
"He has become an orange-bellied embarrassment as he simply makes things up as he goes along without any respect for due process."
But Senator Campbell, who ignored his own departmental advice in his push to block the wind farm, continued to defend his decision yesterday. "My original decision to reject the Bald Hills wind farm was based on the Biosis cumulative impact study, which found that one orange-bellied parrot a year could be killed," he said.
"This report concluded that while the impact of wind turbine collisions on the parrot - of which there are less than 50 breeding pairs left in the world - may be small, almost any negative impact on the species could be enough to tip it into extinction."
But Mr Newbold said the company's submission included a detailed rebuttal of the Biosis report.
"We maintain the impact is at worst equivalent to one bird every 1000 years," he said. "There have been other wind farms approved by the government which have been a far greater threat to the parrot than Bald Hills."
The funds should be used for the revegetation of the parrot's habitat because "that goes to the actual cause" of why they are becoming extinct. "We obviously think we have addressed his concerns adequately."
Ewin Hannan
September 20, 2006
THE Bald Hills wind farm developer has promised to spend almost $1.4 million, including $750,000 to protect the orange-bellied parrot, in a bid to revive the $220 million project.
Wind Power Pty Ltd has submitted a revamped proposal for the Victorian wind farm, which was blocked by federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell because of a claimed threat to survival of the parrot.
Senator Campbell agreed to reconsider the project after the company took legal action.
If the proposal is approved, almost $4million in public and private funds will be spent on the parrot. Senator Campbell had previously announced that $3.2million in taxpayers' funds would be spent to protect the bird.
Wind Power director Andrew Newbold said yesterday the company would also commit $625,000 towards local community projects.
The $1.375 million will be spent over the 25-year life of the wind farm.
Senator Campbell called yesterday for public submissions on the company's proposal, which will be put on the minister's website by the end of today. Submissions will be accepted for 21 days.
"The information will be assessed thoroughly and as promptly as possible," he said yesterday. "I want all stakeholders to have the opportunity to have their say."
But Victorian Planning Minister Rob Hulls said the project had already "been through an exhaustive and independent public consultation process - and now Senator Campbell wants people in a clandestine way to write to him without any public mechanism for testing those submissions".
"This has been a debacle from the moment Ian Campbell laid eyes on it," Mr Hulls said.
"He has become an orange-bellied embarrassment as he simply makes things up as he goes along without any respect for due process."
But Senator Campbell, who ignored his own departmental advice in his push to block the wind farm, continued to defend his decision yesterday. "My original decision to reject the Bald Hills wind farm was based on the Biosis cumulative impact study, which found that one orange-bellied parrot a year could be killed," he said.
"This report concluded that while the impact of wind turbine collisions on the parrot - of which there are less than 50 breeding pairs left in the world - may be small, almost any negative impact on the species could be enough to tip it into extinction."
But Mr Newbold said the company's submission included a detailed rebuttal of the Biosis report.
"We maintain the impact is at worst equivalent to one bird every 1000 years," he said. "There have been other wind farms approved by the government which have been a far greater threat to the parrot than Bald Hills."
The funds should be used for the revegetation of the parrot's habitat because "that goes to the actual cause" of why they are becoming extinct. "We obviously think we have addressed his concerns adequately."
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Hard bushfire season ahead: Koperberg
SMH
Elicia Murray
September 19, 2006 - 3:30PM
Recent heavy rain and predicted soaring temperatures point to a long and difficult bush fire season, the commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service says.
Commissioner Phil Koperberg said today that this week's unseasonably warm weather added to the risk.
"I don't think it is anything we're not going to be able to handle, but it will be a challenge," Mr Koperberg told smh.com.au.
"I don't expect the fire season to kick off for another three weeks, but when it does, it will start, I think, with a bang."
The biggest concern was for the state's coastal areas, where bushfire fuel had built up in the years since the destructive 2002-03 season.
There was also a high danger in the state's Central West, around Dubbo, Orange, Wellington and Narrandera, he said.
Plans for hazard reduction burns along the coast had been thwarted by recent heavy rainfall, leaving many areas vulnerable.
Mr Koperberg said the fire service would be lucky to achieve 50 per cent of the hazard reduction targets along the coast. Further burns were unlikely if this week's hot, dry conditions continued.
However, the commissioner downplayed the overall significance of the unfinished burns, saying even if they had all been completed, the fire risk would only be reduced by about 5 to 10 per cent.
"You can't burn all of NSW ... we're just going to have to be very, very vigilant in areas where we don't get it done," he said.
The Bureau of Meteorology has forecast a hotter than average spring. Predicted hot, dry and windy weather led to the first total fire bans of the bushfire season, which started in the south-west of the state today.
"I expect that as the weather warms up further to the north, we will see the imposition of more total fire bans throughout the week," he said.
Parts of Sydney have already topped 30 degrees today and the forecast is for hot and windy weather to continue until the weekend.
Mr Koperberg said dry conditions in much of the state had left the Rural Fire Service with fewer options for fighting fires using water collected from dams on private properties.
"We don't have the luxury now of just dipping into someone's farm and just filling up a helicopter," he said.
A survey of water options was considering alternative water storage options, including train carriages and portable rubber dams, which could hold up to 10,000 litres of water.
The survey results were expected within a month, the commissioner said.
Mr Koperberg advised residents living near bushland to prepare their homes for the season by removing leaves and rubbish near roofs, gutters, decks and balconies.
AAP reports:
Firefighters backed by water bombing aircraft are battling to contain a blaze which is likely to threaten farms in Victoria's remote Mallee country late today.
The fire, which began as a fuel reduction burn, has ripped through about 3000 hectares of Mallee scrub in the Murray-Sunset National Park at Berrook East, north of Murrayville, 510 kilometres north-west of Melbourne.
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) state duty officer Graeme Davis said today the blaze was likely to affect privately owned wheat farms later today.
"The fire is likely to spread because we are expecting extreme fire weather before a change later today," Mr Davis said.
"We'll have a very strong northerly wind and relatively low humidity, certainly for this time of year.
"The westerly change will be blustery. We've had some fuel reduction burns in the area so we are trying to manage the fire into those areas."
Three fire-bombing aircraft and two helicopters will support 65 DSE firefighters on the ground, Mr Davis said.
"There's no private property under threat at this stage, but it is likely the fire will possibly spot on to private property later in the day.
"It's wheat country and it's all green crops at this stage, so it's unlikely to cause significant damage. There are no towns or settlements in the area, it's all broad-acre farms."
Elicia Murray
September 19, 2006 - 3:30PM
Recent heavy rain and predicted soaring temperatures point to a long and difficult bush fire season, the commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service says.
Commissioner Phil Koperberg said today that this week's unseasonably warm weather added to the risk.
"I don't think it is anything we're not going to be able to handle, but it will be a challenge," Mr Koperberg told smh.com.au.
"I don't expect the fire season to kick off for another three weeks, but when it does, it will start, I think, with a bang."
The biggest concern was for the state's coastal areas, where bushfire fuel had built up in the years since the destructive 2002-03 season.
There was also a high danger in the state's Central West, around Dubbo, Orange, Wellington and Narrandera, he said.
Plans for hazard reduction burns along the coast had been thwarted by recent heavy rainfall, leaving many areas vulnerable.
Mr Koperberg said the fire service would be lucky to achieve 50 per cent of the hazard reduction targets along the coast. Further burns were unlikely if this week's hot, dry conditions continued.
However, the commissioner downplayed the overall significance of the unfinished burns, saying even if they had all been completed, the fire risk would only be reduced by about 5 to 10 per cent.
"You can't burn all of NSW ... we're just going to have to be very, very vigilant in areas where we don't get it done," he said.
The Bureau of Meteorology has forecast a hotter than average spring. Predicted hot, dry and windy weather led to the first total fire bans of the bushfire season, which started in the south-west of the state today.
"I expect that as the weather warms up further to the north, we will see the imposition of more total fire bans throughout the week," he said.
Parts of Sydney have already topped 30 degrees today and the forecast is for hot and windy weather to continue until the weekend.
Mr Koperberg said dry conditions in much of the state had left the Rural Fire Service with fewer options for fighting fires using water collected from dams on private properties.
"We don't have the luxury now of just dipping into someone's farm and just filling up a helicopter," he said.
A survey of water options was considering alternative water storage options, including train carriages and portable rubber dams, which could hold up to 10,000 litres of water.
The survey results were expected within a month, the commissioner said.
Mr Koperberg advised residents living near bushland to prepare their homes for the season by removing leaves and rubbish near roofs, gutters, decks and balconies.
AAP reports:
Firefighters backed by water bombing aircraft are battling to contain a blaze which is likely to threaten farms in Victoria's remote Mallee country late today.
The fire, which began as a fuel reduction burn, has ripped through about 3000 hectares of Mallee scrub in the Murray-Sunset National Park at Berrook East, north of Murrayville, 510 kilometres north-west of Melbourne.
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) state duty officer Graeme Davis said today the blaze was likely to affect privately owned wheat farms later today.
"The fire is likely to spread because we are expecting extreme fire weather before a change later today," Mr Davis said.
"We'll have a very strong northerly wind and relatively low humidity, certainly for this time of year.
"The westerly change will be blustery. We've had some fuel reduction burns in the area so we are trying to manage the fire into those areas."
Three fire-bombing aircraft and two helicopters will support 65 DSE firefighters on the ground, Mr Davis said.
"There's no private property under threat at this stage, but it is likely the fire will possibly spot on to private property later in the day.
"It's wheat country and it's all green crops at this stage, so it's unlikely to cause significant damage. There are no towns or settlements in the area, it's all broad-acre farms."
Monday, September 18, 2006
Increase the MRET - business will follow!
The Age
AGL to build $230m power plant
September 18, 2006 - 3:35PM
The Australian Gas Light Company (AGL) is set to build the country's largest hydroelectric power plant in 25 years in Victoria's Alpine region.
Australia's biggest energy retailer today said the $230 million plant - to be opened at Bogong by October 2009 - would provide extra peaking electricity generation capacity for the state, and boost the amount of so-called zero emission electricity the company produced.
About 200 jobs will be created by the project, which AGL decided to develop following the Victorian government's recently-announced plans to introduce a Renewable Energy Target Certificate (VRET) scheme.
The scheme, to be introduced in 2008, requires energy retailers to buy at least 10 per cent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2016.
"AGL is encouraged by the Bracks' government's sensible approach to the development of a renewable energy industry in Victoria," AGL chief executive Paul Anthony said.
Mr Anthony said the 140-megawatt plant, which would only run when demand for power peaked, would help Victoria meet its power needs.
"This development will deliver important strategic benefits to AGL's wholesale energy portfolio and through its fast start-up capabilities, will also help meet Victoria's electricity demand during peak periods," he said.
AGL will also commission the nearby Banimboola hydroelectric power station, with an output of 12.2 megawatts, at a cost of $24 million.
The Bogong station is expected to be ready for the peak summer demand of 2009/10, and together the plants will make enough electricity to meet the summer demand of about 122,000 average homes.
In full production, they will cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 185,000 tonnes annually, AGL said.
The privately-owned McConnell Dowell Constructors and Toshiba International have been contracted for the Bogong project, while GE and Baulderstone and Hornibrook have been appointed for Banimboola.
The new plant will bump up the hydro component of AGL's wholesale power business by five per cent, and the company said almost half of the portfolio now produces zero emissions.
AGL Energy, which will be created through the planned merger of AGL's infrastructure business with that of Western Australian utility Alinta Ltd, will own the assets.
AGL and Alinta shareholders are due to vote on the merger next month.
AAP
AGL to build $230m power plant
September 18, 2006 - 3:35PM
The Australian Gas Light Company (AGL) is set to build the country's largest hydroelectric power plant in 25 years in Victoria's Alpine region.
Australia's biggest energy retailer today said the $230 million plant - to be opened at Bogong by October 2009 - would provide extra peaking electricity generation capacity for the state, and boost the amount of so-called zero emission electricity the company produced.
About 200 jobs will be created by the project, which AGL decided to develop following the Victorian government's recently-announced plans to introduce a Renewable Energy Target Certificate (VRET) scheme.
The scheme, to be introduced in 2008, requires energy retailers to buy at least 10 per cent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2016.
"AGL is encouraged by the Bracks' government's sensible approach to the development of a renewable energy industry in Victoria," AGL chief executive Paul Anthony said.
Mr Anthony said the 140-megawatt plant, which would only run when demand for power peaked, would help Victoria meet its power needs.
"This development will deliver important strategic benefits to AGL's wholesale energy portfolio and through its fast start-up capabilities, will also help meet Victoria's electricity demand during peak periods," he said.
AGL will also commission the nearby Banimboola hydroelectric power station, with an output of 12.2 megawatts, at a cost of $24 million.
The Bogong station is expected to be ready for the peak summer demand of 2009/10, and together the plants will make enough electricity to meet the summer demand of about 122,000 average homes.
In full production, they will cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 185,000 tonnes annually, AGL said.
The privately-owned McConnell Dowell Constructors and Toshiba International have been contracted for the Bogong project, while GE and Baulderstone and Hornibrook have been appointed for Banimboola.
The new plant will bump up the hydro component of AGL's wholesale power business by five per cent, and the company said almost half of the portfolio now produces zero emissions.
AGL Energy, which will be created through the planned merger of AGL's infrastructure business with that of Western Australian utility Alinta Ltd, will own the assets.
AGL and Alinta shareholders are due to vote on the merger next month.
AAP
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Campbell argues for geosequestration at climate change meeting
PM - Friday, 15 September , 2006 18:18:00
Reporter: Alexandra Kirk
MARK COLVIN: Geosequestration is a mouthful to say and the concept of geosequestration, pumping greenhouse gases into rock deep below the oceans and storing them, has proved a little hard to swallow internationally.
Australia's bid to change international law to allow it, has met some resistance at a UN climate change meeting in Zurich.
The Federal Environment minister Ian Campbell says there's some "ideological opposition" to the proposal but he's pressing ahead nevertheless.
On the line from the Zurich ministerial summit, Senator Campbell spoke to Alexandra Kirk.
IAN CAMPBELL: Today I was asked to lead a debate on technology transfer, and what we're pushing for is a high-level working group to become a permanent part of the United Nations framework to address technology transfer.
What does that mean in practical terms? It means that where you get a technology, for example, a low-emission light bulb, or a breakthrough in photovoltaics or solar cells, that you can ensure that that technology gets transferred across the world as quickly as possible.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Transferred to whom though?
IAN CAMPBELL: Well, if you know, for example, that in Australia, by every Australian changing to low-emission bulbs from the old bulbs, that you can actually do away with an entire power station, just think what getting that technology transferred to every household across every developed and developing country, place in the world, can achieve.
At the moment there are huge barriers to that technology transfer - intellectual property rights, the operation of good governance systems, good investment systems. If you want to get renewable energy technologies into many parts of the developing world, many developers are worried about losing their intellectual property rights.
So these are very serious issues, and if we can down these barriers to deploying low-emission technologies, clean energy technologies, then we can really make a radical difference to addressing climate change.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: The developing countries though, were looking for a fund to try and help them afford some of these new technologies. You've said no. Why?
IAN CAMPBELL: Well, there are already funds that are in existence to assist with that. Yes, we need more government money. Yes, we need more aid money. But if you don't have secure property rights, if you don't have protection of intellectual property rights then the owners of the low emissions technology, the renewable technologies aren't going to go there, so we have to get those right.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: But won't a lot of those developing countries miss out because they probably don't have a very sophisticated system for protection, for example, of intellectual property rights?
IAN CAMPBELL: Addressing the climate change challenge is so important that this could in fact be a driver for better governance structures in the developing world. They have to be made right anyway for the development of those countries. Climate change could be another big driver of that reform.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: And what support have you had for your idea or your push to change the rules of the international law to allow carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, to be buried under the sea bed, which is currently prohibited?
IAN CAMPBELL: There's divided views on that. It seems to me that a number of countries are very happy to see the burying of carbon under the sea bed. The only stress seems to be with proposals just to put it under the sea.
The view I put to my ministerial colleagues today was that we need to be guided by science, not emotion, on this. If it can be proven that just pumping it down under the depths of the sea is safe and secure, then we should pursue it.
The challenge of climate change is so important to the world and so important to Australia that we need to leave our ideological baggage at the door. All technologies must be on the table and burying carbon under the sea or under the sea bed is going to be a part of the solution, only a part of the solution.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: What was their objection?
IAN CAMPBELL: Some people are saying that pumping carbon under the sea won't work or it will be dangerous. Well, I don't know the answer to that, I don't think they know the answer to it.
We know that we don't want carbon to go up to the atmosphere in the way it's been going in the past. We know that sequestration, that is burying carbon under the ground, can work because it's been tried and proven.
If someone believes that you can pump it under the ocean and make it work, well, let's spend some money, let's research that, let's get science and engineering to guide us on it.
MARK COLVIN: The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell.
Reporter: Alexandra Kirk
MARK COLVIN: Geosequestration is a mouthful to say and the concept of geosequestration, pumping greenhouse gases into rock deep below the oceans and storing them, has proved a little hard to swallow internationally.
Australia's bid to change international law to allow it, has met some resistance at a UN climate change meeting in Zurich.
The Federal Environment minister Ian Campbell says there's some "ideological opposition" to the proposal but he's pressing ahead nevertheless.
On the line from the Zurich ministerial summit, Senator Campbell spoke to Alexandra Kirk.
IAN CAMPBELL: Today I was asked to lead a debate on technology transfer, and what we're pushing for is a high-level working group to become a permanent part of the United Nations framework to address technology transfer.
What does that mean in practical terms? It means that where you get a technology, for example, a low-emission light bulb, or a breakthrough in photovoltaics or solar cells, that you can ensure that that technology gets transferred across the world as quickly as possible.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: Transferred to whom though?
IAN CAMPBELL: Well, if you know, for example, that in Australia, by every Australian changing to low-emission bulbs from the old bulbs, that you can actually do away with an entire power station, just think what getting that technology transferred to every household across every developed and developing country, place in the world, can achieve.
At the moment there are huge barriers to that technology transfer - intellectual property rights, the operation of good governance systems, good investment systems. If you want to get renewable energy technologies into many parts of the developing world, many developers are worried about losing their intellectual property rights.
So these are very serious issues, and if we can down these barriers to deploying low-emission technologies, clean energy technologies, then we can really make a radical difference to addressing climate change.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: The developing countries though, were looking for a fund to try and help them afford some of these new technologies. You've said no. Why?
IAN CAMPBELL: Well, there are already funds that are in existence to assist with that. Yes, we need more government money. Yes, we need more aid money. But if you don't have secure property rights, if you don't have protection of intellectual property rights then the owners of the low emissions technology, the renewable technologies aren't going to go there, so we have to get those right.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: But won't a lot of those developing countries miss out because they probably don't have a very sophisticated system for protection, for example, of intellectual property rights?
IAN CAMPBELL: Addressing the climate change challenge is so important that this could in fact be a driver for better governance structures in the developing world. They have to be made right anyway for the development of those countries. Climate change could be another big driver of that reform.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: And what support have you had for your idea or your push to change the rules of the international law to allow carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, to be buried under the sea bed, which is currently prohibited?
IAN CAMPBELL: There's divided views on that. It seems to me that a number of countries are very happy to see the burying of carbon under the sea bed. The only stress seems to be with proposals just to put it under the sea.
The view I put to my ministerial colleagues today was that we need to be guided by science, not emotion, on this. If it can be proven that just pumping it down under the depths of the sea is safe and secure, then we should pursue it.
The challenge of climate change is so important to the world and so important to Australia that we need to leave our ideological baggage at the door. All technologies must be on the table and burying carbon under the sea or under the sea bed is going to be a part of the solution, only a part of the solution.
ALEXANDRA KIRK: What was their objection?
IAN CAMPBELL: Some people are saying that pumping carbon under the sea won't work or it will be dangerous. Well, I don't know the answer to that, I don't think they know the answer to it.
We know that we don't want carbon to go up to the atmosphere in the way it's been going in the past. We know that sequestration, that is burying carbon under the ground, can work because it's been tried and proven.
If someone believes that you can pump it under the ocean and make it work, well, let's spend some money, let's research that, let's get science and engineering to guide us on it.
MARK COLVIN: The Federal Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell.
Maybe he should have stuck to selling used cars!
Campbell stands firm over climate
SMH
September 17, 2006 - 9:36AM
Environment Minister Ian Campbell stood firm on Australia's long standing refusal to sign onto the Kyoto protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions, declaring it a slogan not a solution.
Senator Campbell, fresh back from the UN framework conference on climate change in Switzerland, backed urgent action on climate change but with better quality practical international action.
He said there was a sense of frustration that the whole process was becoming too bureaucratic and that more practical action was needed.
But for Australia, that would not involving signing the Kyoto accord.
"I don't think people who make alarmist predictions do us much of a favour because the public will switch off. There are going to be substantial serious consequences of not addressing climate change, urgently and with multiple billion dollar investments.
"The problem is too serious to offer up slogans as solution. Signing Kyoto is a slogan. It's not a solution. Investing billions of dollars in the technologies we need to transform the way we produce and use energy is a substantial solution."
Senator Campbell said Australia could end all carbon emissions overnight but growth in China alone would replace Australian emissions within 10 months.
"We could be the best climate change country in the world - and we are one of the best - but without cooperative effective action internationally we will not save Perth's beaches," he said.
Labor has strongly backed Australia signing the Kyoto Protocol but Senator Campbell said the reality was that protocol was being rewritten.
He said Kyoto signatories such as France were nine per cent over its Kyoto target, Norway 22 per cent, Portugal 26 per cent and Spain 36 per cent.
"The whole world is moving beyond Kyoto and Labor is saying sign up to something that was really drafted six, seven, eight years ago, which we know is not working," he said.
"There is no gain to ratifying. We are part of a process that is designing the post-Kyoto world."
Senator Campbell said the Switzerland meeting aimed to prepare a group of some 30 ministers for the next meeting in Nairobi in a few weeks.
He said what he sought to achieve was a new focus on technology transfer so that innovative technology could be speedily disseminated through the world.
Unlike many of his coalition colleagues, Senator Campbell backed the thrust of the movie An Inconvenient Truth by former US vice-president Al Gore.
He said respected scientists agreed with him that the science in the movie was sound and the consequences of not addressing the problems were very substantial.
"We have got to remember there are consequences of global warming. There will be sea level rises. There already have been," he said.
AAP
SMH
September 17, 2006 - 9:36AM
Environment Minister Ian Campbell stood firm on Australia's long standing refusal to sign onto the Kyoto protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions, declaring it a slogan not a solution.
Senator Campbell, fresh back from the UN framework conference on climate change in Switzerland, backed urgent action on climate change but with better quality practical international action.
He said there was a sense of frustration that the whole process was becoming too bureaucratic and that more practical action was needed.
But for Australia, that would not involving signing the Kyoto accord.
"I don't think people who make alarmist predictions do us much of a favour because the public will switch off. There are going to be substantial serious consequences of not addressing climate change, urgently and with multiple billion dollar investments.
"The problem is too serious to offer up slogans as solution. Signing Kyoto is a slogan. It's not a solution. Investing billions of dollars in the technologies we need to transform the way we produce and use energy is a substantial solution."
Senator Campbell said Australia could end all carbon emissions overnight but growth in China alone would replace Australian emissions within 10 months.
"We could be the best climate change country in the world - and we are one of the best - but without cooperative effective action internationally we will not save Perth's beaches," he said.
Labor has strongly backed Australia signing the Kyoto Protocol but Senator Campbell said the reality was that protocol was being rewritten.
He said Kyoto signatories such as France were nine per cent over its Kyoto target, Norway 22 per cent, Portugal 26 per cent and Spain 36 per cent.
"The whole world is moving beyond Kyoto and Labor is saying sign up to something that was really drafted six, seven, eight years ago, which we know is not working," he said.
"There is no gain to ratifying. We are part of a process that is designing the post-Kyoto world."
Senator Campbell said the Switzerland meeting aimed to prepare a group of some 30 ministers for the next meeting in Nairobi in a few weeks.
He said what he sought to achieve was a new focus on technology transfer so that innovative technology could be speedily disseminated through the world.
Unlike many of his coalition colleagues, Senator Campbell backed the thrust of the movie An Inconvenient Truth by former US vice-president Al Gore.
He said respected scientists agreed with him that the science in the movie was sound and the consequences of not addressing the problems were very substantial.
"We have got to remember there are consequences of global warming. There will be sea level rises. There already have been," he said.
AAP
Saturday, September 16, 2006
11 more years of drought: Dire forecast for Goulburn region
Canberra Times
Robyn Powell
Sunday, 3 September 2006
THE prolonged drought devastating the Goulburn region could last another 11 years, according to the owner of a grazing property that has kept rainfall records since 1895.
Crookwell grazier Jeff Prell, of Gundowringa, 30km north-west of Goulburn, said the current dry was part of a 100-year cycle, which meant the region was six years into a 17-year drought.
Mr Prell, 75, said the last significant drought was between 1895 and 1912, based on rainfall figures from his property. The last above-average rainfall was 1973-76.
"We have got to look at history and history always repeats itself," he said.
"It has been 30 years since water-making rain. The ground gets so dry ... it takes three years to fill the ground to make the water run."
Substantial rain this September to November would help feed the lambs born last week, but it was unlikely to boost key water supplies.
Goulburn has been on Level 5 water restrictions for the past two years, with no outside watering allowed.
Last November, Mr Prell and his son Charlie sold 323ha of Gundowringa, almost a third of the property. "We did it to get the bank off our back, try and level up our accounts to survive," Jeff Prell said.
Charlie Prell, 49, said stock numbers in the Rural Lands Protection Board region were down 45 per cent from 2000, which included the Gunning, Collector and Yass areas.
"Hardly anybody I know in this area is relying just on farming income ... they get government exceptional circumstances assistance, or they have had to work in town, or have some sort of family allowance," he said.
For extra income the Prells planned a wind farm of up to 30 turbines, in addition to operating a tourist bed and breakfast.
Seasons without enough rain were taking a toll emotionally, they said.
"Most farmers are men and most are reasonably isolated ... a lot of them have strong egos and there is a lot of hidden depression out there, and suicide is a big part of that," Charlie Prell said.
He said many farmers had sold up to do something else.
"If we don't get a spring this year ... the big impact will be on the social communities of the little towns like Crookwell, Gunning and Collector and even Goulburn.
"Banks are going to have to make some hard decisions.
"There are politicians and bureaucrats saying this isn't a drought, this is normal because it has been going for five years.
"But those figures demonstrate it probably is normal, but it is part of a cycle."
Bureau of Meteorology Victorian climate meteorologist Harvey Stern said rainfall could follow a pattern but was not used as a forecasting tool.
While there was no harm in looking at rainfall trends, the bureau could only limit predictions to three months.
"Who knows what the future holds? In another 10 years someone might make a breakthrough," he said.
Robyn Powell
Sunday, 3 September 2006
THE prolonged drought devastating the Goulburn region could last another 11 years, according to the owner of a grazing property that has kept rainfall records since 1895.
Crookwell grazier Jeff Prell, of Gundowringa, 30km north-west of Goulburn, said the current dry was part of a 100-year cycle, which meant the region was six years into a 17-year drought.
Mr Prell, 75, said the last significant drought was between 1895 and 1912, based on rainfall figures from his property. The last above-average rainfall was 1973-76.
"We have got to look at history and history always repeats itself," he said.
"It has been 30 years since water-making rain. The ground gets so dry ... it takes three years to fill the ground to make the water run."
Substantial rain this September to November would help feed the lambs born last week, but it was unlikely to boost key water supplies.
Goulburn has been on Level 5 water restrictions for the past two years, with no outside watering allowed.
Last November, Mr Prell and his son Charlie sold 323ha of Gundowringa, almost a third of the property. "We did it to get the bank off our back, try and level up our accounts to survive," Jeff Prell said.
Charlie Prell, 49, said stock numbers in the Rural Lands Protection Board region were down 45 per cent from 2000, which included the Gunning, Collector and Yass areas.
"Hardly anybody I know in this area is relying just on farming income ... they get government exceptional circumstances assistance, or they have had to work in town, or have some sort of family allowance," he said.
For extra income the Prells planned a wind farm of up to 30 turbines, in addition to operating a tourist bed and breakfast.
Seasons without enough rain were taking a toll emotionally, they said.
"Most farmers are men and most are reasonably isolated ... a lot of them have strong egos and there is a lot of hidden depression out there, and suicide is a big part of that," Charlie Prell said.
He said many farmers had sold up to do something else.
"If we don't get a spring this year ... the big impact will be on the social communities of the little towns like Crookwell, Gunning and Collector and even Goulburn.
"Banks are going to have to make some hard decisions.
"There are politicians and bureaucrats saying this isn't a drought, this is normal because it has been going for five years.
"But those figures demonstrate it probably is normal, but it is part of a cycle."
Bureau of Meteorology Victorian climate meteorologist Harvey Stern said rainfall could follow a pattern but was not used as a forecasting tool.
While there was no harm in looking at rainfall trends, the bureau could only limit predictions to three months.
"Who knows what the future holds? In another 10 years someone might make a breakthrough," he said.
Letter to the Canberra Times
16 September 2006
Dear Editor
Congratulations to Rosslyn Beeby for her insightful and well-researched article on the effects of climate change on the sensitive Alpine Area.
Many people of SE NSW; Bega, Eurobodalla, the Monaro and Snowy Mountains are keen to commence a renewable energy program effectively achieving a target of 50% renewable energy by 2020 and also, reducing energy consumption by 50% by 2020. Already the Bega and Eurobodalla Shires have committed to the target. Perhaps we need to bring that date forwards to 2010! The early onset of spring this year and rapid snow melt is troubling not only for the state of the alpine ecosystems but will impact on water for irrigation and environmental flows, more so than water for energy insurance for the fossil fuel dominated energy sector.
Many parts of NSW are still in a serious drought situation with another bushfire season on the horizon. It is time for sober thinking and common sense. We must consider how we manage our environment and conserve water in the first instance and simultaneously take action to reduce our energy consumption and impact on the atmosphere through rapid reduction in the discharges from burning fossil fuels. It may already be too late for the planet, however, we are committed to making the changes necessary. The technology is ready and so are the people. It is only the Commonwealth Government and opposition who appear to be asleep!
SE NSW people intend bringing the message to Canberra on 8 October at 12 noon by forming a human sign at Reconciliation Place, adjacent to Questacon 'Clean Energy for Eternity'. We need clean energy now in order to ensure a clean future. Some may wish to live in outer space, however, the majority are probably content on earth. We intend to keep the earth biologically viable no matter the pecuniary concerns of a minority. Perhaps those obsessed with the hip pocket only could put their trust and time back into nature. Without water and oxygen from the living earth, chances are that life will not be as rosy!
Acacia Rose
THEDBO
PO Box 136
THREDBO NSW 2625
0402 29 8821
Dear Editor
Congratulations to Rosslyn Beeby for her insightful and well-researched article on the effects of climate change on the sensitive Alpine Area.
Many people of SE NSW; Bega, Eurobodalla, the Monaro and Snowy Mountains are keen to commence a renewable energy program effectively achieving a target of 50% renewable energy by 2020 and also, reducing energy consumption by 50% by 2020. Already the Bega and Eurobodalla Shires have committed to the target. Perhaps we need to bring that date forwards to 2010! The early onset of spring this year and rapid snow melt is troubling not only for the state of the alpine ecosystems but will impact on water for irrigation and environmental flows, more so than water for energy insurance for the fossil fuel dominated energy sector.
Many parts of NSW are still in a serious drought situation with another bushfire season on the horizon. It is time for sober thinking and common sense. We must consider how we manage our environment and conserve water in the first instance and simultaneously take action to reduce our energy consumption and impact on the atmosphere through rapid reduction in the discharges from burning fossil fuels. It may already be too late for the planet, however, we are committed to making the changes necessary. The technology is ready and so are the people. It is only the Commonwealth Government and opposition who appear to be asleep!
SE NSW people intend bringing the message to Canberra on 8 October at 12 noon by forming a human sign at Reconciliation Place, adjacent to Questacon 'Clean Energy for Eternity'. We need clean energy now in order to ensure a clean future. Some may wish to live in outer space, however, the majority are probably content on earth. We intend to keep the earth biologically viable no matter the pecuniary concerns of a minority. Perhaps those obsessed with the hip pocket only could put their trust and time back into nature. Without water and oxygen from the living earth, chances are that life will not be as rosy!
Acacia Rose
THEDBO
PO Box 136
THREDBO NSW 2625
0402 29 8821
People Power for Increased Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
Letter to the Sydney Morning Herald
Subject: People Power for Increased Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
16 September 2006
Dear Editor,
The impact of warmer temperatures this winter has been significant in the high country bringing on an early spring and fast snow melts. This may be a sign of the times to come and it is clear that the human impact on the natural world is significant. We must do what we can to moderate that impact, primarily, by limiting our footprint, our levels of consumption, pertinently, energy generation and use.
The Commonwealth Government must act now to accord with the Kyoto Protocol and immediately increase Australia's Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET). The technology is ready for the big energy players to make the switch to the renewables sector and thereby, increase their potential to add value, to give back to the environment rather than diminish global resources and viability,
The SE Region of NSW is coming out in force requesting that the Commonwealth increase the MRET to 50% by 2020 and people from all regions - particularly drought affected areas - are invited to attend the 'day of action' in Canberra at 12 Noon to form a human sign 'Clean Energy for Eternity' and listen to informed scientists, movers and shakers. There is plenty of good material about energy solutions for the future on the CEFE website www.cleanenergyforeternity.net.
It is important that we act now and not wait until the next Federal Election. Time and nature waits for none of our governments! The global environmental bank balance is in deficit and the people of the Eden-Monaro are ready to act. Government must listen and respond not dictate the terms of the fossil fuel industry.
Acacia Rose
THREDBO
PO Box 136
THREDBO NSW 2625
0402 298821
Subject: People Power for Increased Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
16 September 2006
Dear Editor,
The impact of warmer temperatures this winter has been significant in the high country bringing on an early spring and fast snow melts. This may be a sign of the times to come and it is clear that the human impact on the natural world is significant. We must do what we can to moderate that impact, primarily, by limiting our footprint, our levels of consumption, pertinently, energy generation and use.
The Commonwealth Government must act now to accord with the Kyoto Protocol and immediately increase Australia's Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET). The technology is ready for the big energy players to make the switch to the renewables sector and thereby, increase their potential to add value, to give back to the environment rather than diminish global resources and viability,
The SE Region of NSW is coming out in force requesting that the Commonwealth increase the MRET to 50% by 2020 and people from all regions - particularly drought affected areas - are invited to attend the 'day of action' in Canberra at 12 Noon to form a human sign 'Clean Energy for Eternity' and listen to informed scientists, movers and shakers. There is plenty of good material about energy solutions for the future on the CEFE website www.cleanenergyforeternity.net.
It is important that we act now and not wait until the next Federal Election. Time and nature waits for none of our governments! The global environmental bank balance is in deficit and the people of the Eden-Monaro are ready to act. Government must listen and respond not dictate the terms of the fossil fuel industry.
Acacia Rose
THREDBO
PO Box 136
THREDBO NSW 2625
0402 298821
Carbon capture costs earth: scientists
Canberra Times
Rosslyn Beeby
Wednesday, 13 September 2006
Capture and storage of greenhouse emissions from Australia's coal-fired power stations will double the cost of producing electricity and could increase carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by about 30 per cent, CSIRO scientists have told a Federal Government inquiry.
They claim at least 3500 large-scale geosequestration sites across the world would be needed to cut global greenhouse emissions by one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
So far, Australia has only located 100 sites that could be suitable for underground storage of carbon dioxide.
A chemical engineer with CSIRO Energy Technology, Greg Duffy, told a House of Representatives Science and Innovation inquiry into geosequestration - the capture and underground storage of carbon dioxide - that current solvent-based carbon capture technology would add about $35 per megawatt hour to the cost of generating electricity.
It would also reduce electricity output by 30 per cent, requiring more coal to be used and therefore increasing greenhouse emissions and the amount of fly ash waste from coal-fired plants.
"You are going to have to burn more coal because you need energy to drive the capture project," Dr Duffy said, explaining that "the solvents capture the carbon dioxide, but then you have to get the solvents to release the carbon dioxide and you have to put energy in".
Asked by the inquiry's deputy chair, Tasmanian MP Harry Quick, if the "average punter's electricity bill would double" as a result, Dr Duffy replied that if costs were passed on, "yes it would".
It could take between 15 and 20 years and cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" to retrofit coal-fired power stations with carbon-capture technology, he said.
"You would have a huge engineering requirement. You are not going to get it off the ground overnight."
Dr Duffy said that if more efficient carbon-capture technology was developed by 2020, the added cost to electricity production could be reduced to $20 per megawatt hour.
"There are two issues. There is the cost of capturing a tonne of carbon dioxide and then there are the tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour that are generated by the power station.
"You can look at improving the technology for capturing a tonne of carbon dioxide and you can look at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from a unit of generation from the power station," he said.
Just over two months ago, federal Science Minister Julie Bishop asked the Science and Innovation Committee to inquire into and report on the science and application of geosequestration, including its potential economic and environmental benefits.
Prime Minister John Howard has frequently referred to geosequestration as a crucial technology to reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions.
But so far, submissions to the inquiry have been negative.
CSIRO petroleum engineer Dr Lincoln Paterson told the inquiry geosequestration was technically feasible but there were significant questions about long-term legal responsibilities for managing geosequestration sites.
At present, geosequestration was not adequately covered by petroleum or environmental laws, and changes to current federal and state legislation were needed.
In a submission to the inquiry, Engineers Australia warned that responsibility for carbon dioxide leaks from underground storage sites would need to be determined and legally enforced.
"There will be risks at carbon capture and compression stage, during transport, during sequestration into the chosen aquifer and for the duration of storage in the aquifer.
"The Australian Government will need to accept responsibility for some elements of these risks," the submission said.
The University of NSW Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets has also questioned the effectiveness and safety of geosequestration, claiming it is likely "to come at a significant cost and is unlikely to make a significant contribution to emission reductions for a decade or more".
The Country Women's Association of NSW criticised geosequestration as an "end-of-pipe solution" to controlling emissions and claims $30million of federal funding used to fund geosequestration trials in Victoria's Otway Basin "would fund an enormous amount of research" into more effective carbon-control technologies. "Higher efficiency fossil fuel use, work on reducing emissions and development of renewable energy sources is required now," the organisation's submission said.
Rosslyn Beeby
Wednesday, 13 September 2006
Capture and storage of greenhouse emissions from Australia's coal-fired power stations will double the cost of producing electricity and could increase carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by about 30 per cent, CSIRO scientists have told a Federal Government inquiry.
They claim at least 3500 large-scale geosequestration sites across the world would be needed to cut global greenhouse emissions by one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
So far, Australia has only located 100 sites that could be suitable for underground storage of carbon dioxide.
A chemical engineer with CSIRO Energy Technology, Greg Duffy, told a House of Representatives Science and Innovation inquiry into geosequestration - the capture and underground storage of carbon dioxide - that current solvent-based carbon capture technology would add about $35 per megawatt hour to the cost of generating electricity.
It would also reduce electricity output by 30 per cent, requiring more coal to be used and therefore increasing greenhouse emissions and the amount of fly ash waste from coal-fired plants.
"You are going to have to burn more coal because you need energy to drive the capture project," Dr Duffy said, explaining that "the solvents capture the carbon dioxide, but then you have to get the solvents to release the carbon dioxide and you have to put energy in".
Asked by the inquiry's deputy chair, Tasmanian MP Harry Quick, if the "average punter's electricity bill would double" as a result, Dr Duffy replied that if costs were passed on, "yes it would".
It could take between 15 and 20 years and cost "hundreds of millions of dollars" to retrofit coal-fired power stations with carbon-capture technology, he said.
"You would have a huge engineering requirement. You are not going to get it off the ground overnight."
Dr Duffy said that if more efficient carbon-capture technology was developed by 2020, the added cost to electricity production could be reduced to $20 per megawatt hour.
"There are two issues. There is the cost of capturing a tonne of carbon dioxide and then there are the tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour that are generated by the power station.
"You can look at improving the technology for capturing a tonne of carbon dioxide and you can look at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from a unit of generation from the power station," he said.
Just over two months ago, federal Science Minister Julie Bishop asked the Science and Innovation Committee to inquire into and report on the science and application of geosequestration, including its potential economic and environmental benefits.
Prime Minister John Howard has frequently referred to geosequestration as a crucial technology to reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions.
But so far, submissions to the inquiry have been negative.
CSIRO petroleum engineer Dr Lincoln Paterson told the inquiry geosequestration was technically feasible but there were significant questions about long-term legal responsibilities for managing geosequestration sites.
At present, geosequestration was not adequately covered by petroleum or environmental laws, and changes to current federal and state legislation were needed.
In a submission to the inquiry, Engineers Australia warned that responsibility for carbon dioxide leaks from underground storage sites would need to be determined and legally enforced.
"There will be risks at carbon capture and compression stage, during transport, during sequestration into the chosen aquifer and for the duration of storage in the aquifer.
"The Australian Government will need to accept responsibility for some elements of these risks," the submission said.
The University of NSW Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets has also questioned the effectiveness and safety of geosequestration, claiming it is likely "to come at a significant cost and is unlikely to make a significant contribution to emission reductions for a decade or more".
The Country Women's Association of NSW criticised geosequestration as an "end-of-pipe solution" to controlling emissions and claims $30million of federal funding used to fund geosequestration trials in Victoria's Otway Basin "would fund an enormous amount of research" into more effective carbon-control technologies. "Higher efficiency fossil fuel use, work on reducing emissions and development of renewable energy sources is required now," the organisation's submission said.
Warming threat to snowfields' future
Canberra Times
Rosslyn Beeby
Saturday, 16 September 2006
Climate change is happening faster than expected in Kosciuszko National Park, with snow cover in some areas already reaching low levels that the CSIRO predicted were not likely to occur until 2020, a leading scientist says.
Dr Ken Green, an alpine ecologist with the NSW Parks and Wildlife Service, said declining snowfalls meant less meltwater, and would inevitably lead to conflict between irrigators and ski-resort operations over the use of scarce water resources for artificial snow-making.
"There is so little water up there at the moment because of poor seasonal snowfalls, and if the current trend persists over the next few years, there will be conflicts over the best use of a scarce resource.
"The Eucumbene dam is only 26per cent full, which is an extraordinary situation for this time of year," he said.
Dr Green, a founder of the Australian Institute of Alpine Studies, has been conducting research in the Kosciuszko region for 30 years, and is the only scientist working full-time on assessing the impact of climate change on Australia's biggest alpine snowfield.
He said meteorological records for 2006 showed snowfalls in Kosciuszko National Park were among the three worst on record . This year's spring thaw was also one of the earliest and quickest he had witnessed.
"It's climate change - all the evidence overwhelmingly points to it," he said.
"The number of bird species in the mountains during the first week of September is what you'd normally expect at the end of a seasonal migration in mid-October."
Dr Green said snow-depth measurements at Whites River Valley, at over 1700m, were well below the average predicted.
Rosslyn Beeby
Saturday, 16 September 2006
Climate change is happening faster than expected in Kosciuszko National Park, with snow cover in some areas already reaching low levels that the CSIRO predicted were not likely to occur until 2020, a leading scientist says.
Dr Ken Green, an alpine ecologist with the NSW Parks and Wildlife Service, said declining snowfalls meant less meltwater, and would inevitably lead to conflict between irrigators and ski-resort operations over the use of scarce water resources for artificial snow-making.
"There is so little water up there at the moment because of poor seasonal snowfalls, and if the current trend persists over the next few years, there will be conflicts over the best use of a scarce resource.
"The Eucumbene dam is only 26per cent full, which is an extraordinary situation for this time of year," he said.
Dr Green, a founder of the Australian Institute of Alpine Studies, has been conducting research in the Kosciuszko region for 30 years, and is the only scientist working full-time on assessing the impact of climate change on Australia's biggest alpine snowfield.
He said meteorological records for 2006 showed snowfalls in Kosciuszko National Park were among the three worst on record . This year's spring thaw was also one of the earliest and quickest he had witnessed.
"It's climate change - all the evidence overwhelmingly points to it," he said.
"The number of bird species in the mountains during the first week of September is what you'd normally expect at the end of a seasonal migration in mid-October."
Dr Green said snow-depth measurements at Whites River Valley, at over 1700m, were well below the average predicted.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Just another case of being a wally
The Age
Kate Shaw
Australians have not woken up to the fact they live in a dry place.
IT IS good news that the Bracks Government is considering industrial recycled-water schemes. Lack of water is one of the stronger arguments against population increase in Australia, and before it is enlisted once again in the battle against Melbourne's metropolitan strategic plan, 2030, we need to remember two things.
First, water is an infinitely recyclable resource. Second, water consumption in Australia is utterly profligate on every level: agricultural, industrial, institutional, commercial and individual. Agricultural practices such as open irrigation channels and rice farming in Australia's south-east are by far the biggest drain, and these are rightly the subject of most government and environmentalist pressure for reform. But this hasn't stopped the sprinklers in the Murray River wine districts shooting massive jets of water into the hot northerly winds. About 10 per cent of that water makes it to those vines.
Now we are hearing about the hundreds of billions of litres of drinking water used each year to cool our power stations, after the scandal of Transurban keeping the CityLink tunnel afloat with tap water. These events are the tip of an iceberg, of course, and I think they represent a deeper attitude in Australia to water use that seems even harder to change.
This attitude is most evident in the city. You can't blame rural people for their annoyance at the way city people use water. While nearly 80 per cent of Australia's water is used in rural activities, the vast amount of that is for irrigation. People in the bush are pretty careful in their domestic consumption practices.
We can't say the same closer to where I work: responsibility for a steady stream of water flowing down Swanston Street outside the University of Melbourne was passed from the university's maintenance people to the City of Melbourne, to City West Water, to one of the university colleges and then to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade before it was fixed two years later.
My own faculty building has those old-fashioned toilets with the hugely generous flushes on the top floors. Periodically one of them gets stuck. A good whack on the back plate usually sorts them out, but I wonder how long they've been pouring away when I walk in. On one of these occasions I found a painter washing his brushes in the sink (demarcation on gender lines was clearly not a problem for him). When I asked him why he didn't try to stop the gushing water in the cubicle behind him, he said, "I'm a painter not a plumber." Where's the sense of collective responsibility here?
How many times have you walked into a restaurant, theatre, cinema, gym, government office bathroom to find dysfunctional flushes and running taps?
Too often building sites with water pouring into stormwater drains, broken mains pipes and fire hydrants spurting their contents into the street are left for hours. People who water their driveways are still not fined. Why are we using drinking water to water our gardens and flush our toilets anyway?
The joke in London about the water being passed six times might be overstating things a little, but the water has certainly been around, and Londoners still drink it.
Recycling processes in Europe are sophisticated and commonplace. Most importantly, attitudes to water in Europe are completely different. European cities are densely populated, people understand the limitations of their resources, and they share.
The water pressure in European homes is half what we are accustomed to in Australian cities. It is common to find hotel showers with push button water release (and after a while you find it's not that bad to soap your body or shampoo your hair with the water off).
Water is treated as a precious resource, and it is everyone's responsibility.
There are certainly questions about how and where an increase in population should be accommodated, and Melbourne 2030 does not yet answer them satisfactorily. But they can be resolved with good management, planning and design. Water supply is equally manageable.
Agricultural and industrial water consumers are under the pump and recycled water will become more common. Institutional, commercial and urban domestic users, however,
have a long way to go in their understanding of what it means to conserve water.
Until we address our own consumption practices and attitudes we really can't be taken seriously with regard to our incapacity to take in more people.
We will be viewed, as we increasingly are by the rest of the world, as a fat white Aussie standing in our driveway with the hose on full bore, saying to the skinny brown refugee: "Sorry mate, can't come in, not enough water."
Kate Shaw is a research fellow in the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning at the University of Melbourne.
World has 10-year window to act on climate: expert
Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:04pm ET
By Mary Milliken
NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).
"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said at the Climate Change Research Conference in
If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen said temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F) and "we will be producing a different planet."
On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in sea levels that would put most of
Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has made waves before by saying that President George W. Bush's administration tried to silence him and heavily edited his and other scientists' findings on a warmer world.
He reiterated that the
The
Hansen praised
He said the alternative scenario he advocates involves promoting energy efficiency and reducing dependence on carbon burning fuels.
"We cannot burn off all the fossil fuels that are readily available without causing dramatic climate change," Hansen said. "This is not something that is a theory. We understand the carbon cycle well enough to say that."
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Water torture
The Age
Water torture
September 14, 2006
Melbourne's insatiable thirst for water will continue to drain regional Victoria's supplies for years to come. It's a recipe for conflict. By Richard Baker.
When Gippsland East independent MP Craig Ingram walked to Parliament House in Spring Street yesterday morning, he saw litres of beautiful, pristine water gushing down a stormwater drain from a burst water main in a city park.
He stopped and watched dozens of city workers walk straight past as they marched to their office blocks to begin another day. Ingram, the MP who helped make Steve Bracks Premier back in 1999 on the condition Bracks help him save the Snowy River, took out his mobile phone and called the urban water authority to report the leak. He was not surprised to hear that the authority was unaware of the burst main until his call.
"We've been spoilt for too bloody long," Ingram said. "What is it about this country that we expect to have green gardens in the middle of a drought."
Victoria is thirsty. Consecutive years of low rainfall has placed the state in a water crisis. More than 190 Victorian towns and cities are on various levels of water restrictions. Melbourne itself began new stage one water restrictions a fortnight ago. But to the thousands of country people enduring much worse restrictions, Melbourne has had it easy. There is a widespread view that city people still underestimate the true value of water.
"I think country people would have a much greater respect if they knew Melbourne was doing all it could on water but they know that it is not," Ingram said.
Perhaps this helps explain the strong reactions from regional and rural Victorians when proposals are put forward to take more of their local fresh water resources and divert them to an ever-growing, ever-demanding Melbourne.
Gippsland is the latest region to flare up over water politics, with details emerging about the Bracks Government's $1.5 billion plan to secure Melbourne's drinking water supply by replacing the 115 billion litres of fresh water used to cool Latrobe Valley power stations each year with treated effluent from the city.
The fresh water now used by the power stations would be released to bolster urban supplies in Melbourne, Geelong and possibly Ballarat.
Ingram has joined a host of Gippsland councils and the Victorian Nationals in declaring the plan a "theft" of the region's water resources. While not opposing water recycling, they want the Government to ensure Gippsland retains a fair share of fresh water and believe industry and business should be encouraged to move away from water-constrained Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat and relocate in the water-abundant east of Victoria.
Nationals leader Ryan, a Gippslander himself, said Melbourne already received enough of Gippsland's fresh water and needed to learn "to live within its means".
"The greatest concern is the loss of more of our fresh water to Melbourne when that vital resource should be dedicated to the Gippsland Lakes and the further development of our agricultural and general commercial industries."
This theme of robbing Peter to pay Paul when it comes to water resources is not confined to Melbourne and Gippsland. It is being played out across the state, albeit on a smaller scale. Irrigators and farmers are furious about another Government proposal to build a $220 million pipeline to divert water to bolster urban supplies in Bendigo and Ballarat.
In Queensland, the Beattie Government is facing a strong rural backlash over its plans to dam a river in the south-east of the state to provide more water for Brisbane. In Sydney, authorities are being forced to go down the path of desalination of ocean water, such is the demand for fresh water and so low are the natural supplies.
The director of the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, Bob Birrell, said the reality of the drought faced by much of Australia was that if the major population centres such as Melbourne had inadequate water supplies, governments would be faced with an "unstoppable force" that would require them to draw on rural resources.
"At a symbolic level, further encroachment on rural resources by an over-fed, over-watered city would be regarded very poorly by rural voters," Birrell said.
But this encroachment is likely to become an increasing occurrence as demand for water in cities spikes in the coming decades.
In a report co-written by Birrell last year, for the Water Services Association of Australia, Melbourne's demand for water will increase by 37 per cent if the State Government's population predictions are accurate. This water will have to come from somewhere and rural Victoria could face further water losses to prop up Melbourne.
Victorian Farmers Federation president Simon Ramsay is trying to adopt a sensible and practical approach to the often combustible issue that is water politics. He is well aware that Governments will try to appease big electorates that are nervous about the security of their water supply.
While the federation is supportive of water-recycling projects, it will fight to ensure water is not removed from stressed catchments and from rural communities "for the benefit of thirsty population centres".
Ramsay is critical of the Bracks Government's failure to plan for long-term growth of Melbourne and provincial cities. He says there has not been enough investment in infrastructure in rural Victoria to encourage businesses and families to relocate away from the city and be closer to water sources.
"We are in a crisis right now in providing water for both urban and rural use," Ramsay says. "Water will be the number one state election issue. Many cities and towns will be on stage two, three or four water restrictions or the Government might decide to play politics and allow the restrictions to be moderate until after the elections."
Ingram is optimistic that there is enough money and political will in Victoria to begin making a difference in water security for future generations. But he is conscious of the fact that whatever strategies are put in place in the short term, we will be "only scratching at the surface".
"We should have seen this coming. We are getting started decades too late."
Water torture
September 14, 2006
Melbourne's insatiable thirst for water will continue to drain regional Victoria's supplies for years to come. It's a recipe for conflict. By Richard Baker.
When Gippsland East independent MP Craig Ingram walked to Parliament House in Spring Street yesterday morning, he saw litres of beautiful, pristine water gushing down a stormwater drain from a burst water main in a city park.
He stopped and watched dozens of city workers walk straight past as they marched to their office blocks to begin another day. Ingram, the MP who helped make Steve Bracks Premier back in 1999 on the condition Bracks help him save the Snowy River, took out his mobile phone and called the urban water authority to report the leak. He was not surprised to hear that the authority was unaware of the burst main until his call.
"We've been spoilt for too bloody long," Ingram said. "What is it about this country that we expect to have green gardens in the middle of a drought."
Victoria is thirsty. Consecutive years of low rainfall has placed the state in a water crisis. More than 190 Victorian towns and cities are on various levels of water restrictions. Melbourne itself began new stage one water restrictions a fortnight ago. But to the thousands of country people enduring much worse restrictions, Melbourne has had it easy. There is a widespread view that city people still underestimate the true value of water.
"I think country people would have a much greater respect if they knew Melbourne was doing all it could on water but they know that it is not," Ingram said.
Perhaps this helps explain the strong reactions from regional and rural Victorians when proposals are put forward to take more of their local fresh water resources and divert them to an ever-growing, ever-demanding Melbourne.
Gippsland is the latest region to flare up over water politics, with details emerging about the Bracks Government's $1.5 billion plan to secure Melbourne's drinking water supply by replacing the 115 billion litres of fresh water used to cool Latrobe Valley power stations each year with treated effluent from the city.
The fresh water now used by the power stations would be released to bolster urban supplies in Melbourne, Geelong and possibly Ballarat.
Ingram has joined a host of Gippsland councils and the Victorian Nationals in declaring the plan a "theft" of the region's water resources. While not opposing water recycling, they want the Government to ensure Gippsland retains a fair share of fresh water and believe industry and business should be encouraged to move away from water-constrained Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat and relocate in the water-abundant east of Victoria.
Nationals leader Ryan, a Gippslander himself, said Melbourne already received enough of Gippsland's fresh water and needed to learn "to live within its means".
"The greatest concern is the loss of more of our fresh water to Melbourne when that vital resource should be dedicated to the Gippsland Lakes and the further development of our agricultural and general commercial industries."
This theme of robbing Peter to pay Paul when it comes to water resources is not confined to Melbourne and Gippsland. It is being played out across the state, albeit on a smaller scale. Irrigators and farmers are furious about another Government proposal to build a $220 million pipeline to divert water to bolster urban supplies in Bendigo and Ballarat.
In Queensland, the Beattie Government is facing a strong rural backlash over its plans to dam a river in the south-east of the state to provide more water for Brisbane. In Sydney, authorities are being forced to go down the path of desalination of ocean water, such is the demand for fresh water and so low are the natural supplies.
The director of the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, Bob Birrell, said the reality of the drought faced by much of Australia was that if the major population centres such as Melbourne had inadequate water supplies, governments would be faced with an "unstoppable force" that would require them to draw on rural resources.
"At a symbolic level, further encroachment on rural resources by an over-fed, over-watered city would be regarded very poorly by rural voters," Birrell said.
But this encroachment is likely to become an increasing occurrence as demand for water in cities spikes in the coming decades.
In a report co-written by Birrell last year, for the Water Services Association of Australia, Melbourne's demand for water will increase by 37 per cent if the State Government's population predictions are accurate. This water will have to come from somewhere and rural Victoria could face further water losses to prop up Melbourne.
Victorian Farmers Federation president Simon Ramsay is trying to adopt a sensible and practical approach to the often combustible issue that is water politics. He is well aware that Governments will try to appease big electorates that are nervous about the security of their water supply.
While the federation is supportive of water-recycling projects, it will fight to ensure water is not removed from stressed catchments and from rural communities "for the benefit of thirsty population centres".
Ramsay is critical of the Bracks Government's failure to plan for long-term growth of Melbourne and provincial cities. He says there has not been enough investment in infrastructure in rural Victoria to encourage businesses and families to relocate away from the city and be closer to water sources.
"We are in a crisis right now in providing water for both urban and rural use," Ramsay says. "Water will be the number one state election issue. Many cities and towns will be on stage two, three or four water restrictions or the Government might decide to play politics and allow the restrictions to be moderate until after the elections."
Ingram is optimistic that there is enough money and political will in Victoria to begin making a difference in water security for future generations. But he is conscious of the fact that whatever strategies are put in place in the short term, we will be "only scratching at the surface".
"We should have seen this coming. We are getting started decades too late."
El Nino to bring more drought misery
The Age
September 14, 2006 - 10:20AM
A forecast that another El Nino is on the way means even harsher conditions for drought-parched eastern Australia, a climatologist has warned.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has reported that an El Nino, an extreme warming of equatorial waters in the Pacific Ocean that causes regional drought, has formed and will last into 2007.
Associate Professor Stewart Franks, from Newcastle University, said that in eastern Australia, El Nino typically led to lower than normal rainfall from October to March.
"Our concern is that we're already in a drought," he said.
"We had an El Nino about four years ago, 2001-2003, and what it meant is that we had that awful drought.
"We've not had good rains since, really, and so we're still in that drought.
"Now with the prospect of an El Nino on top of that, it means that agriculture is going to struggle again."
Prof Franks said perhaps even more significantly, water resources and supplies were already so low that a new El Nino posed quite a threat to urban populations.
"It's entirely feasible we'll see much stronger restrictions than we have seen over previous years," he said.
"All over eastern Australia there are many urban water supplies which are already struggling and this El Nino is possibly the worst news we could have."
AAP
September 14, 2006 - 10:20AM
A forecast that another El Nino is on the way means even harsher conditions for drought-parched eastern Australia, a climatologist has warned.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has reported that an El Nino, an extreme warming of equatorial waters in the Pacific Ocean that causes regional drought, has formed and will last into 2007.
Associate Professor Stewart Franks, from Newcastle University, said that in eastern Australia, El Nino typically led to lower than normal rainfall from October to March.
"Our concern is that we're already in a drought," he said.
"We had an El Nino about four years ago, 2001-2003, and what it meant is that we had that awful drought.
"We've not had good rains since, really, and so we're still in that drought.
"Now with the prospect of an El Nino on top of that, it means that agriculture is going to struggle again."
Prof Franks said perhaps even more significantly, water resources and supplies were already so low that a new El Nino posed quite a threat to urban populations.
"It's entirely feasible we'll see much stronger restrictions than we have seen over previous years," he said.
"All over eastern Australia there are many urban water supplies which are already struggling and this El Nino is possibly the worst news we could have."
AAP
A poll on wind farms taken in Cooma
Cooma Monaro Express
Should Monaro have windfarms?
RESULTS
0% 100%
Yes 67.4%
No 28.3%
Not sure 4.3%
Order by result Total votes 46
This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. Poll results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. cooma.yourguide.com.au is not responsible for the opinions expressed herein.
Should Monaro have windfarms?
RESULTS
0% 100%
Yes 67.4%
No 28.3%
Not sure 4.3%
Order by result Total votes 46
This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. Poll results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. cooma.yourguide.com.au is not responsible for the opinions expressed herein.
Cleaner Energy for Eternity
Bega District News
By JO DODDS
Tuesday, 12 September 2006
LIKE many city folk I'd long nurtured the dream of a quaint rural lifestyle - fresh air, clean water, and self sufficiency. So when I met my partner and moved to a 50 acre bush block in the Bega Valley Shire I was thrilled to find myself in a mudbrick house on solar power. There has been a steep learning curve since I left 'the grid' six years ago.
We run five panels, 400 amp hours of no maintenance gel batteries, a 2800 watt digital inverter generator, which is simple to use and easy to start if the need arises. The system cost about $8,000.
We have a TV, video and DVD player, a stereo and the usual kitchen gadgetry. After some teasing I have convinced my partner that the hairdryer is not an enemy agent but I did eventually buy one with a really low wattage and am careful about usage if it's first thing on a winter's morning (which is of course the time one is most likely to need the dryer!).
We unplug anything that sneaks a phantom load. This is the electricity that most of our electrical goods are using even when turned off, to keep internal clocks running and help equipment start up faster. It amounts to the electricity used by like a normal light globe on day and night.
Now when I drive through a city and see the houses and businesses needlessly lit up I am amazed. I have cut my need for electricity by about 50 per cent. My lifestyle (and my hairstyle) hasn't suffered. I've learned to vacuum when the sun shines and turn off lights in empty rooms. At night my home is truly quiet with no electrical buzzing anywhere. And I haven't seen an electricity bill in years!
The biggest revelation has been how easy it is to reduce my usage, save money and contribute less greenhouse gas emissions. Imagine the difference we could make if we all changed how we use electricity.
e.d. Jo is a member of the Clean Energy for Eternity (CEFE) working group
By JO DODDS
Tuesday, 12 September 2006
LIKE many city folk I'd long nurtured the dream of a quaint rural lifestyle - fresh air, clean water, and self sufficiency. So when I met my partner and moved to a 50 acre bush block in the Bega Valley Shire I was thrilled to find myself in a mudbrick house on solar power. There has been a steep learning curve since I left 'the grid' six years ago.
We run five panels, 400 amp hours of no maintenance gel batteries, a 2800 watt digital inverter generator, which is simple to use and easy to start if the need arises. The system cost about $8,000.
We have a TV, video and DVD player, a stereo and the usual kitchen gadgetry. After some teasing I have convinced my partner that the hairdryer is not an enemy agent but I did eventually buy one with a really low wattage and am careful about usage if it's first thing on a winter's morning (which is of course the time one is most likely to need the dryer!).
We unplug anything that sneaks a phantom load. This is the electricity that most of our electrical goods are using even when turned off, to keep internal clocks running and help equipment start up faster. It amounts to the electricity used by like a normal light globe on day and night.
Now when I drive through a city and see the houses and businesses needlessly lit up I am amazed. I have cut my need for electricity by about 50 per cent. My lifestyle (and my hairstyle) hasn't suffered. I've learned to vacuum when the sun shines and turn off lights in empty rooms. At night my home is truly quiet with no electrical buzzing anywhere. And I haven't seen an electricity bill in years!
The biggest revelation has been how easy it is to reduce my usage, save money and contribute less greenhouse gas emissions. Imagine the difference we could make if we all changed how we use electricity.
e.d. Jo is a member of the Clean Energy for Eternity (CEFE) working group
Study acquits sun of climate change
The Telegraph
From correspondents in Oslo
September 14, 2006 12:00
Article from: Reuters
THE sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study showed today.
Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 per cent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.
"Our results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness," said Tom Wigley of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research.
Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 degrees celsius rise in temperatures over the past century.
A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.
"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.
They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.
They then checked more ancient evidence of rare isotopes and temperatures trapped in sea sediments and Greenland and Antarctic ice and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium.
"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, said.
Many scientists say greenhouse gases might push up world temperatures by perhaps another three degrees celsius by 2100, causing more droughts, floods, disease and rising global sea levels.
Mr Spruit said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun.
And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.
"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.
Solar activity is now around a low on the 11 year cycle after a 2000 peak, when bright spots called faculae emit more heat and outweigh the heat-plugging effect of dark sunspots.
Both faculae and dark sunspots are most common at the peaks.
Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.
From correspondents in Oslo
September 14, 2006 12:00
Article from: Reuters
THE sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study showed today.
Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 per cent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.
"Our results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness," said Tom Wigley of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research.
Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 degrees celsius rise in temperatures over the past century.
A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.
"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.
They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.
They then checked more ancient evidence of rare isotopes and temperatures trapped in sea sediments and Greenland and Antarctic ice and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium.
"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, said.
Many scientists say greenhouse gases might push up world temperatures by perhaps another three degrees celsius by 2100, causing more droughts, floods, disease and rising global sea levels.
Mr Spruit said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun.
And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.
"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.
Solar activity is now around a low on the 11 year cycle after a 2000 peak, when bright spots called faculae emit more heat and outweigh the heat-plugging effect of dark sunspots.
Both faculae and dark sunspots are most common at the peaks.
Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Third World's Richest Man on Global Warming
George Soros, who recently joined Bill Gates in giving away their personal fortunes to the betterment of humankind, writes on his website:
Is “An Inconvenient Truth” Really True?
Global warming has begun to loom so large that I can no longer ignore it. I was moved by former Vice President Al Gore’s persuasive presentation. I checked it out with scientists, and they confirmed that scientific opinion is unanimous about the dangers; they only differ on the speed of the process.
There are many delayed effects; indeed, even if all new carbon emissions stopped today, the warming of the oceans would continue for some time. Average temperatures are already higher than at any time in human history, so further warming poses a real threat to the survival of human civilization.
The situation is not hopeless because we are likely to be more adaptable than we think, but the danger is real and there is no time to waste.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration is in denial. Public opinion is well ahead of the administration on global warming, but there is a lot of confusion and obfuscation by special interests. Exxon-Mobil has been the main sponsor of advocacy groups whose goal is to confuse the public. Peer reviewed scientific publications are unanimous on the existence of a serious manmade problem; reports in public media, however, are evenly divided. That is the achievement of these advocacy groups. Nevertheless, cities and states are taking action on their own; only federal action is missing.
Although the Kyoto Protocol came into force without U.S. participation, future progress hinges on a change of attitude by the United States. Plans are afoot to mobilize U.S. public opinion, and I hope that will make a difference.
Is “An Inconvenient Truth” Really True?
Global warming has begun to loom so large that I can no longer ignore it. I was moved by former Vice President Al Gore’s persuasive presentation. I checked it out with scientists, and they confirmed that scientific opinion is unanimous about the dangers; they only differ on the speed of the process.
There are many delayed effects; indeed, even if all new carbon emissions stopped today, the warming of the oceans would continue for some time. Average temperatures are already higher than at any time in human history, so further warming poses a real threat to the survival of human civilization.
The situation is not hopeless because we are likely to be more adaptable than we think, but the danger is real and there is no time to waste.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration is in denial. Public opinion is well ahead of the administration on global warming, but there is a lot of confusion and obfuscation by special interests. Exxon-Mobil has been the main sponsor of advocacy groups whose goal is to confuse the public. Peer reviewed scientific publications are unanimous on the existence of a serious manmade problem; reports in public media, however, are evenly divided. That is the achievement of these advocacy groups. Nevertheless, cities and states are taking action on their own; only federal action is missing.
Although the Kyoto Protocol came into force without U.S. participation, future progress hinges on a change of attitude by the United States. Plans are afoot to mobilize U.S. public opinion, and I hope that will make a difference.
Pedal Power - Canberra CEFE Rally
Seen on Pedal Power
Cycle to the Climate Change Rally
Bring your bike and cycle to a community rally to raise awareness of climate change, to be held at Commonwealth Place, Canberra at 12 Noon on 8 October 2006.
This community gathering will be similar to the Tathra Beach ‘human sign’ on 21 May this year where over 3,000 people grouped to form the words 'CLEAN ENERGY FOR ETERNITY' to raise awareness of Global Warming.
See www.abc.net.au/southeastnsw/stories/s1644503.htm?nsw
Cycle to the Climate Change Rally
Bring your bike and cycle to a community rally to raise awareness of climate change, to be held at Commonwealth Place, Canberra at 12 Noon on 8 October 2006.
This community gathering will be similar to the Tathra Beach ‘human sign’ on 21 May this year where over 3,000 people grouped to form the words 'CLEAN ENERGY FOR ETERNITY' to raise awareness of Global Warming.
See www.abc.net.au/southeastnsw/stories/s1644503.htm?nsw
America is swapping sides in the climate war we are not fighting
New Matilda
By: Corin Millais
8 September 2006
Around the world, the climate is shifting and so is the global warming debate. There is a new momentum across science, technology, politics, business, and media coverage and community attitudes. The Climate Institute documented these trends in a report released in July, Top Ten Tipping Points on Climate Change.
The public release of the Al Gore movie An inconvenient truth is further proof that global warming is a hot topic. Hollywood has given an emotional punch to what has been viewed as a complex subject. The movie is unlikely to compete with Pirates of the Caribbean two, but its emotional pitch will strike a chord and bring new people into the debate.
The Climate Institute will partner with Westpac on Tuesday in Sydney for a private screening of the movie with more than 100 members of the Australian corporate community.
The US has changed direction, we have not
Beyond the box office, the most powerful message is barely on the screen – a strategic shift in the position of the US, and international business, that has so far gone unnoticed in Australia.
While Australia continues to focus on President Bush’s opposition to the Kyoto Protocol we are wrongly interpreting this position as one of inaction by all of the United States.
In fact, as Al Gore points out in his film, outside of the White House there’s action everywhere you look:
• US Republicans from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Senator John McCain are calling for action.
• Governor Schwarzenegger has agreed to the country’s most ambitious plan to cut greenhouse gases in his state of California, one of the world’s biggest economies.
• Governors of seven north-east states established the first mandatory cap-and-trade program to control emissions in the US, to stabilise power plant emissions through 2015 and reduce emissions by 10% by 2019.
• The mayors of some 284 US cities have pledged to cut emissions of greenhouse gases through the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which calls for cities to meet or beat the US emissions reduction target in the Kyoto Protocol, a 7% reduction below 1990 levels by 2012.
• Twenty-two American states have ordered utilities to obtain as much as 33% of their electricity from renewable sources within the next 10 years.
• The world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, announced a US$500 million climate change commitment including initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in seven years, and increase truck fleet fuel efficiency by 25% in three years and double it in ten.
The end of a beautiful climate relationship
Australia has for years taken the view that action on climate change here is futile without action by the largest economy and largest emitter in the world – the US. Strangely, now that this is happening, the Australian position remains the same.
The US shift on climate leaves Australia politically and economically isolated, not just as the only other major developed country that has not ratified Kyoto but also as the least-prepared developed country in the world on this issue. The safe position under the wing of the White House that Australia nestled in for so long is gone. So far few commentators have noticed.
Some, though, can recognize the warning sign. Westpac CEO David Morgan referring to a conversation with the General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt summed up the mood in the US when he said, “He said to me he was virtually certain that the first action of the next President of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat, would be to initiate urgent action on climate change.”
Carbon has a price, it is profitable, and global companies are setting the pace.
The uniquely Australian notion that reducing greenhouse gases harms economies and corporate profits is being blown out of the water by a surge in corporate activity to exploit the upsides of climate change.
Climate Institute Launch
Companies around the world are using climate change as a strategic business driver across not only emissions reductions, but also the development of new markets, technologies, and investment opportunities. Previously, corporate leadership on climate change has come from Europe and Japan. Now it is global and coming from the US and developing countries as well.
Some are surprised that the global response is, to a large degree, being driven by business. For example, there is a rush to invest in clean energy, a global market now worth $74 billion. The global carbon market was worth $13 billion last year and grew to $18 billion in the first half of this year. The projected technology investment for greenhouse abatement in developing countries by 2012 is $133 billion under the mechanisms of the locally criticised Kyoto Protocol.
The proof that economic benefits can sit alongside reducing greenhouse gases is highlighted by the recent Business Roundtable report signed by six leading CEOs. One would assume that the CEO of Westpac has a firm grasp of the economic realities of Australia.
In his film, Gore links two important partners at the hip – America and business. "There's a sea change underway in American business. What is different in business audiences in the past year or so is a new and widespread receptivity, a keen awareness, an eagerness on the part of large numbers to find out how they can take a leadership position. And a recognition, too, that there are profits to be made."
Australia is in deep trouble as the juggernaut of US multinationals sets about making money from tackling climate change across the globe. The move has been swift; one minute we were in the passenger seat with the US, now we are caught beneath the wheels. No one should be surprised that the US is driven by vested self-interest and global economic power – why would it be any different on climate change?
America , then China, then what?
There is growing evidence that China too is following America’s example. China is set to spend US$220 billion on renewable energy over the next 15 years. That kind of money would buy an oil firm the size of Chevron with change left over to fund the current renewable programs of all Europe's top oil firms for 25 years.
This week I spoke at a renewable energy conference in Canberra with Zhengrong Shi, ironically Australia’s first solar billionaire. He left Australia as the renewable energy industry was being shut down. He is now building solar factories in America as well as in China. Chinese wind companies are launching IPOs in international markets.
The globalization of the trend towards carbon-constrained economies has left Australia behind whilst we continue to operate in a carbon-bloated economy that is getting fatter every day.
So the first question I will ask the business audience on Tuesday is; can a movie have an impact on investment choices?
Skeptics will claim the movie is typical, left wing green rabble-rousing stuff that will not make an impact on the Australian public beyond the latte-drinking fringes of Leichhardt.
Too late, as establishment America is gathering pace in the war to fight climate change, and shifting direction without us noticing.
Gore’s global warming crusade and some Hollywood magic can only highlight the economic pain that Australia is bringing upon itself through its inaction. This is a lonely and expensive place to be with the Americans no longer by our side. That is the inescapable truth of this movie for Australian audiences.
________________________________________
For a free copy of The Climate Institute’s 'Top Ten Tipping Points on Climate Change' report, go to: www.climateinstitute.org.au/cia/downloads/TopTen_fullrep.pdf
About the author
Corin Millais is Chief Executive of the Climate Institute, set up with a philanthropic gift of $10 million to raise public awareness on climate change.
Prior to this he was Chief Executive of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), the world’s largest renewable energy trade association. In 2005 the annual wind energy market was worth A$18 billion. He was also Director of the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), and founder and European Director of the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC).
By: Corin Millais
8 September 2006
Around the world, the climate is shifting and so is the global warming debate. There is a new momentum across science, technology, politics, business, and media coverage and community attitudes. The Climate Institute documented these trends in a report released in July, Top Ten Tipping Points on Climate Change.
The public release of the Al Gore movie An inconvenient truth is further proof that global warming is a hot topic. Hollywood has given an emotional punch to what has been viewed as a complex subject. The movie is unlikely to compete with Pirates of the Caribbean two, but its emotional pitch will strike a chord and bring new people into the debate.
The Climate Institute will partner with Westpac on Tuesday in Sydney for a private screening of the movie with more than 100 members of the Australian corporate community.
The US has changed direction, we have not
Beyond the box office, the most powerful message is barely on the screen – a strategic shift in the position of the US, and international business, that has so far gone unnoticed in Australia.
While Australia continues to focus on President Bush’s opposition to the Kyoto Protocol we are wrongly interpreting this position as one of inaction by all of the United States.
In fact, as Al Gore points out in his film, outside of the White House there’s action everywhere you look:
• US Republicans from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Senator John McCain are calling for action.
• Governor Schwarzenegger has agreed to the country’s most ambitious plan to cut greenhouse gases in his state of California, one of the world’s biggest economies.
• Governors of seven north-east states established the first mandatory cap-and-trade program to control emissions in the US, to stabilise power plant emissions through 2015 and reduce emissions by 10% by 2019.
• The mayors of some 284 US cities have pledged to cut emissions of greenhouse gases through the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which calls for cities to meet or beat the US emissions reduction target in the Kyoto Protocol, a 7% reduction below 1990 levels by 2012.
• Twenty-two American states have ordered utilities to obtain as much as 33% of their electricity from renewable sources within the next 10 years.
• The world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, announced a US$500 million climate change commitment including initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in seven years, and increase truck fleet fuel efficiency by 25% in three years and double it in ten.
The end of a beautiful climate relationship
Australia has for years taken the view that action on climate change here is futile without action by the largest economy and largest emitter in the world – the US. Strangely, now that this is happening, the Australian position remains the same.
The US shift on climate leaves Australia politically and economically isolated, not just as the only other major developed country that has not ratified Kyoto but also as the least-prepared developed country in the world on this issue. The safe position under the wing of the White House that Australia nestled in for so long is gone. So far few commentators have noticed.
Some, though, can recognize the warning sign. Westpac CEO David Morgan referring to a conversation with the General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt summed up the mood in the US when he said, “He said to me he was virtually certain that the first action of the next President of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat, would be to initiate urgent action on climate change.”
Carbon has a price, it is profitable, and global companies are setting the pace.
The uniquely Australian notion that reducing greenhouse gases harms economies and corporate profits is being blown out of the water by a surge in corporate activity to exploit the upsides of climate change.
Climate Institute Launch
Companies around the world are using climate change as a strategic business driver across not only emissions reductions, but also the development of new markets, technologies, and investment opportunities. Previously, corporate leadership on climate change has come from Europe and Japan. Now it is global and coming from the US and developing countries as well.
Some are surprised that the global response is, to a large degree, being driven by business. For example, there is a rush to invest in clean energy, a global market now worth $74 billion. The global carbon market was worth $13 billion last year and grew to $18 billion in the first half of this year. The projected technology investment for greenhouse abatement in developing countries by 2012 is $133 billion under the mechanisms of the locally criticised Kyoto Protocol.
The proof that economic benefits can sit alongside reducing greenhouse gases is highlighted by the recent Business Roundtable report signed by six leading CEOs. One would assume that the CEO of Westpac has a firm grasp of the economic realities of Australia.
In his film, Gore links two important partners at the hip – America and business. "There's a sea change underway in American business. What is different in business audiences in the past year or so is a new and widespread receptivity, a keen awareness, an eagerness on the part of large numbers to find out how they can take a leadership position. And a recognition, too, that there are profits to be made."
Australia is in deep trouble as the juggernaut of US multinationals sets about making money from tackling climate change across the globe. The move has been swift; one minute we were in the passenger seat with the US, now we are caught beneath the wheels. No one should be surprised that the US is driven by vested self-interest and global economic power – why would it be any different on climate change?
America , then China, then what?
There is growing evidence that China too is following America’s example. China is set to spend US$220 billion on renewable energy over the next 15 years. That kind of money would buy an oil firm the size of Chevron with change left over to fund the current renewable programs of all Europe's top oil firms for 25 years.
This week I spoke at a renewable energy conference in Canberra with Zhengrong Shi, ironically Australia’s first solar billionaire. He left Australia as the renewable energy industry was being shut down. He is now building solar factories in America as well as in China. Chinese wind companies are launching IPOs in international markets.
The globalization of the trend towards carbon-constrained economies has left Australia behind whilst we continue to operate in a carbon-bloated economy that is getting fatter every day.
So the first question I will ask the business audience on Tuesday is; can a movie have an impact on investment choices?
Skeptics will claim the movie is typical, left wing green rabble-rousing stuff that will not make an impact on the Australian public beyond the latte-drinking fringes of Leichhardt.
Too late, as establishment America is gathering pace in the war to fight climate change, and shifting direction without us noticing.
Gore’s global warming crusade and some Hollywood magic can only highlight the economic pain that Australia is bringing upon itself through its inaction. This is a lonely and expensive place to be with the Americans no longer by our side. That is the inescapable truth of this movie for Australian audiences.
________________________________________
For a free copy of The Climate Institute’s 'Top Ten Tipping Points on Climate Change' report, go to: www.climateinstitute.org.au/cia/downloads/TopTen_fullrep.pdf
About the author
Corin Millais is Chief Executive of the Climate Institute, set up with a philanthropic gift of $10 million to raise public awareness on climate change.
Prior to this he was Chief Executive of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), the world’s largest renewable energy trade association. In 2005 the annual wind energy market was worth A$18 billion. He was also Director of the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), and founder and European Director of the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
