August 25, 2008

Hydrogen-powered Cars Successfully Cross USA

Several hydrogen-powered cars have just completed a 13-day trip across the US. They stopped in 31 cities across 18 states.

And I had assumed that this technology was still in its infancy.

Posted by jennifer at 12:25 PM | Comments (113) | TrackBack

August 18, 2008

Where does Earth’s Energy come from? A Note from Mark Duffett

Following on from the pondering by Gordon Robertson on extra heat generated by the earth and how this might be accounted for in global warming theory, Mark Duffett has kindly sent in a note with some links:

For all of you out there who might actually be interested in learning something, this isn't a bad introduction:
http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.htm

There is a flaw in the assumptions behind the statement contained therein about the practicality of geothermal energy extraction, but ignore that for the moment.

The bottom line here is the figure of 0.075-0.087 W/m2 for globally averaged heat flow (i.e. the flux of internally generated heat at Earth's surface). Note this is fundamentally based on upwards of 20,000 direct measurements. For comparison, the flux of solar energy incident on Earth at the top of the atmosphere is ~1360 W/m2.

You can draw your own conclusions about the likely direct influence of Earth's internal heat on climate.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/93RG01249.shtml is recommended for a more in-depth treatment.

Cheers
Mark Duffett
Tasmania

Posted by jennifer at 06:03 PM | Comments (190) | TrackBack

August 12, 2008

A spoonful of enviro-sugar helps the atmospheric medicine go down

In her 16th July 2008 media release, GREEN PAPER ON CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME RELEASED, Senator, the Hon. Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water, stated that:

“Climate change threatens … icons like the Great Barrier Reef, the Kakadu wetlands and the multi billion dollar tourism industries they support.”

The selection and juxtaposition of these two icons is, at the very least, strategically interesting. The Great Barrier Reef is widely celebrated as one of the natural wonders of the world, epitomising environmental importance for Australians. Kakadu, in a similar vein, is resplendent with fauna and flora and resounds of antiquity and Aboriginal spirituality. It is a logical companion to the Reef and particularly if the Minister’s intention was to capture the breadth and diversity of Australia’s environmental concerns.

However, the Reef is thought to be around a half-million years old and quite obviously has endured temperature variations throughout this period. With an even greater perseverance, Kakadu is believed to have formed around 140 million years ago, with the prominent escarpment wall forming sea cliffs and the Arnhem Land plateau a flat land above the sea.

Yet, despite these environmental assets enduring against the ravages of turbulent climate variation, their imminent environmental collapse is foreshadowed alongside the devastating implication of multi-billion dollar economic losses, unless dramatic changes are implemented as outlined in the Federal Government’s draft Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

But what of other environmental icons, like the World Heritage-listed Daintree Rainforest? Surely it is even more vulnerable to these forecast catastrophic climate changes? Being coastal, it is more proximal to inundation than Kakadu, it is more primitive, has a far richer biodiversity and endemism and attracts more than twice the annual visitation and expenditure.

Perhaps its ecological interaction with the contiguous Great Barrier Reef is spatially less inclusive of the broader environmental diversity between the Reef and Kakadu. Nevertheless, localised carbon pollution should be more of a concern in the Daintree rainforest with its greater vulnerabilities and visitation, as well as its more abundant income-earning performance. Not that Kakadu should be under-valued, but it seems entirely incongruous that for all the urgency for this necessary intervention, that nothing is being done to protect the Daintree rainforest from carbon pollution emitted from hundreds of concurrently running engine generators.

It has been conservatively estimated that the federal government will raise ten billion dollars in 2010 from the sale of permits to emit greenhouse gases. Every cent of this estimated bounty will purportedly be used to help Australian households and businesses adjust to the emissions trading scheme and to invest in clean energy options.

Perhaps the federal Government might be persuaded to embrace the Daintree World Heritage rainforest as a priority pilot project to remove the unnecessary emissions of so many generators.

Posted by neil at 02:18 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

July 31, 2008

Gone with the Wind

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.

Reuters, 27th February 2008: 'Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency'

Posted by Paul at 02:54 AM | Comments (70) | TrackBack

Slaves to Fossil Fuels?

Birmingham University (UK) has seen fit to publicise an article by Jean-Francois Mouhot from the Modern History Department entitled, 'Free the Planet,' which is published in the journal History Today. The University Media Release follows:

Slaves to Fossil Fuels - a Dangerous Warning from History

A historian has drawn uncomfortable parallels between our current attitudes to fossil fuels and climate change and the behaviour of mid 19th century slave owners, with worrying predictions for the future.

Jean-Francois Mouhot, from the University of Birmingham, calls for a recognition of “the evil of continuing to live as we currently do.” Comparing the attitude of slave owners with our modern day attitudes to oil says Mouhot, is valid and useful, because so many people acknowledge that owning slaves is wrong.

Mouhot says: “It is almost impossible in our contemporary world to live without relying on some sort of energy of the fossil variety. We are perhaps as much victims as culprits of a consumer society. However, our moral duty once we become aware of the evil of the system is to resist it.”

In an article for History Today, Mouhot claims that there a more similarities between current attitudes to oil, gas and coal and those of slave owners that might immediately be perceived. His comparison rests on the premise that it is a feature of human nature to take advantage of having someone or something else to work for them for free or at a small cost, even if it came at a high moral cost.

Looking at the impact on human suffering, beyond the obvious pain caused by slavery, large-scale burning of fossil fuels is inflicting global suffering, in terms of the environmental impacts of droughts, flooding, threats to crop yields and the displacement of large numbers of people.

Mouhot calls for an honest recognition of the damage being done to the planet and humanity, and warns of the dangers of ignoring the powerful lessons of the past.

“We all want to identify with abolitionists, but at the same time we know that the slave owner in each of us will want to resist change. Our abundant energy gives us an extraordinary power but we should never forget that power corrupts.

“If we do not change, our generation, and our children’s generation will pay heavily for the consequences of our reckless activity.”

Jean-Francois Mouhot’s article Free the Planet is published in the August issue of History Today, and is available online at www.historytoday.com.

Ends

History Today: Free the Planet

Jean-François Mouhot traces a link between climate change and slavery, and suggests that reliance on fossil fuels has made slave owners of us all.

Most of us approach slavery with the underlying assumption that our modern civilization is morally far superior to the barbaric slave-owning societies of the past. But are we really so different? If we compare our current attitude to fossil fuels and climate change with the behaviour of the slave owners, there are more similarities than one might immediately perceive.

Historians have long argued that there are numerous links between the commerce of slaves and the Industrial Revolution. Slavery encouraged early industrial production in a circular way, by channelling demand for goods and providing capital for investments. The slave trade stimulated production: slaves were exchanged against goods produced by manufacturers in Europe, such as textiles or firearms; the demand for padlocks and fetters to chain slaves represented a significant market for burgeoning industrial cities like Birmingham. Goods grown by slave labour and exported by planters helped create the first mass consumer markets and made Europe dependent on imported commodities. Plantation agriculture also resembled the ‘factories in the field’ that prefigured the manufacturers of the future. Finally – though the importance of this phenomenon is still debated – some of the capital accumulated by slave traders and planters fuelled investment in new machinery, which helped to kick start the Industrial Revolution. Slave traders therefore played a significant – if perhaps indirect – role in the establishment of the industrialist system at the core ....

Posted by Paul at 01:43 AM | Comments (42) | TrackBack

July 27, 2008

Anti-environment & Anti-tourism Policy in the Daintree

The ratepayers’ association for the Daintree Cape Tribulation area has called upon the Queensland Government to adopt a new policy for the provision of electricity, which protects the environment to the greatest possible extent and overcomes the contradictions of hundreds of concurrently running engine generators.

In response, Mr. Phil Reeves MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier of Queensland, has referred to advice from the Minister for Mines and Energy, the Hon. Geoff Wilson,

“The aim of the Government’s policy is to protect the rainforests in this World Heritage area and to safeguard the aesthetics of this unspoilt region.”

From Minister Wilson’s Office,

“We’re not about to bulldoze through ancient rainforest to put in power lines north of the Daintree River. We’re talking about world-famous, world heritage-listed rainforest and everyone would want it to stay that way.”

Such a response has born false witness, inflaming public opinion against the custodial community. Bulldozing World Heritage rainforests was never proposed; the mere suggestion is as mischievous as it is unethical.

Mr. Reeves MP, has admitted,

“The Government has not changed its position of discouraging development north of the Daintree River…”

This admission, in itself, is appalling, except for its candour. Members of the local community have long suspected that such a position was at play, but can now deal with the formal acknowledgment from the Office of the Premier.

Development in the Daintree is heavily regulated by the Queensland Government, under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and to an even greater extent through the Iconic Places of Queensland Act 2008.

Development in the Daintree is already more rigorously constrained than probably anywhere else in Queensland. So the ‘development’ that the imposition of prohibitively expensive, polluting and aesthetically contemptuous electricity specifically ‘discourages’, can only be existing development; that being the only development that exists.

Despite the Queensland Government having previously promised freehold landowners within the World Heritage Area, that they would be helped to implement the Wet Tropics Plan to the maximum extent, the impacts of the Government’s discouragement of existing development is manifestly anti-environment and anti-tourism.

Posted by neil at 11:51 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

July 25, 2008

Arctic 'Has 90bn Barrels of Untapped Oil'

The Arctic is estimated to hold 90bn barrels of untapped oil, according to figures from the US Geological Survey (USGS).

The USGS says the area has three times as much untapped natural gas as oil.

BBC News: Arctic 'has 90bn barrels of oil'

Posted by Paul at 10:40 PM | Comments (74) | TrackBack

July 17, 2008

Greenpeace Campaigns Against Fossil Fuels in a Diesel Electric Ship

Over the next 6 weeks, we’ll be travelling up the eastern seaboard of Australia, campaigning hard to get the federal government to acknowledge that renewables can do the job and that the time is up for fossil fuels. So stay tuned - The Energy [R]evolution tour has begun!

Greenpeace Australia Pacific: 'Greenpeace Esperanza begins Energy [R]evolution tour'

Andrew Bolt: Fueled by the fuel they condemn

Posted by Paul at 04:53 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack

Viv Forbes Responds to the Green Paper

The Australian Government Green Paper completely ignores the main question – should Canberra try to control the weather, or is it better to foster a strong Australia able to cope with whatever climate change brings us?

The Government also justifies the need for action on completely worthless long term forecasts of Australia’s weather.

Not even the IPCC claims an ability to forecast the weather beyond a few days, but the CSIRO has sullied its reputation by pretending they can project temperature and rainfall 30 years into the future. Why have they not revealed the calculations for these predictions? In the corporate world, anyone making such wild unsubstantiated claims would be quickly disciplined by the regulators. Public figures who repeat and embellish these scaremongering prophecies lack common sense and should also be called to account.

The only credible weather forecast for such a long period is “It will Fluctuate”.

Minister Wong obviously believes that if we give her enough powers to tax and regulate, she can change the world’s weather.

This belief is as silly as the CSIRO weather forecasts out to 2040. Man has never been able to control the weather and there is no credible evidence that his activities have caused unusual weather. In fact, despite all the hot air about carbon emissions, the world has not warmed since 1998 and has been cooling for the last 6 years. Moreover, we have had extreme droughts, floods, ice ages and global warming long before man started using coal and oil.

Minister Wong should make sure Australia has the industrial ability and economic strength to cope with any adverse weather that occurs, be it floods, fires, droughts, snow, heat, cyclones or tsunamis.

Poor people cannot cope with Climate Change and the Rudd/Garnaut/Wong carbon taxes will make every Australian poorer.

This Deep Green Paper should be recycled and replaced by an enlightened White Paper outlining how to make Australia strong and prosperous. This will provide the best insurance for our children against any climate change.

Viv Forbes
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition

Posted by jennifer at 08:27 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

July 16, 2008

Australian Government Releases Green Paper on Emissions Trading Scheme

The Australian Government today released proposals for a new plan to tackle climate change by
reducing carbon pollution. The associated media release entitled, GREEN PAPER ON CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME RELEASED' states that:

"Releasing the Government’s Green Paper on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, Minister for
Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, said the time for action on climate change was
now.

“We confront a daunting reality: we cannot continue to pour carbon pollution into the atmosphere
as if there is no cost,” Senator Wong told the National Press Club in Canberra.

“The 12 hottest years in history have all been in the last 13 years.

“As one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia’s economy and environment will be
one of the hardest and fastest hit by climate change if we don’t act now.

“Climate change threatens our food production, agriculture, and water supplies, as well as icons
like the Great Barrier Reef, the Kakadu wetlands and the multi billion dollar tourism industries they
support.

“The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a response to climate change that is economically
responsible, supports families and prepares Australia for our future challenges.”

Senator Wong said the Green Paper sets out options and identifies the Government’s disposition
and preferred positions on emissions trading and the support proposed to help households and
businesses adjust to this economic transformation.

“At the heart of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is emissions trading, in which the
Government sets a limit on how much carbon pollution industry can produce, and then the
Government sells permits up to that limit, creating an incentive to look for cleaner energy options.

“Companies can buy and sell permits from each other depending on how much they value them,
thereby enabling the market to find the most efficient ways to reduce carbon pollution.”

Senator Wong said this was the most efficient, lowest cost and most economically responsible way
to reduce carbon pollution, but any move to tackle climate change was not without costs.

“The Government will ensure that every cent raised from the selling of permits will be used to help
households and business as they make the move to a clean energy future.”

Senator Wong said the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, that the Government intends to
implement in 2010, is a whole of economy reform on par with past economic reforms such as the
reduction in tariffs or deregulation of the financial system.

“Placing a limit and a price on pollution will change the things we produce, the way we produce
them, and the things we buy. It will open new doors to a cleaner energy future.”

“In this Green Paper, the Government has sought to strike the right balance, on the basis of
economically responsible policy in the national interest.”

Senator Wong said the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will cover stationary energy, transport,
fugitive emissions, industrial processes, waste and forestry sectors, and all six greenhouse gases
counted under the Kyoto Protocol from the time the scheme begins.

“To offset the initial price impact on fuel associated with the introduction of the Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme, the Government will cut fuel taxes on a cent for cent basis.

“We will periodically assess the adequacy of this adjustment measure for three years and adjust this
offset accordingly. At the end of the three year period the measure will be reviewed.”

For heavy vehicle road users, who transport goods across the country, fuel taxes will be cut on a
cent-for-cent basis to offset the initial price impact on fuel associated with the impact of the Carbon
Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Government will review this measure after one year.

To assist rural and regional areas, the Government will provide a rebate equivalent to the excise cut
for businesses in the agricultural and fishing industries for three years.

“The Government will increase payments, above automatic indexation, to people in receipt of
pensioner, carer, senior and allowance benefits and to provide other assistance to meet the overall
increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme,” Senator Wong said.

“We will also increase assistance to other low-income households through the tax and payment
system to meet the overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme.

“Middle-income households will also get assistance to help them meet any overall increase in the
cost of living flowing from the scheme.”

The Government will establish the Climate Change Action Fund (CCAF) to help business
transition to a cleaner economy, by providing in partnership funding for a range of activities,
including:
• Capital investment in innovative new low emissions processes
• Industrial energy efficiency projects with long payback periods
• Dissemination of best and innovative practice among small to medium sized enterprises.

The Government will provide transitional assistance in the form of a share of free permits to the
most emissions intensive trade exposed activities.

The Government also proposes to provide a limited amount of direct assistance to existing coalfired
electricity generators.

“After so many years of inaction, it is impossible for Australia to be in front of the rest of the world
in tackling climate change,” Senator Wong said.

“A greater risk is being left behind a world of emerging economic opportunities.”

-----------
You can read the full report

CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME
Green Paper
July 2008

here: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/greenpaper/report/index.html

Posted by jennifer at 03:29 PM | Comments (41) | TrackBack

July 15, 2008

Say No to Emissions Trading: Art Raiche

It is foolish beyond measure to enter into an Emissions Trading System (ETS) based on the hysterical predictions of CSIRO’s computer modelling. To quote Prof Freeman Dyson of the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, one of the world’s most eminent physicists: “The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”

If there is global consensus that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing global warming, why is it that over 30,000 US scientists disagree and have petitioned the US government against actions to mitigate CO2 emissions? See http://www.petitionproject.org/

Why have the oceans been cooling for 5 years? Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?

Why is it that despite the past decade of increased CO2 emission levels, the temperature has been stable and is predicted by the Hadley Centre to actually go down over the next decade?

We need to think very carefully before following the recommendations of the Garnaut Report, possibly the longest economic suicide note in Australia’s history.

Art Raiche
Killara, NSW

Posted by jennifer at 07:48 AM | Comments (25) | TrackBack

July 11, 2008

$8-a-Litre Petrol?

THE price of petrol could soar to a crippling $8 a litre over the coming decade, according to CSIRO-sponsored research to be released today.

The nightmare scenario says the weekly family fuel bill for a medium-sized passenger vehicle could rise to $220 by 2018 - taking $12,000 a year out of family budgets.

couriermail.com.au: 'Get ready for $8-a-litre petrol'

CSIRO Media Release: ‘Fuel for thought’ on transport sector challenges

‘Fuel for thought’ pdf

Posted by Paul at 06:49 PM | Comments (106) | TrackBack

July 09, 2008

Excision from the National Electricity Grid

According to Professor Gavan McDonell, the national electricity grid stretches over 4,000 kilometres, connecting far North Queensland down through the eastern states to Tasmania and across to South Australia. However, there is one notable exclusion: the Daintree.

One can almost here the collective expression of environmental conditioning, “Yes, but the ‘pristine Daintree’ is far too precious to be spoilt by reticulation.”

So, by implication, if Australia regards the Daintree exclusion area as the most deserving of protection from environmental harm, why is it condemned to the most polluting form of electricity? Surely, if its environmental importance supersedes any other area in Australia, its electricity supply should be the cleanest in Australia?

Residents and businesses within area of excision have a rigorously regulated conservation land-use responsibility. They are also quarantined from development, particularly through World Heritage and Iconic Places legislation. Now that conservation targets and planning scheme objectives have formally been met, the custodial community would like to be supported in the development of an alternative energy policy that is not reliant upon the concurrent operation of hundreds of polluting, emitting engine generators.

To this end, a delegation travelled to Brisbane to meet with Minister for Energy, the Hon. Geoff Wilson MP, to appeal for environmental relief from the existing flawed policy. It called upon the Queensland Government to embrace a new partnership, that protects, to the greatest possible extent, the exceptional environmental and ecotourism values, including the people and communities, through renewable optimisation, innovation, development and provision of world’s best-practice electricity supply.

The Minister’s Office has recently issued the following media statement:

We’re not about to bulldoze through ancient rainforest to put in power lines north of the Daintree River.

We’re talking about world-famous, world heritage-listed rainforest and everyone would want it to stay that way.

The State Labor Government has spent millions of dollars in a land buy-back scheme for the Daintree that demonstrates our commitment to the preservation of this pristine region.

In 2001, residents were invited to apply for federal and state government grants for solar power and to store solar energy.

Householders may also be eligible for grants under the federal government’s regional renewable power generation program. The federal government will pay up to fifty per cent of the cost of any renewable energy project.

The program is essentially for households and businesses that aren’t connected to the grid.

Ergon Energy has experts based in Cairns and they provide technical advice and equipment to households and businesses that rely on remote area power supplies, including solar energy.

I would encourage householders in the Daintree to contact Ergon Energy in Cairns.

The media advice is contemptuous of the people of Queensland, who in 1998 funded a $450,000 EIAS that established that reticulation through directional boring could be achieved without any adverse effect on the natural environment. It is also contemptuous of the local community that travelled from the Daintree to Brisbane to explain their very serious concerns for the pollution that the Queensland Government's existing electricity policy has forced into their income-earning rainforest.

Indeed, the description of bulldozing ancient World Heritage rainforests is deliberate and mischievous fear-mongering. World Heritage is protected from state government degradation under international law & the Commonwealth's EPBC Act, in addition to its own state government legislation, including the NCA, IPA, Wet Tropics Management & Protection & Iconic Places Acts.

Land acquisition by the Queensland Government was an integral part of an agreement, defined in the Rainforest CRC's Daintree Futures Study, which built upon the concurrent delivery of conservation, regulation of development and power.

Minister Wilson suggests Daintree landholders contact Ergon Energy in Cairns, which has been relieved of its distribution responsibility towards the Daintree area only, for technical advice. In point of fact, the FNQ Regional Electricity Council has recommended:

In light of the State Government's ClimateSmart 2050 strategy to reduce emissions from fossil fuel and increase use of renewables, the REC would recommend that the Minister review whether solutions could be found under this or related policies.

Options might include: support increased use of renewable energy through revised subsidies for renewables or tariff arrangements, or through providing grid access to greener power through the large scale cleaner generation such as gas, wind or clean coal.

Given the particular environment, an the many facets of the problem, the REC also recommends that other departments with interests in sustainability and World Heritage environmental management also be asked to consider solutions to the concerns.

Posted by neil at 06:09 PM | Comments (37) | TrackBack

July 08, 2008

How the National Electricity Grid Works in Australia

"Until the 1990s, Australia had a series of separate regional power grids. We now have a system linked almost across the nation - a system which, when well managed, is cheaper and more reliable. In the late 1980s, governments finally came to see that the existing state monopoly power commissions were amazingly inefficient and hungry for great gobs of capital for new power stations and coal mines.

"The greater reliability of a connected system is just as important as the cost savings. With a national grid and a national market, it is possible to provide softer cushions against natural or man-made catastrophes: a spiraling cyclone, a stinking hot afternoon (one of the worst risks), the collapse of a transmission tower, or, to take a gloomy view, a terrorist attack.

"So it is hardly surprising that state governments should have looked for a new way to keep the lights on. Of course, when talking to their voters back home, they still kept assuring their constituents - and still do - that they were looking after their power, that they were making sure that their state's power supply is in good shape. The fact is that now all of the connected states rely upon each other and NEMMCO, to keep the whole show firing.

"As a result, much the same amount of base generating capacity can meet our needs now as 20 years ago. And, when precarious episodes have arisen, the wizards at NEMMCO managed to keep the system up, and you, good citizens, probably neither heard nor worried about it.

But ... read more from Gavan McDonell at OLO about South Australia's special role in the administration of all of this: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7585&page=0

Posted by jennifer at 09:52 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 07, 2008

Australians Deluded by Latest Climate Change Report

Since the election of the Rudd Labor government last year Australians seem to be under some sort of delusion that what we do here in Australia will actually have an impact on global climate. These delusions seem to have increased with the release of the Garnaut Climate Change Review Draft Report last Friday.

The front page of the weekend edition of the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that unless we immediately start work on a carbon trading scheme to operate from 2010 – and accept that the price of petrol, gas, power and food will rise – then it will be the end of agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin by 2100, 5.5 million people will be exposed to dengue virus, it will be the end of the Great Barrier Reef and the beginning of political instability in neighbouring countries.

This is simply not true.

Indeed even Ross Garnaut acknowledges in his report that for there to be any impact on global carbon dioxide levels, the world’s major economies must do something about their emissions. The Professor lists China, the US, the European Union, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia then India, as the world’s largest greenhouse emitters and in that order.

Emissions from Australia make up only about 1 percent of the world total. In reality, we are a nation of just 21 million people at the bottom of the world. There are 1.3 billion people in China (India 1.1 billion, US 304 million and Indonesia 231 million) and given China and most other developing countries have no intension of limiting their greenhouse gas emissions in the short to medium term atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases are likely to continue to increase.

And I am not conceding that the apparently elevated levels of carbon dioxide are driving global temperatures.

Indeed atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased significantly over the last few decades and global temperatures did increase over the period 1975 to 1998, but since then they appear to have plateaued.

The prediction was that 2007 would be really hot, but it wasn’t.

There has been a breakdown in the correlation between increasingly levels of carbon dioxide and global temperatures.

Instead of acknowledging this in his report Professor Garnaut has deferred to two fellows at the Australian National University who he describes as "eminent econometricians" and quotes them apparently concluding that “viewed from the perspective of 30 or 50 years ago, the temperature recorded in most of the last decade lie above the confidence band produced by any model that does not allow for a warming trend” (pg. 113).

Why doesn’t the Professor just acknowledge that over the last 10 years, viewed from now, there has been no global warming and that now is not the time to introduce a radical new emission trading scheme that is sure to force up the price of everything, particularly given that our big neighbours, including Indonesia with a population of 231 million, have no plans to do the same.

The bottom line is that the introduction of an emissions trading scheme into Australia is likely to deliver real economic hardship while delivering no environmental benefit. Indeed it is absurd to suggest that the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in Australia will have any impact on the environment of the Murray Darling Basin or the Great Barrier Reef.

Australians are indeed deluding themselves if they think that by simply paying more for their petrol, they can influence global temperature trends, never mind that there has been no warming for 10 years now.

Posted by jennifer at 12:11 AM | Comments (89) | TrackBack

July 02, 2008

Crying Need for Skepticism: Gerard Henderson

There is an opinion piece in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald entitled 'Crying Need for Doubting Peter' in which Gerard Henderson suggests that even if carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are contributing to global warming it is unclear why a nation like Australia -- responsible for only 1 percent of the world's emissions -- should be an international leader in responding to climate change.

Gerard Henderson quotes ABC Radio National Broadcaster Robyn Williams from his interview with Channel 9 TV journalist Adam Shand on Sunday.

You can watch the Channel 9 story -- which is probably the first time mainstream Australian TV has given some of Australia's so-called global warming skeptics a fair hearing -- here as Part 1 and Part 2.

Posted by jennifer at 08:49 AM | Comments (36) | TrackBack

June 30, 2008

Energy Intensive Australian Businesses To Report Emissions from Tomorrow: Media Release from Penny Wong

From Tuesday (1 July), businesses emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases will be required to monitor and measure the emissions ahead of reporting them to the Government by October next year.

Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, said the requirements were part of Australia’s new National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System.

“The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System will be an important part of our efforts to tackle climate change as we move to establish an emissions trading scheme,” Senator Wong said.

“The emissions trading scheme is at the heart of the Rudd Government’s plan to reduce greenhouse emissions. It is the best way to tackle climate change at lowest cost to families and business.

“This new system will play an important role by more precisely quantifying the greenhouse gases Australia produces. It will also, for the first time, provide robust and comparable information to the public on the greenhouse and energy profiles of Australia’s large corporations.”

From 1 July, corporate groups that emit 125 kilotonnes or more of greenhouse gases each year, or produce or consume 500 terajoules or more of energy, will be required to collect data to meet annual reporting requirements. Corporations controlling facilities that emit more than 25 kilotonnes of greenhouse gases, or use or produce 100 terajoules or more of energy, will also need to collect data.

(25 kilotonnes of greenhouse gas emissions is equivalent to the annual emissions of more than 6,200 cars. 100 terajoules equates to the annual energy use of around 1900 households.)

While the Act governing the system comes into effect on 1 July 2008, relevant corporations will have until 31 August 2009 to apply to register under the scheme, and until 31 October 2009 to submit their first annual greenhouse and energy report.

“Many of these corporations already report their emissions and energy use to meet investor demands under existing programs, or as part of a growing corporate commitment to social responsibility and sustainability,” Senator Wong said.

“But others may be unsure as to whether or not they are covered by the system, and the Department of Climate Change will work closely with them to ensure they can comply.”

The Department of Climate Change has developed an online calculator to help businesses work out whether the system applies to them. The department will continue to run information sessions and provide guidance on using the online reporting system, along with a ‘reporting hotline’.

Posted by jennifer at 07:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Daintree Power Struggles

In an ongoing effort to get through to the Queensland Government, our local ratepayers association is considering a full-page advertisement in the environmental liftout of a local newspaper. It would include an open letter to the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Anna Bligh MP:

Dear Madam Premier,

Residents and business operators within the Daintree rainforest take their custodial responsibilities very seriously; after all, it is also their own futures they are protecting. They possess an extraordinary knowledge of the area’s global environmental significance and understand the importance of
sustaining a world-class ecotourism economy.

Every year, over sixty businesses attempt to showcase their bona fides as environmental custodians to the half-million or so travellers from the world-over, but the all-important partnership between the host community and its ecotourism clientele, is undermined by the disgrace and impropriety of the world’s worst-practice electricity supply; hundreds of concurrently running engine-generators spewing pollutants into the last remnant of the oldest surviving rainforest in the world. It is anathema to the custodial community and travel altruism is understandably incensed. It is also economically crippling, with fuel prices fast approaching $2/litre; a single family’s modest electrical needs may cost around $170/week for the fuel alone to generate electricity through an internal combustion engine.

Any justification for adherence to the existing policy of excision, as a development choke, is redundant, as the Daintree is now more rigorously regulated than probably anywhere else on the planet. The local community calls upon the Queensland Government to embrace a new partnership, that protects, to the greatest possible extent, the exceptional environmental and ecotourism values, including the people and communities, through renewable optimisation, innovation, development and provision of world’s best-practice electricity supply.

Together we can do much better.
Your faithful partners in protection,
etc.,

Posted by neil at 06:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 26, 2008

UK's Looming Energy Gap Suffers 'Wind Chill'

I've often thought that maybe the Kyoto Protocol could have been more aptly named the 'Don Quixote Protocol.' Why? Because 'Kyoto' sounds like 'Quixote' and, in the novel by Miguel de Cervantes, Quixote fought an imaginary enemy of giants that turned out to be windmills. Today, our imaginary enemy is 'big warming' driven by CO2 conjured up in computer models. One of the consequences of fighting this phantom menace is the UK's looming energy gap. Instead of windmills, we have wind turbines. This brings me to a new report by the Centre for Policy Studies entitled: 'Wind Chill'

The summary states:

Britain faces an energy gap of up 32 GW by 2015 as older coal and nuclear power stations are paid off. At the same time, Britain has made a binding commitment to deliver 15% of all its energy consumption from renewable energy sources by 2020.

Government policy is based on using wind power both to help close the energy gap and to meet its renewable energy targets

If the Government is to meet its renewables target, then the amount of electricity to be generated by wind farms
will have to increase by more than 20 times.

Expensive

This will be very expensive. Electricity generated by wind turbines already enjoys huge subsidies and tax breaks
through the Renewables Obligation scheme.

The Government has now accepted that the total costs of meeting the 2020 target will be £100 billion. This is the
equivalent of £4,000 for every household in the country.

WIND CHILL

The Royal Academy of Engineering has calculated that wind energy is two and a half times more expensive than other forms of electricity generation in the UK.

Unreliable

Wind generation does not provide a reliable supply of power. It must be backed up by other baseload sources.

Greater reliance on wind power could lead to electricity supply disruptions if the wind does not blow, blows too hard or does not blow where wind farms are located.

The experience of Denmark – often hailed for its pioneering development of wind farms – is that wind energy is expensive, inefficient and not even particularly “green”. There are signs that other countries are losing some of their enthusiasm for wind power.

Unpopular

There is no evidence that people are prepared to pay for wind power. Only 15% of people say that they are fairly or very willing to pay higher electricity bills if the extra money funds renewable power sources such as wind. The figures for “very unwilling” and “fairly unwilling” are 37% and 24% respectively.

This over-reliance on expensive wind energy, coupled with rising gas prices, will drive six million households
into fuel poverty.

Disrupting

Present wind farm planning applications do not take into consideration the economic viability of the project or whether the topography and meteorological conditions are suitable.

The planning system already favours wind farm developers. But if the Government is to meet its renewable target by 2020, then current planning regulations will have to be weighted even further in favour of wind farm suppliers.

The Ministry of Defence has recently lodged last minute objections to at least four onshore wind farms claiming
the turbines will interfere with their national air defence radar.

The alternative

The energy gap must be filled with equivalent baseload capacity as quickly as possible.

The UK should therefore now develop its nuclear, clean coal (including coal gasification) and other renewable supplies of energy (particularly tidal).

Wind energy, in contrast, should only play a negligible role in plugging Britain’s looming energy gap.

There is also an article about the report in the Daily Mail: Wind turbines are 'unreliable and will cost each home £4,000' claims think-tank

Posted by Paul at 01:31 AM | Comments (88) | TrackBack

June 20, 2008

EU Rule Put Half a Million Homes in the Dark

Oh! the joy of living under the Soviet EU and policies driven by global warming alarmism:

The unexpected shutdown of two power stations on Tuesday, May 29, led to the worst disruption to the UK’s power network in more than 20 years, prompting new concerns over the stability of Britain’s ageing power grid.

However, industry sources say that a key factor was the European Union’s Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD), which sets strict limits on the number of hours that some of Britain’s largest and most heavily polluting coal and oil-fired power stations can operate before they have to close in 2015. The time is measured in “stack hours” — the length of time that chimney stacks, rather than individual generation units, are in use.

The Times: EU rule kept half a million homes in the dark

Posted by Paul at 06:20 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

June 18, 2008

How 'Green' is the Hybrid Car?

On 10th June we learned that Australia's first locally manufactured hybrid car will roll off Toyota's production line in less than two years, in a deal Victorian Premier John Brumby has heralded as a 'coup'.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Toyota's president Katsuaki Watanabe made the announcement today in Japan.

ABC News: Brumby lauds $35m Toyota hybrid 'coup'

I don't have any axe to grind over Hybrid cars, I'd just like to know the truth about how 'green' they really are. In the US and UK there has been some controversy over the 'dust to dust' or 'life cycle' CO2 emissions, costs and energy useage of the Toyota Prius. Toyota supposedly produced their own report, which to the best of my knowledge has never been made public. A CNW Marketing report claimed that the dust to dust cost per mile for a Toyota Prius was $3.249, compared to $3.027 for Hummer H2. There is more in a balanced article from the UK Telegraph from 2007 entitled: Who are you kidding?

This news has reached Australia:

As more Australians scramble to buy hybrid petrol/electric cars, Britain's biggest-selling auto magazine has taken a swipe at them, saying hybrids are no better for emissions than an efficient diesel or petrol-driven car.

The magazine Auto Express says none of the hybrids' advertised emissions figures were borne out in their test drives.

ABC News: Hybrid cars 'not so green'

Meanwhile, Toyota are promising a 'plug-in' hybrid for 2010.

Thanks to Luke for alerting me to Australia embracing the hybrid car, while I was on holiday in Spain - I'm still catching up!

Posted by Paul at 04:37 PM | Comments (76)

June 17, 2008

The Only Way is UP: Reality Trumps Emissions Projections

There is a new paper (in press) in the journal Climatic Change by Peter Sheenan of the Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia entitled: 'The new global growth path: implications for climate change analysis and policy'

The Abstract states:

In recent years the world has moved to a new path of rapid global growth, largely driven by the developing countries, which is energy intensive and heavily reliant on the use of coal—global coal use will rise by nearly 60% over the decade to 2010. It is likely that, without changes to the policies in place in 2006, global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion would nearly double their 2000 level by 2020 and would continue to rise beyond 2030. Neither the SRES marker scenarios nor the reference cases assembled in recent studies using integrated assessment models capture this abrupt shift to rapid growth based on fossil fuels, centred in key Asian countries. While policy changes must and will occur, the realism of the reference case is critical for analysis and policy formulation. Using such a reference path will have significant effects on impact and damage estimates, on the analysis of achievable stabilisation paths and on estimates of the costs of achieving stabilisation at a given GHG concentration level. Use of a realistic reference path is also essential for the international negotiations, arising out of the COP13 meeting in Bali, to achieve widely desired stabilisation goals: both the level of emission reductions to be achieved, and the preferred distribution of those reductions over countries and regions, will be heavily influenced by the reference case assumed.

Meanwhile, China has clearly overtaken the United States as the world’s leading emitter of carbon dioxide, a new study has found, its emissions increasing 8 percent in 2007. The Chinese increase accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the year’s global greenhouse gas emissions.

As UK Aussie Rolf Harris would say, "Can you tell what it is yet?"

Hat tip to Prometheus.

Posted by Paul at 05:00 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

June 04, 2008

Higher Petrol and Electricity Price for Australia, And No Nuclear: Dennis Jensen

"It is interesting that Labor, during the election campaign, had lots of talk about plans for the future, but the reality, as delivered by the budget, shows a lack of vision and a lack of strategic planning or coherent direction. Before the election, the then Leader of the Opposition kept telling us that he had a plan for this and he had a plan for that. In reality, his only plan was to become Prime Minister.

Let us have a look at some of the issues that have a lot of unintended consequences—for instance, the removal of the condensate exemption, which will result in a net gain of revenue of $2.43 billion but will significantly damage the international competitiveness of the resources industry. The government have also decided to reintroduce the CPI increase on the diesel excise levy. Obviously, this will result in increased costs of transport, and this is inflationary. Increased costs to mining also reduce productivity, and hence the tax take. And increased costs to agriculture are inflationary and threaten farmers’ livelihoods.

There is the so-called alcopops tax—increasing the tax on alcopops, theoretically to reduce binge drinking. But
binge drinking has actually reduced over the last five or so years with the target audience of young women, and
projections by Treasury show a four per cent reduction in ready-to-drinks compared with before the increased tax.
HBF’s Western Australian data show that ready-to-drinks comprise only three per cent of what 18- to 21-year-olds
are drinking, compared with 51 per cent for spirits. Those over 30 consume ready-to-drinks at greater percentages
than those in the 18 to 21 group. This shows that Labor are completely illiterate regarding statistics—and perhaps
that is why they have cut the ABS budget. Of importance is reducing the overall alcohol consumption in binge
drinking situations, not just ready-to-drinks, where substitution of other forms of alcohol is already happening. In
summary, looking at a massive tax increase on ready-to-drinks is supposed to decrease use of a product that only
three per cent of the target group use, and that reduction is only by four per cent. This is two-thirds of stuff-all, I would suggest.

Then there is the area of science, a discipline that is critical to Australia’s advancement. Scientific research is vital in the development of solutions to many problems, as well as pure research. So what do the Labor government
do? They cut CSIRO’s budget so significantly that CSIRO will shed 100 jobs and four divisions. What a travesty; what hypocrisy! And that is before we even get to cuts to ANSTO—probably purely based on political antinuclear ideology. The government has also slashed the Commercial Ready program, which, in the past, funded
clinical trials for cancer treatments and the high-risk biotech sector. So much for R&D! On 1 November 2000 and
in February 2007, the current Prime Minister extolled the virtue of research and development, especially in universities, and feigned outrage at the policies of the coalition. This man has now slashed CSIRO funding. Fine
words; black deeds.

Then, worst of all, in the areas of energy and the environment, the government is shown to be clueless hypocrites.

We had Peter Garrett decrying the coalition government’s environment policy when in opposition. On an almost weekly basis he complained about our policy for solar power generation, stating that we had been world leaders in solar technology, particularly photovoltaics, but were no longer so. Now Labor is in government, and it is instructive to compare rhetoric with action. Far from delivering a policy to enhance the photovoltaic industry,
the Rudd Labor government has introduced a policy that is likely to kill the entire industry in Australia. The Rudd government has introduced a budget measure that will dissuade essentially the only people who will be able to afford solar panels on the roof—those earning over $100,000—from doing so by cutting the solar rebate. That is grubby Labor politics of envy winning out over good policy, I would suggest.

Look at Labor rhetoric on carbon dioxide emissions and contrast that with their actions. State Labor governments
in New South Wales and Western Australia have decided to build new coal-fired power stations. What happened to gas, never mind renewables or—God forbid, in the eyes of some Labor and particularly Greens members— nuclear power? This seems to be a pattern: a lot of whingeing about problems when in opposition but nary a solution when in government. Labor’s spin puts youths with hotted-up cars doing burnouts to shame. We have
news, however, of a new baseload gas-fired power station in New South Wales which effectively puts the carbon cost at two cents per kilowatt hour for coal-fired power stations. This will make electricity prices far more expensive and makes nuclear power extremely cost-competitive. Think what this carbon price will do to petrol prices.

The Labor Party, the party that promised in an election campaign to put maximum downward pressure on petrol prices, will be slugging hard-pressed motorists with far higher petrol prices. We put downward pressure on petrol
prices. Indeed, the proportion of tax take from fuel has gone down from 6.6 per cent to 4.8 per cent in the last six
years. That is real downward pressure. Perhaps the media and others have misunderstood the Labor catchphrase.

Perhaps when Labor were saying ‘working families’ they were actually saying ‘walking families’ to prepare Australia for this very crisis. This will no doubt be explained away as a measure to solve another crisis that Labor will no doubt bring forward when they are next under pressure: the obesity epidemic. Not being able to afford petrol will clearly assist in that regard—irony intended.

An opposition that promised a long-term plan for the future has mutated into a government scrambling desperately for ideas, throwing up short-sighted, ill thought out policy that exacerbates the very problems that Labor promised to solve. Where is the long-term coherent policy and strategy? Nowhere to be seen in this budget. There are just a whole lot of punitive measures, slush funds and inevitable spin. It just won’t wash.

Let us have a look at the future and what we can do. In going around my electorate of Tangney, I have heard people express concern that they see no light at the end of the tunnel regarding petrol. Not only do they worry
about increasing fuel prices; they worry that there will not be any fuel at all for their vehicles. What is the government doing? These are issues of sovereign risk and sovereign energy security, which are clearly critical for our long-term future. What the government is doing is nothing more than attempting to wallpaper over gaping cracks
in its policies.

I have already spoken at length of the necessity to consider nuclear energy, so I will not dwell on it. I would just urge the government to fully and critically examine and analyse all potential electricity generation methods. We need a comprehensive national energy strategy. This is something that is clearly not on the cards with this government.
But what about petrol and other oil based products? It may shock you to learn that there is an essentially Third World nation that obtains fully one-third of its fuel synthetically and has done so for 50 years. The country is the
nation of my birth, South Africa, and the process is Sasol. Rugby Union fans would probably have wondered what
‘Sasol’ across the Springboks jumper meant. You are about to find out.

Sasol is an oil-from-coal process that uses the Fischer-Tropsch process, developed prior to World War II. Germany
produced synthetic fuel during the war using this process. It was further developed in South Africa, and Sasol fuels began to be sold 50 years ago. This process was largely ignored in the rest of the world due to the expense
of the process, but from South Africa’s perspective in the apartheid days it was essential from an energy security point of view. A benefit of the fuel is that it is extremely clean. Just as synthetic engine oil has virtually no impurities, the same holds for synthetic petrol. The really good news is that the fuel that was ignored due to costs
is now remarkably cheap. The Sasol process produces oil for between $27 and $55 a barrel. Somehow I do not
think we will have oil prices quite that low again. The United States is showing significant interest in the process,
as are many other nations. Where are we?

The green disciples of anthropogenic global warming will oppose this process, as it is relatively carbon dioxide intensive. But let us take the time to examine some of the pseudoscience on which this whole anthropogenic global warming belief is based. Let us also examine how these disciples act and how they are reported. First, I find some of the commentary coming from some of the anthropogenic global warming zealots extremely perplexing.

We hear that the rate of increase of global temperature is faster than the science predicted. But what is actually
happening?

I have three graphs: one from the third IPCC assessment report and two from the fourth assessment report. All of the projections show an increase from the year 2000, even if the graph for carbon dioxide is held constant at year 2000 levels. I repeat: all the projections show an increase over the last decade. But what do actual measurements
show? I have many charts showing the global temperature as measured by four groups, including the Hadley centre, whose data is officially used by the IPCC. This data shows that the temperature has flatlined over the
last 10 years. Observation does not fit theory and yet the theory is deemed correct.

A classic example of rejecting facts which do not fit the theory is the temperature graph over the last 1,000 years and the use of tree ring and tree density data as a proxy for temperature. There is a well-known problem when comparing tree ring and density data with temperature data over the last 140 years. Between 1860 and 1960,
the data agreed reasonably well. After 1960, there is a divergence. The tree ring and density data indicate that temperatures have decreased, where measurements have actually indicated an increase. If you look at the IPCC
graphs, the tree proxy data ends abruptly at—you guessed it—1960.

Keith Briffa, a lead author of the IPCC, in the chapter relating to tree proxy data had this to say of the divergence
problem: In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.

In other words, we do not know how the hell to explain the post-1960 data, so we will just blame humans and accept that all the earlier data is correct because that fits neatly with our paradigm. This is what a friend of mine refers to as ‘situating the appreciation rather than appreciating the situation’. You make the facts fit the theory then you should make the theory fit the facts.

If global temperature is not heating as predicted, maybe this elusive heat is going into the oceans. Not so. Three thousand oceanic robots that dive up to 1,000 metres have been measuring ocean temperatures since 2003 and
show, if anything, a slight decrease and certainly not an increase. So where has the heat gone? IPCC coordinating lead author Kevin Trenberth has stated: ... none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

According to Kevin Trenberth, the lost heat is probably going back out to space. He says the earth has a number of
natural thermostats, including clouds, which can trap heat, turn up the temperature or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. So why is none of this reflected in the modelling? It is situating the appreciation again.

This whole issue of anthropogenic global warming has all the classic hallmarks of religion. There are the high priests—the Gores, the Flannerys etcetera of the world, who talk the talk but are utterly hypocritical when it comes to walking their talk. There is the concept of original sin, being industry and carbon dioxide, and the whole issue of penance or paying the price for your actions. This is the way we have to pay for the use of industry which is emitting carbon dioxide. The high priests, however, can get away with their profligate lifestyle by buying indulgences, also known as carbon credits, and so continue to sin. Hence, we have Flannery jetting here, there and everywhere and Gore, similarly, with just one of his residences—one of three, I might add—consuming 20 times as much energy as the average American household. That is how concerned he is about global warming in reality.

The media indulge the high priests, castigating the many heretics who dare to differ. Yet they let the high priests off, not scrutinising their statements as the media should. Take Flannery’s suggestion, for example, of putting sulphur into the atmosphere, using terribly polluting aircraft to disperse it. What a delicious irony! For those who know a bit of chemistry, what happens when you mix sulphur, water and oxygen? You get sulphuric acid, also known as acid rain. I guess that is the price that we need to pay for our sin. But why has the media not lampooned
Flannery, who is supposed to be a global warming expert scientist of the highest order, for such a ridiculous proposal?

It is political correctness of the highest and most unconscionable order.

So what we have is a more and more desperate anthropogenic global warming theory supporters club who, when the data indicates that the planet has not been heating for the last 10 years and the oceans have not heated for at east the last five, tell us that global warming is happening even more quickly than the theory predicts. After all, the models must be right, just like the bookies must always be right with predictions on match or racing results.

The problem is that this religion based around the false god of a controllable and naturally benign climate is going to hurt every man, woman and child in Australia as a result of significantly higher fuel and energy prices and onsequent increases in the cost of living, particularly food, so groceries and fuel and so on are going to go up
significantly—estimates say approximately 10c to 30c per litre for petrol alone. This government is clearly quite
happy with that, and that is a tragedy for many Australians.

Dr. Dennis Jensen
Federal Member for Tangney
Western Australia

------------------------
This speech was made by Dr Jensen in the Australian Federal Parliament on June 3, 2008, on the Appropriation Bill.

Posted by jennifer at 09:47 PM | Comments (102) | TrackBack

May 28, 2008

Enough Oil 'For At Least 30 Years'

AUSTRALIA'S rural economic forecaster has challenged predictions the world is about to run out of oil, saying it has enough to last at least another 30 years.

ABARE executive director Phillip Glyde told a Senate estimates committee that the peak-oil school of thought, which holds that reserves are near depletion, was wrong.

The Australian: There's enough oil 'for at least 30 years'

Posted by Paul at 04:50 PM | Comments (92) | TrackBack

May 22, 2008

AGL Begins Emissions Trading Ahead of 2010 National Scheme

A MAJOR Australian energy company has decided not to wait for the start of a national emissions-trading scheme in 2010 and is offering to buy and sell future permits to its customers.

The Australian: AGL makes first trade in emissions scheme

Posted by Paul at 04:17 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

May 15, 2008

Activism on Carbon Emissions Built on Specious Data?

“Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) is a massive database containing information on the carbon emissions of over 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies worldwide. Power generation accounts for 40% of all carbon emissions in the United States and about one-quarter of global emissions. CARMA is the first global inventory of a major, emissions-producing sector of the economy.” At least that is according to CARMA an initiative of the Center for Global Development, a Washington-based think tank.

But according to environmental consultant Shakeb Afsah, of Performeks, the overall data and the analytical architecture of CARMA are flawed. Afsah’s findings are detailed in a new report ‘Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA): Climate Activism Built on Specious Data’ at a new website, www.climatedataduediligence.org.

Afsah says he arrived at this conclusion by checking the following: 1) the precision of CARMA’s ranking, (2) the extent of the numerical differences between CARMA’s and USEPA’s annual CO2 estimates, (3) the lack of correlation between CARMA’s and USEPA’s carbon intensity values, (4) the predictable pattern of error in CARMA’s annual CO2 estimates, and (5) the logical and quantitative inconsistencies in CARMA’s next decade predictions of CO2 emissions. This report concludes that CARMA’s statistical methodology for estimating CO2 emissions of power plants is incompatible with the protocols for CO2 monitoring and verification recommended by the US Government, IPCC and the European Commission. Because climate management requires considerable coordination across countries, CARMA’s conflicting methodology, data and results can upset the fledgling progress towards international consensus.

According to the CARMA website they are very proud of the data they provide to users, but are also keen for feedback.

But according to Afsah, he first informed CARMA’s about data quality issues on December 4, 2007, and after five months there has been no serious response or suggested disclaimer on the CARMA website.

Posted by jennifer at 09:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 14, 2008

The Day of the Electric Car Starts to Dawn

I guess I was about 12 years old (1970) when I made a crude drawing of my design for an electric car. At school we had been told that oil was running out and I had been bought a new bicycle as a reward for passing the 11-plus exam, which allowed me to go to Grammer School. My bike was a 'state of the art' Raleigh RSW 16 in blue. It had 16 inch white 'balloon' tyres, 3 speed twist grip gears, a rear drum brake, and a front 'dynohub' that powered the front and rear lights.

It was the dynohub that impressed me the most as it was a built it generator incorporated into the front wheel hub. This set me thinking - why couldn't an electric car have something simiilar built into all four wheel hubs in order to generate electricity to help charge the batteries on the move? My next 'innovation' was to have solar panels incorporated into the bonnet, roof and boot. Thus my dynohubs, which would actually have been more efficient alternators rather than dynamos, and solar panels would help extend the range of the car, plus the solar panels would also help to re-charge the batteries when it was parked in daylight.

I wish I had kept the drawing, but it's probaly just as well I didn't go into the electric car business, as oil stubbornly refused to run out. However, clearly I was 40 years ahead of my time as oil has now reached $126 per barrel and the electric car is now looking much more like a vialble option for journeys of around 40 to 100 miles per day.

Way back in 1899, a French electric car named 'La Jamais Contente,' driven by Belgian Camille Jenatzy, reached the then record speed of 105.882 km/h (65.792 mph).

Photo from Wikimedia Commons

For the subsequent 100 years or so, the internal combustion engine has dominated car technology. However, this may be about to change. I'd certainly like to get my hands on a new Mitsubishi i MiEV to replace the small Peugeot 1007 I use on my 40 mile round trip to work and back.

Photo from the GreenCarSite

The i MiEV is due in the UK around 2009/10 at an estimated cost of £15,000. The range will be up to 100 miles on a full charge, with a 0 to 60mph time of just 9.5 seconds and a top speed of 85mph. 10,000 miles should cost about £50 in electricity, compared to around £1000 in petrol for the internal combustion engined version.

For those with around $100,000 to spend, there are sports cars such as the Tesla Roadster available. No doubt as production numbers increase, prices of electric cars will become even more affordable. Personal mobility and climate concerns solved!?

Paul Biggs

Posted by Paul at 09:54 PM | Comments (37) | TrackBack

May 11, 2008

Good News on High Fuel and Food Prices - A Note from Ian Mott

The moralising on the supposed evils of converting grain to biofuel and pushing food prices to record levels in a soon to be hungry world has only just begun. It has been described as nothing less than a "crime against humanity" by UN expert, Jean Ziegler and these sentiments were also echoed by the IMF. The only thing missing were the "four horsemen of the apocalypse", but give them time, they are only just warming up yet.

Just be sure to take it all with a grain of salt because that is a narrow minority urban view. Afterall, the majority of the world's population are still farmers and fisher folk. And under the principles of universal sufferage and one vote one value, it is the farmers perspective of high food prices that should, but rarely does, prevail over the bleatings of minority urban panic merchants.

It should not be forgotten that in the entire sweep of human history prior to 90 years ago, almost all non-railway transport fuel was grown on farms and the trade-off between the use of grain for food or transport was a central element of all human commerce. A part of every farm was set aside as the "horse paddock" and part of every oat or corn crop was set aside for both family consumption and horse transport and traction purposes. The family's ride into town was fueled by a stomach full of grass but it was the bag of oats, that was contentedly munched on while the shopping was done, that fueled the ride back home. Every farmer also knew that if they wanted the ploughing done on schedule then they would need a few more bags of supplemental grain to maintain the effort. And all the products the family had bought had been transported by animals whose sole source of fuel was grain that had been bought in the same market where the same grains (of slightly different quality) were sold as food for humans.

In fact, the traditional Amish communities are still doing it to this very day. And somehow, lumping them in with the likes of Pol Pot, Adolf and uncle Jo Stalin seems just a wee bit over the top, don't you think? Especially when you look at their CO2 emissions per capita. And if the Amish are committing crimes against humanity for diverting human food for transport purposes then what does that say about Hindu farmers who, for religious reasons, allow perfectly good cows to die of old age, un-eaten by anyone?

More to the point, there is not the slightest doubt that the presence of this competing demand for agricultural output played a major role in maintaining food prices at levels much higher than these recent "record levels" that have been attributed to rising oil prices. And it was these very same high prices for agricultural produce that ensured that small scale family farming remained as a profitable occupation. It is what maintained most of the population, and the jobs, in rural and regional settlements where their ecological footprint was incapable of producing excess CO2. It took cheap oil, cheap food and the urban megopolis to pull off that stunt.

It was also these higher food and transport prices that played a major role in curbing mankinds propensity for the kind of conspicuous consumption that is having a major impact on the ecology of the planet. These higher prices ensured that houses remained at sensible sizes, used less resources, were easier to heat, cheaper to maintain and were built closer together. People could afford to buy them with just one income. This produced denser housing in more compact towns and cities where walking, bicycling and public transport were more viable. They formed stable, safe neighbourhoods where kids could walk to school and be monitored by a careing community. And despite the past lack of medical advances, people were fit, active and rarely obese.

The drift of population to the cities was much slower under high food prices and this slower pace of development was at a rate that planners could cope with. These smaller cities enjoyed greater utilisation of infrastructure, lower maintenance costs and fewer diseconomies of scale. It was, dare I say it, a much more ecologically sustainable pace of change.

So we need to be cautious about the underlying perspectives of those predicting catastrophic outcomes from high food prices. For it may well be the case that the simple lifestyle and market induced responses of ordinary folk to higher food and transport costs will do more to cut CO2 emissions than all the climate wallies combined.

Yet, many would agree that it is not good sense to be starving poor people all over the world for the sake of a target set by uncertain science and rampant green whimsy. But it must also be remembered that most of the worlds poor are rural poor, not urban poor. And it is only the minority urban poor who will be in serious trouble from higher prices.

For the rural poor this doubling and trebling of food prices is the good economic news that well informed development economists have been calling for for decades. The major cause of their poverty was the low cost of energy and the resulting artificially low break even price of industrially farmed commodities. These low priced industrial food stocks undermined the prices of third world farming produce to the point where the results of a days labour were insufficient to feed the farmers family for that day. This was further exacerbated by the dumping of subsidised food as "aid" to the expanding urbanised populations that needed to be placated to maintain any semblance of order.

In contrast, the major increase in energy costs has produced a major increase in the price of fertiliser which is obviously not good for those users. But in the third world this also means that the nitrogen in a cows turd has also undergone a major increase in value to a point where the effort expended in collecting that turd will be properly rewarded by the additional food it will grow and the major increase in price that food will command.

And while the increase in energy costs has raised the price of weedicide for the developed world, for most of the worlds farmers it has re-created the circumstances in which a day spent chipping weeds with a hoe will be rewarded with more than enough food to make it worth his while. The improved weed control improves the water use efficiency of their limited rainfall supplies. It can have the same effect on farm output as a 30% increase in rainfall.

The problem in third world agriculture was never one of lack of underlying capacity. Cheap commodities from cheap oil simply undermined the structure of their local economy to a point where the effort required to produce a surplus of food over their own needs was more than the extra food was worth and the people who might have bought that surplus were all in the city, too far away.

Those days are now gone. These farmers have been sent a very powerful price signal from the market place that their efforts are now valued more highly and are prepared to pay a much fairer price for what they produce. The additional spring in their step that this will produce will be akin to giving them an extra acre of land each and an extra 100mm of rain.

And those members of the starving, rioting urban poor who still retain their links to the rural community will soon discover that there are new, secure jobs back home providing services to those who, some for the first time in their lives, are enjoying an investable surplus and economic security based on their own effort, under their own control.

And after all they have endured under the tyranny of cheap oil and cheap food, who of us would not wish them all the very best in their endeavours. As Candide said to Pangloss after a lifetime of catastrophe, "that is all very well, but there is work to be done in the garden".

Ian Mott

Posted by jennifer at 10:35 PM | Comments (40) | TrackBack

May 06, 2008

Don't Grind Grain for Ethanol - by Geoff Ward (Part 2)

The New South Wales Government is proposing to mandate that all standard unleaded petrol will contain 10% of ethanol. This ethanol will mostly be sourced from grain. The main reasons we must oppose this legislation are the humanitarian effects of converting food to fuel, the lack of CO2 abatement, it’s debatable improvement of air quality and the unsuitability to operate in the variable New South Wales (NSW) climate. Other reasons include the grain ethanol industry’s mandated ability to outbid other end users for finite resources and the hindrance an established industry will provide to the development of the preferred cellulose ethanol industry.

The ethanol industry debate worldwide has been muddied by misinformation and spin doctoring, not helped by the terminology. Barrels, litres, US gallons, bushels, tonnes, millions and billions can easily be daunting. Ethanol, biofuels, grain ethanol, waste are all terms used glibly to suit the occasion. In this discussion of the proposed E10 mandate I am setting out the problems of processing ethanol from primary grain in NSW.

Number 1
Humanitarian effects --- as per global debate which is hard to miss on Google News or the international media. There is now no question that world food supplies and therefore price have been influenced by the expansion of the grain ethanol industry. To meet current mandate and mandate targets for biofuels in just the USA and the EU will require 240 million tonnes of grain or about 1/8th of the world’s grain production. FAO in their latest data estimates that 100 million tonnes of grain or 1/20th of world production was converted to ethanol worldwide in 2007/2008. Given the exponential rate of expansion of this industry, subsidised and mandated by Governments, this conversion of food to fuel will have an ever increasing effect on the price of grain and consequently increasing the starvation, misery and civil unrest of many millions of the worlds poor.
With higher oil prices and without Government intervention, there is potential for the developed world to economically convert even greater tonnages of grain to ethanol. What is the limit to the developed world’s immorality?

Number 2
A question arises when we consider other industries that use grain extravagantly for the use of the relatively rich of the world such as grain fed beef, why is this grain ethanol mandate different?
There are two differences I can see. The first is that grain fed beef is not mandated or subsidized and secondly mandates and subsidies are seen as ways to establish infant industries. Cellulose ethanol certainly qualifies as an infant industry but grain ethanol does not. The technology has been around for a century.

Number 3
A NSW decision to mandate E10 will have a significant impact on the global debate now raging about the merits of grain ethanol. We are involved globally and the NSW decision will be noted.
Many are calling for the USA to back away from its mandate to convert 150million tonnes of grain to ethanol, Canada is holding back on legislating its ethanol mandate and important leading figures around the world are currently calling for caution, debate and even backing down on grain ethanol mandates.

Number 4
It is hypocritical for farmers to demand protectionist policies with respect to grain ethanol when for years we have fought tariffs and USA/EU farm subsidies. As an exporting nation, Australia must support global trade and benefit from comparative advantages between trading partners.

Number 5
Grain ethanol will never be profitable for the ethanol producers as they will be bidding for finite resources against inelastic food demands. With greater demand for grain prices will increase to erode any ethanol producer’s profitability.

Number 6
Mandated/ subsidized grain ethanol will increase the price of arable acres and so benefit rural areas. However, as in Iowa, the rest of the population will object to this transfer of wealth when it is pointed out that E10 involves a $230 million subsidy annually of Federal money to NSW. E10 nationally would cost $690 million per year. The Productivity Commission recently questioned the value of this excise rebate or subsidy for domestic ethanol.
If the Federal Government wishes to support regional and rural areas this money would be better spent directly in these areas rather than have ethanol investors ‘clip’ it on the way past.
Or better still the $230 million annually could be spent on research and the encouragement of cellulose ethanol.

Number 7
If E10 is mandated and the supply of grain is limited by drought will it be possible for the Government to let the ethanol plants continue to operate and the grain price to run to import parity, experience shortages or will they consider closure of these plants. Export industries value adding grain such as beef and dairy production and a range of food production including wheat gluten, flour and malt will all be priced out of the global market. Domestic food costs will rise.

Number 8
NSW’s variable climate is the principle factor making a grain ethanol industry impracticable. Iowa’s grain ethanol experience, with its relatively certain climate, is not admissible to the NSW E10 debate. On the other hand, Texas has a more variable climate and it is no surprise that its Governor is calling for relief for the USA ethanol mandate.

Number 9
NSW E10 translates to conversion of 1.5 million tonnes of grain to ethanol. This is about 30% of the NSW harvest in 3 of the last 7 years. E10 is not a realistic proposition.
Victoria and Queensland usually draw grain from NSW. This flow will be disrupted by the demand from ethanol production.

Number 10
Localised shortages occur in NSW, both in grain quantity and starch quantity when grain is pinched from drought. Domestic ’import parity’ pricing occurs with local grain end users disadvantaged. A local grain ethanol plant would increase the occurrence and severity of these domestic ‘import parity’ situations. Other end users will shift their operations to ports where they can have access to imported grain in response to this more commonly occurring event of import parity pricing. This has the potential of tearing the fabric of NSW agriculture apart.
Localised ‘import parity’ will mean greater movement of grain across the established transport routes which stretch from production areas to the ports. The infrastructure for this freight movement does not exist.

Number 11
Increased acres sown to grain will not translate into greater local tonnage in drought years and so will not overcome the problem of a variable climate.

Number 12
The 1.5 million tonnes of grain required for the E10 mandate will come from decreasing exports, or from increased production.
Any decrease in exports will contribute to humanitarian problems in some countries. They will have to increase their production from marginal or new land, both environmentally damaging. Any CO2 release from this must be billed to the grain ethanol industry here in NSW.
Increased acres sown to grain will be from dryland acres prone to drought so the harvest tonnage spread between good and bad years will increase. The risks and costs of this greater variability of production must be accounted for by both growers and the industry.

Number 13
For a grain ethanol industry, grain shortages would mean closures and loss of profits. Imports but this may not be possible if countries convert their exportable grain surplus to ethanol and the cost