Sydney Morning Herald
Tuesday 6/2/2007 Page: 11
Opinion:
The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leads to the inevitable conclusion that deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are needed urgently, before 2020. While individuals can make a contribution, their potential falls far short of what is needed: targets, new policies, strategies and actions from all levels of government, especially federal and state.
It is governments that control taxation and funding, choose new infrastructure, and establish regulations and standards.
Unfortunately summits and further inquiries often delay real action. The Federal Government has been delaying greenhouse action for 10 years. Its principal strategy is to support coal-fired electricity with capture and burial of carbon dioxide. With a big subsidy, a pilot plant could be built within a decade. But this is a long way from a mass-produced, commercially available technology, which would take at least 20 years to roll out.
Knowing this, the Government is promoting nuclear power to divert attention from the clean energy technologies that are ready for implementation, given appropriate carbon pricing, regulations and standards: efficient energy use, solar hot water, solar space heating, wind power and bioenergy from crop residues, organic wastes and landfills.
Nowadays, nuclear power entails even greater risks of proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism. And there is still no long-term nuclear waste dump operating anywhere. High-grade uranium ore is scarce, while mining and milling low-grade creates big carbon dioxide emissions. The nuclear industry promotes a new generation of nuclear power stations that might be slightly safer and cheaper, but these will take at least 15 to 20 years to mass produce.
Clearly, the Government is attempting to delay efficient energy use and renewable energy for 15-20 years until its chosen technologies may become available. It combines token support for renewable energy with false claims that it cannot substitute for coal.
The federal Mandatory Renewable Energy Target for 2010 was so small it was reached last year. Several years ago the Government ceased to fund the Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, but it still funds three research centres for fossil fuels. Even efficient energy use, the cheapest and fastest set of technologies and measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, has received little support from the Government.
To give the right message to energy consumers, it is essential to expand and extend the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target and to introduce carbon pricing, either as a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. An effective scheme must have a strong cap on emissions, must include all the energy intensive industries and must distribute at least half the emission permits by auction. This will allow cleaner energy technologies to enter the market in competition with the existing fossil fuel technologies. As with water permits, emission permits should be temporary licences, not property rights.
The Federal Opposition promises to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, expand the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target and introduce an emissions trading scheme, without specifying its key features. Useful first steps, but not sufficiently specific to give us confidence that they will achieve big reductions in emissions by 2020.
The best action NSW has taken is to follow Victoria in establishing a Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. However, the modest emission reductions from this will be swamped if NSW permits a conventional coal-fired power station to be built. At least three such proposals are on the table. The NSW Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, has indicated he favours a coal station. The Premier, Morris lemma, has avoided committing himself and has attempted to reassure the public by pointing to the Government's recent approval of a gas-fired power station.
However, this is merely a peak-load station and is not relevant to the choice of the next base-load station. The program to upgrade the state's 12 coalfired generators from 660 to 750 megawatts each will produce equivalent emissions to a new coal-fired station.
Under pressure from the property and housing industries, NSW has weakened the BASIX scheme for energy-efficient homes. On transport, it reneged on a promise to extend Sydney's light rail system, cancelled the Parramatta-Epping heavy rail link, failed to introduce an integrated ticketing system for public transport and has made negligible investment in a bicycle highway network - all indicators that it is ill-prepared for greenhouse response and for the imminent peak in global oil production.
Perhaps local climate action groups will exert sufficient political pressure to move contenders in the coming elections to adopt effective policies instead of diversions and delaying tactics.
Dr Mark Diesendorf researches and teaches sustainable development and greenhouse response strategies at the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales.
Tuesday, 6 February 2007
Llewellyn hopeful of Chinese power deal
Launceston Examiner
Tuesday 6/2/2007 Page: 8
ENERGY Minister David Llewellyn will fly later this week to Beijing, where he is expected to secure a lucrative deal with China's largest power generator, China Datang Corporation. Details of an impending announcement are being kept tightly under wraps, but the trade mission follows a successful visit by Chinese executives to Tasmania last week.
The delegation toured Hydro Tasmania's Lake Gordon power station and Roaring 40s operations at Woolnorth on the West Coast.
The Beijing-based company has assets of more than $12 billion and a total generation capacity of more than 50,000 MW - more than the total for the whole of Australia. It plans to build 1700 MW in renewable wind assets by 2010 and is already working with Roaring 40s on the 58-turbine Shuangliao Wind Farm in the Jilin Province.
Mr Llewellyn said ahead of last week's visit that the project represented only the "tip of the iceberg" for Tasmania's involvement in China.
Tuesday 6/2/2007 Page: 8
ENERGY Minister David Llewellyn will fly later this week to Beijing, where he is expected to secure a lucrative deal with China's largest power generator, China Datang Corporation. Details of an impending announcement are being kept tightly under wraps, but the trade mission follows a successful visit by Chinese executives to Tasmania last week.
The delegation toured Hydro Tasmania's Lake Gordon power station and Roaring 40s operations at Woolnorth on the West Coast.
The Beijing-based company has assets of more than $12 billion and a total generation capacity of more than 50,000 MW - more than the total for the whole of Australia. It plans to build 1700 MW in renewable wind assets by 2010 and is already working with Roaring 40s on the 58-turbine Shuangliao Wind Farm in the Jilin Province.
Mr Llewellyn said ahead of last week's visit that the project represented only the "tip of the iceberg" for Tasmania's involvement in China.
Principles trampled underfoot
Australian Financial Review
Tuesday 6/2/2007 Page: 63
When it comes to the environment and carbon trading, politicians are simply doing what they have always done by saying one thing and doing another. Carbon taxes and trading emissions are effective tools because they get to the heart of the problem, namely CO2 emission, they do away with the messy requirements of government intervention, and minimise the chances for corruption. Or so you would think.
The problem is that all of the weak, half-hearted ad hoc measures that have gone before the scheme are still in place, and any time the prospect of a carbon trading scheme gets in the way of polluting businesses, they just ask for an exemption and they get it. BlueScope Steel does not have to worry about the possibility of carbon taxes or carbon trading at its $1 billion Port Kembla steel plant, because the NSW government gave it exemptions for both. The same goes for Alcoa's smelter expansions in Victoria. So, because large developments with lots of potential jobs manage to win, smaller developments and the environment, and the rest of us, all lose.
Tuesday 6/2/2007 Page: 63
When it comes to the environment and carbon trading, politicians are simply doing what they have always done by saying one thing and doing another. Carbon taxes and trading emissions are effective tools because they get to the heart of the problem, namely CO2 emission, they do away with the messy requirements of government intervention, and minimise the chances for corruption. Or so you would think.
The problem is that all of the weak, half-hearted ad hoc measures that have gone before the scheme are still in place, and any time the prospect of a carbon trading scheme gets in the way of polluting businesses, they just ask for an exemption and they get it. BlueScope Steel does not have to worry about the possibility of carbon taxes or carbon trading at its $1 billion Port Kembla steel plant, because the NSW government gave it exemptions for both. The same goes for Alcoa's smelter expansions in Victoria. So, because large developments with lots of potential jobs manage to win, smaller developments and the environment, and the rest of us, all lose.
Investing in energy
Australian
Tuesday 6/2/2007 Page: 18
GERMANY'S second-biggest power supplier will invest billions of euros in major gas and wind power projects, including a gas power station in Britain and a gas pipeline between the Czech Republic and Belgium.
Tuesday 6/2/2007 Page: 18
GERMANY'S second-biggest power supplier will invest billions of euros in major gas and wind power projects, including a gas power station in Britain and a gas pipeline between the Czech Republic and Belgium.
Monday, 5 February 2007
The dragging of dusty feet
Sydney Morning Herald
Saturday 3/2/2007 Page: 31
The water shortages have stirred the Government into action, writes Ian Lowe, but the cause is still neglected.
AUSTRALIA: There are no real surprises in the Paris report. With each report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the evidence gets stronger that the climate is being changed by human activity, mainly our burning of fossil fuels.
We are already paying the costs of climate change in reduced farm production, increased costs of water supply and rising bills for extreme weather events. As the new report confirms, more change is inevitable because of the long time fossil-carbon stays in the air. But we can avert the more gloomy possible outcomes by rapidly reducing our release of greenhouse gases.
It is important to understand the scale of the change needed. Biologists argue we should keep the increase in average global temperatures within two degrees to prevent dangerous changes to ecological systems.
Climate models suggest we need to cut global emissions of carbon dioxide to less than half the present level. To allow improved living standards in the poorest countries we will have to reduce our greenhouse pollution dramatically, probably to something like 10 to 20 per cent of the present level over the next 50 years or so.
We urgently need to reshape our energy supply and use. We need a cleaner energy supply and improved efficiency to reconcile the demand for energy services with our global responsibility. Time is not on our side. Any decision to build another coal-fired power station would commit us to releasing extra carbon dioxide until about 2050, and on average that carbon dioxide would stay in the atmosphere well into next century.
Business and the community are way ahead of the Government in recognising the problem and working toward solutions. Last year, the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change called for a concerted policy response, with a real price on releasing carbon dioxide and binding reduction targets.
Last week the US Climate Action Partnership, also an alliance of some of the largest corporations with non-government organisations, called for "a policy framework for mandatory reductions" based on a "cap and trade" approach. The idea is that national targets are set, giving steady reductions over time. The fuel industries then trade for the permits to release their share of the national quota. That is the economically efficient way to achieve the cuts we need.
The Australian Government has accepted that water shortage is a problem, but is still doing nothing substantial about the underlying cause: climate change.
The Australian Conservation Foundation estimates Australia still spends more than $5 billion of public money every year subsidising supply and use of fossil fuels, while the costs of climate change this financial year will probably exceed $1 billion.
By contrast, we are spending very little on responses. Government attention and funds have been wasted on diversions like the Switkowski task force, which confirmed what we knew: nuclear power is too expensive, too slow and too limited a response, and creates serious environmental risks for the future.
More public funds are going into research aimed at prolonging use of coal-fired power than the clean alternatives. A Federal Government report published 15 years ago found we could get 30 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2020 at no more than 10 per cent extra cost. The Government has given us the extra cost, through its GST, but renewables account for a smaller fraction of our power today than when John Howard was first elected.
The Government has finally accepted we need an emissions trading system to drive change, but has stacked its task force with the big polluters. So it is very unlikely we will see the sort of change now being proposed in the US by such companies as General Electric, Alcoa, BP America and Pacific Gas and Energy.
The local mind-set is clear. The Electricity Supply Association of Australia even produced a report this week claiming nuclear and more coal power will be needed. This week we also saw another local renewable Ref: energy group give up and move overseas, despairing of the prospect of serious action from the Australian Government.
We urgently need a concerted response to climate change. We must prepare for the changes that are inevitable, but at the same time we must reduce our assault on the Earth's weather system. We need a different economic framework as well as appropriate regulation. That is our responsibility to the millions of other species that share this planet with us, and to the future generations for whom we hold it in trust.
Ian Lowe is emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University, and the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Saturday 3/2/2007 Page: 31
The water shortages have stirred the Government into action, writes Ian Lowe, but the cause is still neglected.
AUSTRALIA: There are no real surprises in the Paris report. With each report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the evidence gets stronger that the climate is being changed by human activity, mainly our burning of fossil fuels.
We are already paying the costs of climate change in reduced farm production, increased costs of water supply and rising bills for extreme weather events. As the new report confirms, more change is inevitable because of the long time fossil-carbon stays in the air. But we can avert the more gloomy possible outcomes by rapidly reducing our release of greenhouse gases.
It is important to understand the scale of the change needed. Biologists argue we should keep the increase in average global temperatures within two degrees to prevent dangerous changes to ecological systems.
Climate models suggest we need to cut global emissions of carbon dioxide to less than half the present level. To allow improved living standards in the poorest countries we will have to reduce our greenhouse pollution dramatically, probably to something like 10 to 20 per cent of the present level over the next 50 years or so.
We urgently need to reshape our energy supply and use. We need a cleaner energy supply and improved efficiency to reconcile the demand for energy services with our global responsibility. Time is not on our side. Any decision to build another coal-fired power station would commit us to releasing extra carbon dioxide until about 2050, and on average that carbon dioxide would stay in the atmosphere well into next century.
Business and the community are way ahead of the Government in recognising the problem and working toward solutions. Last year, the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change called for a concerted policy response, with a real price on releasing carbon dioxide and binding reduction targets.
Last week the US Climate Action Partnership, also an alliance of some of the largest corporations with non-government organisations, called for "a policy framework for mandatory reductions" based on a "cap and trade" approach. The idea is that national targets are set, giving steady reductions over time. The fuel industries then trade for the permits to release their share of the national quota. That is the economically efficient way to achieve the cuts we need.
The Australian Government has accepted that water shortage is a problem, but is still doing nothing substantial about the underlying cause: climate change.
The Australian Conservation Foundation estimates Australia still spends more than $5 billion of public money every year subsidising supply and use of fossil fuels, while the costs of climate change this financial year will probably exceed $1 billion.
By contrast, we are spending very little on responses. Government attention and funds have been wasted on diversions like the Switkowski task force, which confirmed what we knew: nuclear power is too expensive, too slow and too limited a response, and creates serious environmental risks for the future.
More public funds are going into research aimed at prolonging use of coal-fired power than the clean alternatives. A Federal Government report published 15 years ago found we could get 30 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2020 at no more than 10 per cent extra cost. The Government has given us the extra cost, through its GST, but renewables account for a smaller fraction of our power today than when John Howard was first elected.
The Government has finally accepted we need an emissions trading system to drive change, but has stacked its task force with the big polluters. So it is very unlikely we will see the sort of change now being proposed in the US by such companies as General Electric, Alcoa, BP America and Pacific Gas and Energy.
The local mind-set is clear. The Electricity Supply Association of Australia even produced a report this week claiming nuclear and more coal power will be needed. This week we also saw another local renewable Ref: energy group give up and move overseas, despairing of the prospect of serious action from the Australian Government.
We urgently need a concerted response to climate change. We must prepare for the changes that are inevitable, but at the same time we must reduce our assault on the Earth's weather system. We need a different economic framework as well as appropriate regulation. That is our responsibility to the millions of other species that share this planet with us, and to the future generations for whom we hold it in trust.
Ian Lowe is emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University, and the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Something in the wind
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday 4/2/2007 Page: 5
CHINA'S largest power company toured Tasmania's Woolnorth wind farm yesterday. Executives from China Datang Corporation were shown around the wind farm in far North-West Tasmania by Roaring 40s chief executive Mark Kelleher. The Datang visit was part of a three-day tour of Hydro Tasmania energy assets led by Energy Minister David Llewellyn.
"To put how important this visit is into perspective, Datang has a total controlled installed capacity of over 50,000MW which is more than Australia's entire generating capacity," Mr Llewellyn said.
Datang is one of five massive power generation firms created by the communist People's Republic of China. In 2002 the Chinese State Power Corporation was broken into five companies which were authorised by the government to seek investment and shareholding enterprises.
A vast majority of China's power plants rely on dirty coal. But Datang and other rival power generators in China are being instructed to switch to cleaner fuels and renewable energy. Datang aims to expand capacity 60 per cent in the next six years. It has plans to spend $580 million this year and between $414 million and $497 million next year, mainly on capacity expansion.
Roaring 40s which owns and operates the Woolnorth wind farm, is a joint venture between Hydro Tasmania and Hong Kong firm China Light and Power. The state-owned Hydro Tasmania, joint owner of Roaring 40s, has borrowed to the hilt and owes more than $1 billion to the Tasmanian Government's lending arm TasCorp. The Hydro has asked the Tasmanian Government for a $300 million equity injection.
Sunday 4/2/2007 Page: 5
CHINA'S largest power company toured Tasmania's Woolnorth wind farm yesterday. Executives from China Datang Corporation were shown around the wind farm in far North-West Tasmania by Roaring 40s chief executive Mark Kelleher. The Datang visit was part of a three-day tour of Hydro Tasmania energy assets led by Energy Minister David Llewellyn.
"To put how important this visit is into perspective, Datang has a total controlled installed capacity of over 50,000MW which is more than Australia's entire generating capacity," Mr Llewellyn said.
Datang is one of five massive power generation firms created by the communist People's Republic of China. In 2002 the Chinese State Power Corporation was broken into five companies which were authorised by the government to seek investment and shareholding enterprises.
A vast majority of China's power plants rely on dirty coal. But Datang and other rival power generators in China are being instructed to switch to cleaner fuels and renewable energy. Datang aims to expand capacity 60 per cent in the next six years. It has plans to spend $580 million this year and between $414 million and $497 million next year, mainly on capacity expansion.
Roaring 40s which owns and operates the Woolnorth wind farm, is a joint venture between Hydro Tasmania and Hong Kong firm China Light and Power. The state-owned Hydro Tasmania, joint owner of Roaring 40s, has borrowed to the hilt and owes more than $1 billion to the Tasmanian Government's lending arm TasCorp. The Hydro has asked the Tasmanian Government for a $300 million equity injection.
`Act now' on warming Push to tackle effects before they become catastrophic
Sunday Mail Brisbane
Sunday 4/2/2007 Page: 7
By Daryl Passmore
SCIENTISTS and environmentalists yesterday sent a clear message to the country's politicians on climate change - it's time for action. A UN report released this weekend (3/2/07) warned temperatures will rise up to 6C by 2100, with catastrophic effects on weather. It said greenhouse gases were "very likely" responsible.
Australian Conservation Foundation climate change campaigner Monica Richter said the situation was urgent: "We need to be thinking in terms of the effort that was generated by the country when we went into the Second World War." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report tips average temperatures to rise 1.8C-4C by 2100 and sea levels up to 79cm if polar ice keeps melting at the present rate.
Griffith University's Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, a leading climate change expert, said Queensland would be particularly hard hit. The situation this weekend, with large areas of north Queensland flooded while southeast dam levels falling, was a sign of things to come.
Green groups urged Peter Beattie and other premiers to follow South Australia leader Mike Rann in introducing laws to curb greenhouse gases and use more clean energy sources.
Scientists say some climate change is inevitable, even with such measures, but there is still time to avoid the worst effects - just.
"It might only be five to 10 years to really dramatically cut greenhouse pollution and avoid the worst," said Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry.
"We've still got a chance to do something about it but we've got to get cracking." The Federal Government is facing calls to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050, boost investment in renewable energy sources, to sign the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse emissions and to cut or end the $5.5 billion annual subsidies for the supply and use of fossil fuels.
Prime Minister John Howard used the UN report to further his nuclear push: "And as time goes by and we make the fossil fuels cleaner, that will make them dearer to operate, and therefore there'll be a greater opportunity and competitive situation for nuclear power."
Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the consequences of climate change were a reality but global warming could not explain all severe weather. "We have always been the land of droughts and flooding rains."
Sunday 4/2/2007 Page: 7
By Daryl Passmore
SCIENTISTS and environmentalists yesterday sent a clear message to the country's politicians on climate change - it's time for action. A UN report released this weekend (3/2/07) warned temperatures will rise up to 6C by 2100, with catastrophic effects on weather. It said greenhouse gases were "very likely" responsible.
Australian Conservation Foundation climate change campaigner Monica Richter said the situation was urgent: "We need to be thinking in terms of the effort that was generated by the country when we went into the Second World War." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report tips average temperatures to rise 1.8C-4C by 2100 and sea levels up to 79cm if polar ice keeps melting at the present rate.
Griffith University's Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe, a leading climate change expert, said Queensland would be particularly hard hit. The situation this weekend, with large areas of north Queensland flooded while southeast dam levels falling, was a sign of things to come.
- Rainfall from storms in the north would rise by up to 30 per cent with a temperature rise of under 3C, bringing more flooding, with long dry periods in the south.
- Cyclones would become more frequent and intense, and extend to the southeast.
- Developments along estuaries and canal estates would be at risk of flooding.
- Tropical diseases such as dengue and Ross River fevers would become more common and spread south to Brisbane.
- The number of people dying from heat stress in Australia would rise from 1100 a year to up to 16,000.
- More than 90 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef would suffer bleaching each year, destroying it.
Green groups urged Peter Beattie and other premiers to follow South Australia leader Mike Rann in introducing laws to curb greenhouse gases and use more clean energy sources.
Scientists say some climate change is inevitable, even with such measures, but there is still time to avoid the worst effects - just.
"It might only be five to 10 years to really dramatically cut greenhouse pollution and avoid the worst," said Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry.
"We've still got a chance to do something about it but we've got to get cracking." The Federal Government is facing calls to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050, boost investment in renewable energy sources, to sign the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse emissions and to cut or end the $5.5 billion annual subsidies for the supply and use of fossil fuels.
Prime Minister John Howard used the UN report to further his nuclear push: "And as time goes by and we make the fossil fuels cleaner, that will make them dearer to operate, and therefore there'll be a greater opportunity and competitive situation for nuclear power."
Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the consequences of climate change were a reality but global warming could not explain all severe weather. "We have always been the land of droughts and flooding rains."
Beating the carbon trap
Canberra Times
Monday 5/2/2007 Page: 6
Ben Selinger weighs up the tough options as we begin to look seriously for a quick exit from our slow freeway cruise into the greenhouse.
THE DEBATE over climate change and our energy future must take place within a framework set by the natural laws of the physical world.
There are only three main sources of energy on earth. There is solar energy captured by plants in earlier eons and now stored as coal, oil and gas. There are radioactive elements, like uranium and thorium, from which energy can be extracted. Nuclear also includes "hot rocks" that derive heat from underground nuclear energy, and nuclear fusion - mimicking the sun, both of which might some day provide high-density, relatively clean energy. And there is an unlimited supply of low-density solar energy which continually downloads on to earth.
The most relevant natural law by which we are bound is the second law of thermodynamics. In its simplest form it says,"There are no free lunches." When we burn fossil fuel, carbon and hydrogen in the fuel react with the oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide, water and heat. This process is not easily or quickly reversed. Carbon dioxide and water are very stable. The bonds between the atones are very strong, so to split CO, back into carbon and oxygen, or water back into hydrogen and oxygen, requires more energy than was released by the original burning.
Using fossil fuels to power such a step would be self-defeating, so we need to think about other sources of energy. As this process takes lots of energy, and solar is really diffuse, perhaps what we need is a factory that's really spread out. Hey, let's design a forest. Up till now we have relied on plants to break down carbon dioxide and water, but we have been overloading the system ever since we invented the steam engine. So what are the options for continued use of fossil fuel?
But it is all very small bickies. Say someone invents a brilliant hydrogen fuel-cell. This still needs a supply of hydrogen.
Another finds a good solvent for CO, but then still needs to do something with this greenhouse gas. Emperor Coal's new cleaner clothes can't disguise the fact that the Emperor is mainly carbon and still ends up as carbon dioxide. He will need to be taxed on the damage he does.
To sustainably counter global warming we need a solar process for either energy generation or fuel regeneration. It can be natural plants or synthetic plants which split CO, into carbon and oxygen or water into hydrogen and oxygen. There is no sustainability without the sun.
The apparent exception to the thermodynamic rule is the one energy source that most are prejudiced against - nuclear. It's not a free lunch but a significant packed lunch provided when the earth was formed and as it matured. We can draw down on it without affecting the overall equations that keep us in compliance with the physical laws. The lunch menu - nuclear fuel - is "eat once and throw away".
Nuclear reactions are not recyclable. Nuclear energy is high intensity and generates about 16 per cent of the world's electricity. Its efficiency is increasing and fuels like thorium make it safer and weapon-free. There is no doubt that it is a necessary technology, at least in intermediate timeframes. It requires fossil fuel energy to make its hardware, dismantle it safely, and deal with the waste.
Solar also requires hardware built using fossil fuel energy. While the energy payback for wind energy is very good, for silicon photovoltaics it is very poor, and this may not change much. A significant investment in solar photo-voltaic energy would require huge amounts of silicon. Remember the idea of a charcoal factory on the South Coast to be used to produce silicon from sand near Lithgow? Charcoal becomes CO, as sand - silica - becomes silicon.
Further necessary purification of silicon is also energy intensive and, ironically, the service of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor is required to neutron-dope silicon for photovoltaics, iPod memory chips and the like.
Large ingots, each a single crystal of silicon, are exposed to a neutron beam which causes one in every billion silicon atoms to gain a proton and an electron and thus turn into a phosphorus atom. This irradiated silicon is sliced into chips and used for a wide variety of applications. The sun runs a series of nuclear energy reactions and will maintain its enormous energy output for a few more billion years.
Except for our minute solar lunch, it all appears to be "wasted". To enjoy a bigger lunch - not to mention breakfast, dinner and heavy snacking between meals - we need only pay for the energy cost of the hardware needed to collect and use it. And that energy might eventually be solar as well.
So the long-term outlook for sustainable energy points to solar. Significant investment should flow that way, but the pressing question is "what is the best intermediate strategy?" Nuclear investment does make sense. And on-going scare campaigns about nuclear power-plant placement provide a market mechanism for bringing down seaside property prices to more realistic levels.
Ben Selinger is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at the Australian National University.
Monday 5/2/2007 Page: 6
Ben Selinger weighs up the tough options as we begin to look seriously for a quick exit from our slow freeway cruise into the greenhouse.THE DEBATE over climate change and our energy future must take place within a framework set by the natural laws of the physical world.
There are only three main sources of energy on earth. There is solar energy captured by plants in earlier eons and now stored as coal, oil and gas. There are radioactive elements, like uranium and thorium, from which energy can be extracted. Nuclear also includes "hot rocks" that derive heat from underground nuclear energy, and nuclear fusion - mimicking the sun, both of which might some day provide high-density, relatively clean energy. And there is an unlimited supply of low-density solar energy which continually downloads on to earth.
The most relevant natural law by which we are bound is the second law of thermodynamics. In its simplest form it says,"There are no free lunches." When we burn fossil fuel, carbon and hydrogen in the fuel react with the oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide, water and heat. This process is not easily or quickly reversed. Carbon dioxide and water are very stable. The bonds between the atones are very strong, so to split CO, back into carbon and oxygen, or water back into hydrogen and oxygen, requires more energy than was released by the original burning.
Using fossil fuels to power such a step would be self-defeating, so we need to think about other sources of energy. As this process takes lots of energy, and solar is really diffuse, perhaps what we need is a factory that's really spread out. Hey, let's design a forest. Up till now we have relied on plants to break down carbon dioxide and water, but we have been overloading the system ever since we invented the steam engine. So what are the options for continued use of fossil fuel?
- Invent solar reversers that are better and faster than plants. Plants have had the odd billion years start but we might improve marginally through genetic engineering. We would need to do this on a huge scale, which would require a lot of agricultural land.
- Collect CO, from burning fossil fuels, compress it and store it forever. I doubt if anyone sees this as a realistic solution that will make a difference globally. Mega-quantities of stored CO, represent a lethal hazard if ever released by accident or intent. And compression of a gas - as anyone who has pumped up a bike tyre knows - requires a lot of energy that is wasted as heat. Piping away excess carbon dioxide is a pipe dream aimed at sustaining an unsustainable industry.
- We can use solar energy directly via solar water heating, solar thermal, photoelectric, wind, tide energy, and bio-fuels. Although fossil energy is needed to produce and maintain the mechanics for these energy options, solar provides by far the best answer, for relatively low-intensity domestic use.
But it is all very small bickies. Say someone invents a brilliant hydrogen fuel-cell. This still needs a supply of hydrogen.
Another finds a good solvent for CO, but then still needs to do something with this greenhouse gas. Emperor Coal's new cleaner clothes can't disguise the fact that the Emperor is mainly carbon and still ends up as carbon dioxide. He will need to be taxed on the damage he does.
To sustainably counter global warming we need a solar process for either energy generation or fuel regeneration. It can be natural plants or synthetic plants which split CO, into carbon and oxygen or water into hydrogen and oxygen. There is no sustainability without the sun.
The apparent exception to the thermodynamic rule is the one energy source that most are prejudiced against - nuclear. It's not a free lunch but a significant packed lunch provided when the earth was formed and as it matured. We can draw down on it without affecting the overall equations that keep us in compliance with the physical laws. The lunch menu - nuclear fuel - is "eat once and throw away".
Nuclear reactions are not recyclable. Nuclear energy is high intensity and generates about 16 per cent of the world's electricity. Its efficiency is increasing and fuels like thorium make it safer and weapon-free. There is no doubt that it is a necessary technology, at least in intermediate timeframes. It requires fossil fuel energy to make its hardware, dismantle it safely, and deal with the waste.
Solar also requires hardware built using fossil fuel energy. While the energy payback for wind energy is very good, for silicon photovoltaics it is very poor, and this may not change much. A significant investment in solar photo-voltaic energy would require huge amounts of silicon. Remember the idea of a charcoal factory on the South Coast to be used to produce silicon from sand near Lithgow? Charcoal becomes CO, as sand - silica - becomes silicon.
Further necessary purification of silicon is also energy intensive and, ironically, the service of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor is required to neutron-dope silicon for photovoltaics, iPod memory chips and the like.
Large ingots, each a single crystal of silicon, are exposed to a neutron beam which causes one in every billion silicon atoms to gain a proton and an electron and thus turn into a phosphorus atom. This irradiated silicon is sliced into chips and used for a wide variety of applications. The sun runs a series of nuclear energy reactions and will maintain its enormous energy output for a few more billion years.
Except for our minute solar lunch, it all appears to be "wasted". To enjoy a bigger lunch - not to mention breakfast, dinner and heavy snacking between meals - we need only pay for the energy cost of the hardware needed to collect and use it. And that energy might eventually be solar as well.
So the long-term outlook for sustainable energy points to solar. Significant investment should flow that way, but the pressing question is "what is the best intermediate strategy?" Nuclear investment does make sense. And on-going scare campaigns about nuclear power-plant placement provide a market mechanism for bringing down seaside property prices to more realistic levels.
Ben Selinger is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at the Australian National University.
Bosses heed climate warning
Australian
Monday 5/2/2007 Page: 29
AUSTRALIAN business leaders have heeded the blunt warning in the latest intergovernmental report on climate change which predicts that temperatures could rise by up to 4C by 2100 and sea levels by up to 29cm.
The report, six years in the making and drawing on research from 2500 scientists from more than 130 countries, says the evidence for global warming is now "unequivocal". Its thrust is that "business-as-usual" will lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change.
Origin Energy's managing director, Grant King, said the report added further weight to the scientific argument for urgent action to address climate change.
"Last year, based on similar scientific work by CSIRO and economic analysis by Aliens Consulting, the Business Roundtable on Climate Change recommended early action to adopt a comprehensive domestic climate change policy, complementing the inevitable emergence of global action. The report reinforces that recommendation," he said.
Paul Anthony, chief executive of AGL Energy, said the company took the consequences of climate change extremely seriously. "In almost every part of business the impact of climate change is absorbed."AGL Energy is one of the premier investors in renewable technology in Australasia with one the largest suites of renewable, carbon emissions generation assets while it has also a significant investment program for the future in renewable energy."
Mr Anthony said an example of AGL Energy's acceptance of the climate change argument was its $660 million investment in the 95 megawatt, $660 million Macarthur wind farm in western Victoria which is planned to begin generating from 183 turbines later this year.
The oil and gas sector's peak lobby, the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, described the IPCC report as a "sober, careful and comprehensive overview" of the status of climate change science. APPEA chief executive Belinda Robinson said national and international policy responses must be similarly considered, measured and multifaceted.
"Just as the IPCC avoids hysteria, so should our responses. The report leaves little doubt in my, and judging by a range of polls, most people's minds that climate change is very, very serious," she said. "But in tackling it there is absolutely no room for knee-jerk, ill-informed approaches that have more to do with political optics than a genuine desire to understand the complexities in settling on a suite of policies that serve the best long-term interests of Australia and the world."
Ms Robinson warned that until commercial, environmental and technological drivers combined to dictate Australia's future energy profile, the emphasis must be on keeping all gas, clean coal, renewable, nuclear and a variety of other energy options open, as well as well others not yet dreamt of. "We must not be seduced by an arrogant attraction to a simple answer that may reflect the energy fashion of the moment but unlikely to deliver us the solution," she said.
Business Council for Sustainable Energy executive director Ric Brazzale said the report would remove any of the lingering doubts over climate change and enable business and government to get on with the job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Last December's announcement that Australia's greenhouse gas emissions were projected to exceed the Kyoto Protocol target an increase of 9 per cent on 1990 levels shows Australia's policy priorities must change.
Monday 5/2/2007 Page: 29
AUSTRALIAN business leaders have heeded the blunt warning in the latest intergovernmental report on climate change which predicts that temperatures could rise by up to 4C by 2100 and sea levels by up to 29cm.
The report, six years in the making and drawing on research from 2500 scientists from more than 130 countries, says the evidence for global warming is now "unequivocal". Its thrust is that "business-as-usual" will lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change.
Origin Energy's managing director, Grant King, said the report added further weight to the scientific argument for urgent action to address climate change.
"Last year, based on similar scientific work by CSIRO and economic analysis by Aliens Consulting, the Business Roundtable on Climate Change recommended early action to adopt a comprehensive domestic climate change policy, complementing the inevitable emergence of global action. The report reinforces that recommendation," he said.
Paul Anthony, chief executive of AGL Energy, said the company took the consequences of climate change extremely seriously. "In almost every part of business the impact of climate change is absorbed."AGL Energy is one of the premier investors in renewable technology in Australasia with one the largest suites of renewable, carbon emissions generation assets while it has also a significant investment program for the future in renewable energy."
Mr Anthony said an example of AGL Energy's acceptance of the climate change argument was its $660 million investment in the 95 megawatt, $660 million Macarthur wind farm in western Victoria which is planned to begin generating from 183 turbines later this year.
The oil and gas sector's peak lobby, the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, described the IPCC report as a "sober, careful and comprehensive overview" of the status of climate change science. APPEA chief executive Belinda Robinson said national and international policy responses must be similarly considered, measured and multifaceted.
"Just as the IPCC avoids hysteria, so should our responses. The report leaves little doubt in my, and judging by a range of polls, most people's minds that climate change is very, very serious," she said. "But in tackling it there is absolutely no room for knee-jerk, ill-informed approaches that have more to do with political optics than a genuine desire to understand the complexities in settling on a suite of policies that serve the best long-term interests of Australia and the world."
Ms Robinson warned that until commercial, environmental and technological drivers combined to dictate Australia's future energy profile, the emphasis must be on keeping all gas, clean coal, renewable, nuclear and a variety of other energy options open, as well as well others not yet dreamt of. "We must not be seduced by an arrogant attraction to a simple answer that may reflect the energy fashion of the moment but unlikely to deliver us the solution," she said.
Business Council for Sustainable Energy executive director Ric Brazzale said the report would remove any of the lingering doubts over climate change and enable business and government to get on with the job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Last December's announcement that Australia's greenhouse gas emissions were projected to exceed the Kyoto Protocol target an increase of 9 per cent on 1990 levels shows Australia's policy priorities must change.
Key climate report sparks global call to action
NewScientist.com news service
18:02 02 February 2007
Governments and environmental groups the world over have greeted the new UN report on the science of climate change with words of praise – and determination. The report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was released on Friday in Paris, France.
"It is another nail in the coffin of the climate change deniers and represents the most authoritative picture to date, showing that the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over," said David Miliband, UK environment minister.
The report considered all the research since the last IPCC assessment in 2001 and the 21-page summary (pdf) of its findings – approved by officials from 113 countries – says that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal". 21-page summary (pdf) "The IPCC report embodies an extraordinary scientific consensus that climate change is already upon us, and that human activities are the cause," says James Leape, director general of WWF International.
Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations' Environment Programme (one of the governing bodies of the IPCC), said the new report "gives us a stark warning that the potential impact will be more dramatic, faster and more drastic in terms of consequences" than previously thought. The impacts will change the way some people live in fundamental ways, he added.
Calls for action
Despite past scepticism by the US administration, the White House backed the report. "It is a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the current state of climate change science," said Sharon Hays, associate director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Hays led the US delegation to the IPCC, which was praised by many for their constructive contribution to the final vetting of the report summary.
With the report being acknowledged as having clearly demonstrated the link between human activities and climate change, it has prompted strong calls for action. The Democrat chair of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Bart Gordon said: "Expert scientists have provided us with a diagnosis of the problem and a prognosis for our planet's health. Now, it's time for us - the policymakers - to do our jobs."
"The clock is ticking and time is running out for us to avoid major climate change, with the real and serious threats to our economies and peoples' livelihoods it carries," said Marthinus van Schalwyk, South African minister for environment and tourism.
"Faced with this emergency, now is not the time for half measures. It is the time for a revolution, in the true sense of the term," said French president Jacques Chirac. "We are in truth on the doorstep of the irreversible."
Post Kyoto
There was a hopeful feeling in Paris that the new report would pave the way for an agreement that would go beyond the Kyoto Protocol targets for 2012.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the European Commission's calls for industrialised nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 60% to 80% by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels) were "exactly in line with what scientists say we need". The question now, he said,"is how do we convince other industrialised countries to sign up to the European rallying call?"
Others echoed the idea that developed nations must take the lead. Kenneth Denman, a Canadian climatologist who led the work on one of the report's chapters, told New Scientist that developed countries would be "moral hypocrites if we ask developing countries to reduce their emissions when they're trying to catch up with the standard of living we've had for the past 50 years".
"North America has 5% of the global population," Denman pointed out,"yet we produce 25% of the fossil fuel emissions." Developed nations must "clean up their act" first, he said.
18:02 02 February 2007
Governments and environmental groups the world over have greeted the new UN report on the science of climate change with words of praise – and determination. The report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was released on Friday in Paris, France.
"It is another nail in the coffin of the climate change deniers and represents the most authoritative picture to date, showing that the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over," said David Miliband, UK environment minister.
The report considered all the research since the last IPCC assessment in 2001 and the 21-page summary (pdf) of its findings – approved by officials from 113 countries – says that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal". 21-page summary (pdf) "The IPCC report embodies an extraordinary scientific consensus that climate change is already upon us, and that human activities are the cause," says James Leape, director general of WWF International.
Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations' Environment Programme (one of the governing bodies of the IPCC), said the new report "gives us a stark warning that the potential impact will be more dramatic, faster and more drastic in terms of consequences" than previously thought. The impacts will change the way some people live in fundamental ways, he added.
Calls for action
Despite past scepticism by the US administration, the White House backed the report. "It is a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the current state of climate change science," said Sharon Hays, associate director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Hays led the US delegation to the IPCC, which was praised by many for their constructive contribution to the final vetting of the report summary.
With the report being acknowledged as having clearly demonstrated the link between human activities and climate change, it has prompted strong calls for action. The Democrat chair of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Bart Gordon said: "Expert scientists have provided us with a diagnosis of the problem and a prognosis for our planet's health. Now, it's time for us - the policymakers - to do our jobs."
"The clock is ticking and time is running out for us to avoid major climate change, with the real and serious threats to our economies and peoples' livelihoods it carries," said Marthinus van Schalwyk, South African minister for environment and tourism.
"Faced with this emergency, now is not the time for half measures. It is the time for a revolution, in the true sense of the term," said French president Jacques Chirac. "We are in truth on the doorstep of the irreversible."
Post Kyoto
There was a hopeful feeling in Paris that the new report would pave the way for an agreement that would go beyond the Kyoto Protocol targets for 2012.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the European Commission's calls for industrialised nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 60% to 80% by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels) were "exactly in line with what scientists say we need". The question now, he said,"is how do we convince other industrialised countries to sign up to the European rallying call?"
Others echoed the idea that developed nations must take the lead. Kenneth Denman, a Canadian climatologist who led the work on one of the report's chapters, told New Scientist that developed countries would be "moral hypocrites if we ask developing countries to reduce their emissions when they're trying to catch up with the standard of living we've had for the past 50 years".
"North America has 5% of the global population," Denman pointed out,"yet we produce 25% of the fossil fuel emissions." Developed nations must "clean up their act" first, he said.
It's almost certain: humans caused planet to heat up
The Australian
February 03, 2007
SCIENTISTS are now almost certain temperature increases over the last half of the 20th century were caused by human activity, and have warned of ominous further increases up to 4C by 2100.
The world's most significant weather forecast, released last night in Paris, revealed growing confidence in climate modelling that suggests greenhouse gases are reaching dangerous levels and need to be reduced. The first volume of the fourth assessment report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported similar warming projections to its previous report six years ago.
The new report is based on the results of 23 climate models, a three-fold increase from the seven models used in 2001 to deliver best estimates of temperature increases ranging from 1.8C to 4C. The increased number of models has widened the likely temperature ranges from 1.1C to 6.4C, compared with from 1.4C to 5.8C six years ago.
Significantly, the report finds man-made release of greenhouse gases is more than 90 per cent likely to have caused most of the observable increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century, about 0.65C. The range of projected rises in global sea levels is from 0.18m to 0.59m by 2100, driven largely by their expansion from rising water temperatures.
The IPCC also reports greater confidence in the projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including contracting snow cover, shrinking sea ice on the poles and the high likelihood of more frequent hot extremes, heatwaves and heavy rainfall patterns.
The Antarctic ice sheets are predicted to remain too cold for widespread surface melting and are expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. While the Greenland ice sheet is projected to contribute to sea-level rises after 2100, the report says this will need to be sustained for millenniums to result in its complete elimination and a resulting sea-level rise of about 7m.
The report predicts the emission of carbon dioxide this century will contribute to global warming and sea-level rises for the next millennium. The report predicts increasing intensity in cyclones, including higher peak wind speeds and more heavy rain patterns, but with the possibility of a reduction in their frequency.
Other storms are likely to track towards the poles as the world's weather systems adapt to changes in heat in the atmosphere and deep oceans. Rainfall will shift from the subtropical regions towards the poles. Australian Academy of Science president Kurt Lambeck praised the quality of the report by Working Group I of the IPCC.
He urged governments and industries to take swift action to reduce the pace of change to give "societies and ecosystems" time to adapt to a warmer and more unstable world. "Climate change is here to stay," said Professor Lambeck. "We must open our eyes to what may be the most significant issue facing not only Australia but the planet."
In Britain, Royal Society president Martin Rees agreed, saying the report was a "comprehensive picture" of the latest scientific understanding of the nature, processes and likely outcomes of climate change. But he correctly predicted a "vocal minority" would raise objections to the findings.
In Melbourne, former head of the weather bureau's National Climate Centre William Kininmonth was among the sceptics. "My feeling is that the report is more alarmist than the evidence suggests," he said.
He was particularly critical of the IPCC's interpretation of the data and of the separate computer modelling systems used to predict future climate changes. He added that, along with Canadian climate-change sceptic Ross McKitrick, he had contributed to an "independent summary for policymakers", to be released in London next Monday.
The current head of the NCC, Michael Coughlan, disputed Mr Kininmonth's objections. He said the latest report built on past work and reflected continuing refinement in the understanding of the complex processes of the climate system. Dr Coughlan said the new report fitted neatly with continuing observations of climate and ocean systems.
"Globally, we're seeing the trends (noted in the report) being laid down now: warming nights and fewer colder days and more heatwaves and heavy precipitation events," he said. "These global trends are consistent with what we've been seeing in Australia over the past 50 to 100 years."
The head of the UN's Environment Program said last night the IPCC report had rendered "almost redundant" a European Union goal of limiting global warming to 2C. Achim Steiner said the new report "gives us a stark warning that the potential impact will be more dramatic, faster and more drastic in terms of consequences" than previously thought.
February 03, 2007
SCIENTISTS are now almost certain temperature increases over the last half of the 20th century were caused by human activity, and have warned of ominous further increases up to 4C by 2100.
The world's most significant weather forecast, released last night in Paris, revealed growing confidence in climate modelling that suggests greenhouse gases are reaching dangerous levels and need to be reduced. The first volume of the fourth assessment report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported similar warming projections to its previous report six years ago.
The new report is based on the results of 23 climate models, a three-fold increase from the seven models used in 2001 to deliver best estimates of temperature increases ranging from 1.8C to 4C. The increased number of models has widened the likely temperature ranges from 1.1C to 6.4C, compared with from 1.4C to 5.8C six years ago.
Significantly, the report finds man-made release of greenhouse gases is more than 90 per cent likely to have caused most of the observable increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century, about 0.65C. The range of projected rises in global sea levels is from 0.18m to 0.59m by 2100, driven largely by their expansion from rising water temperatures.
The IPCC also reports greater confidence in the projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including contracting snow cover, shrinking sea ice on the poles and the high likelihood of more frequent hot extremes, heatwaves and heavy rainfall patterns.
The Antarctic ice sheets are predicted to remain too cold for widespread surface melting and are expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. While the Greenland ice sheet is projected to contribute to sea-level rises after 2100, the report says this will need to be sustained for millenniums to result in its complete elimination and a resulting sea-level rise of about 7m.
The report predicts the emission of carbon dioxide this century will contribute to global warming and sea-level rises for the next millennium. The report predicts increasing intensity in cyclones, including higher peak wind speeds and more heavy rain patterns, but with the possibility of a reduction in their frequency.
Other storms are likely to track towards the poles as the world's weather systems adapt to changes in heat in the atmosphere and deep oceans. Rainfall will shift from the subtropical regions towards the poles. Australian Academy of Science president Kurt Lambeck praised the quality of the report by Working Group I of the IPCC.
He urged governments and industries to take swift action to reduce the pace of change to give "societies and ecosystems" time to adapt to a warmer and more unstable world. "Climate change is here to stay," said Professor Lambeck. "We must open our eyes to what may be the most significant issue facing not only Australia but the planet."
In Britain, Royal Society president Martin Rees agreed, saying the report was a "comprehensive picture" of the latest scientific understanding of the nature, processes and likely outcomes of climate change. But he correctly predicted a "vocal minority" would raise objections to the findings.
In Melbourne, former head of the weather bureau's National Climate Centre William Kininmonth was among the sceptics. "My feeling is that the report is more alarmist than the evidence suggests," he said.
He was particularly critical of the IPCC's interpretation of the data and of the separate computer modelling systems used to predict future climate changes. He added that, along with Canadian climate-change sceptic Ross McKitrick, he had contributed to an "independent summary for policymakers", to be released in London next Monday.
The current head of the NCC, Michael Coughlan, disputed Mr Kininmonth's objections. He said the latest report built on past work and reflected continuing refinement in the understanding of the complex processes of the climate system. Dr Coughlan said the new report fitted neatly with continuing observations of climate and ocean systems.
"Globally, we're seeing the trends (noted in the report) being laid down now: warming nights and fewer colder days and more heatwaves and heavy precipitation events," he said. "These global trends are consistent with what we've been seeing in Australia over the past 50 to 100 years."
The head of the UN's Environment Program said last night the IPCC report had rendered "almost redundant" a European Union goal of limiting global warming to 2C. Achim Steiner said the new report "gives us a stark warning that the potential impact will be more dramatic, faster and more drastic in terms of consequences" than previously thought.
2500 scientists, 1200 pages, and one quibble
Age
February 3, 2007
AFTER years of research and a marathon week of intense secret debate, scientists from around the world last night signed off on a bleak assessment of a devastated planet: Earth.
A turbulent future of violent storms, devastating drought, increasing temperatures and rising sea levels is inevitable, according to a United Nations report released in Paris last night. The report, the work of 2500 scientists over six years, is considered the most authoritative evaluation of climate change ever produced.
It anticipates temperatures will rise by at least 1.1 degrees by the end of the century, with the high-end estimate at 6.4 degrees.
While scientific dissent continues to divide experts on some core questions — like the rate at which seas will rise, and the ferocity of cyclones fed by warmer waters — the Paris statement is most notable for its consensus on the issue of what, or who, is to blame. Humanity.
The final text of the report says it is "very likely" that human activities led by burning fossil fuels account for most of the warming in the past 50 years. This represents a significant ramping up of the language of the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, which said the link was "likely".
Scientists going into the final four-day workshop to craft a summary of the fourth assessment of the IPCC said this was the most important paragraph of the 1200-page report. Many were seeking an emphatic, unequivocal assessment of the severity and cause of climate change to help draw a line under scientific debate about what was occurring, and shift political momentum to the issue of what to do.
Their efforts nearly faltered with a last-ditch bid to water down the statement from two nations — Saudi Arabia and one other unnamed country (not the United States or Australia) among the 130 countries represented at the Paris plenary.
The statement eventually passed intact after the meeting accepted a suggestion — initiated by Australia — to deal with the dissenting country's concerns in a footnote. It states that there are remaining uncertainties over climate change "based on current methodologies".
Debate on this issue bogged down talks for many hours. Other key areas of disagreement were over sea levels and cyclones, said Dr Geoff Love, the head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and a member of the Australian team at the talks.
En route from Paris to Melbourne yesterday, Dr Love said the debate was not so much about the science as about the semantics in the summary, which will provide a framework for policymakers around the world.
As the forum broke up, The Guardian broke a story claiming that scientists and economists had been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies — ExxonMobil — to undermine efforts to gain a consensus on the report.
Dr Love said the atmosphere inside the closed talks was intense and exhausting,"but generally a co-operative one, with the scientists often having the deciding say in issues of nuance".
It had been anticipated that debate over the rate and extent of sea-level rises predicted in the report might have been particularly fierce. Scientists going into the discussions wanted the language sharpened, citing concerns that the figures — which retreated on the gloomier 2001 predictions to put the rise at a maximum 59 centimetres by the end of this century — did not take into account recent melting of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. Another report published in Science this month puts the upper range at 140 centimetres.
Dr Love, a former secretary of the IPCC, said debate on sea levels was anti-climactic. It appeared many scientists were satisfied that the statement recognised that uncertainties about ice-sheet melt could add another 25 per cent to those figures.
He said discussion over cyclones was intense, coloured by US sensitivities in the wake of hurricane Katrina and a finding that increased cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since 1970 correlated with global warming. The statement has huge implications for insurance. "America was very particular about the words (on cyclones) but I think the words are very consistent with the science," Dr Love said.
The line-by-line editing of the final summary had been a long-winded and difficult process, Dr Love said. Final submissions from policymakers and governments had resulted in the draft report being substantially rewritten even as it was going before the Paris conference.
Dr Graeme Pearman, one of Australia's leading experts on climate change, said the IPCC report represented a monumental effort to find consensus that would allow the world to respond to climate change. "It really is a social process which is designed to bring together the science and to present it in a way that policymakers think they need to know," Dr Pearman said. "It is an enormous human experiment, and thank goodness we are doing it."
February 3, 2007
AFTER years of research and a marathon week of intense secret debate, scientists from around the world last night signed off on a bleak assessment of a devastated planet: Earth.A turbulent future of violent storms, devastating drought, increasing temperatures and rising sea levels is inevitable, according to a United Nations report released in Paris last night. The report, the work of 2500 scientists over six years, is considered the most authoritative evaluation of climate change ever produced.
It anticipates temperatures will rise by at least 1.1 degrees by the end of the century, with the high-end estimate at 6.4 degrees.
While scientific dissent continues to divide experts on some core questions — like the rate at which seas will rise, and the ferocity of cyclones fed by warmer waters — the Paris statement is most notable for its consensus on the issue of what, or who, is to blame. Humanity.
The final text of the report says it is "very likely" that human activities led by burning fossil fuels account for most of the warming in the past 50 years. This represents a significant ramping up of the language of the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, which said the link was "likely".
Scientists going into the final four-day workshop to craft a summary of the fourth assessment of the IPCC said this was the most important paragraph of the 1200-page report. Many were seeking an emphatic, unequivocal assessment of the severity and cause of climate change to help draw a line under scientific debate about what was occurring, and shift political momentum to the issue of what to do.
Their efforts nearly faltered with a last-ditch bid to water down the statement from two nations — Saudi Arabia and one other unnamed country (not the United States or Australia) among the 130 countries represented at the Paris plenary.
The statement eventually passed intact after the meeting accepted a suggestion — initiated by Australia — to deal with the dissenting country's concerns in a footnote. It states that there are remaining uncertainties over climate change "based on current methodologies".
Debate on this issue bogged down talks for many hours. Other key areas of disagreement were over sea levels and cyclones, said Dr Geoff Love, the head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and a member of the Australian team at the talks.
En route from Paris to Melbourne yesterday, Dr Love said the debate was not so much about the science as about the semantics in the summary, which will provide a framework for policymakers around the world.
As the forum broke up, The Guardian broke a story claiming that scientists and economists had been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies — ExxonMobil — to undermine efforts to gain a consensus on the report.
Dr Love said the atmosphere inside the closed talks was intense and exhausting,"but generally a co-operative one, with the scientists often having the deciding say in issues of nuance".
It had been anticipated that debate over the rate and extent of sea-level rises predicted in the report might have been particularly fierce. Scientists going into the discussions wanted the language sharpened, citing concerns that the figures — which retreated on the gloomier 2001 predictions to put the rise at a maximum 59 centimetres by the end of this century — did not take into account recent melting of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. Another report published in Science this month puts the upper range at 140 centimetres.
Dr Love, a former secretary of the IPCC, said debate on sea levels was anti-climactic. It appeared many scientists were satisfied that the statement recognised that uncertainties about ice-sheet melt could add another 25 per cent to those figures.
He said discussion over cyclones was intense, coloured by US sensitivities in the wake of hurricane Katrina and a finding that increased cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since 1970 correlated with global warming. The statement has huge implications for insurance. "America was very particular about the words (on cyclones) but I think the words are very consistent with the science," Dr Love said.
The line-by-line editing of the final summary had been a long-winded and difficult process, Dr Love said. Final submissions from policymakers and governments had resulted in the draft report being substantially rewritten even as it was going before the Paris conference.
Dr Graeme Pearman, one of Australia's leading experts on climate change, said the IPCC report represented a monumental effort to find consensus that would allow the world to respond to climate change. "It really is a social process which is designed to bring together the science and to present it in a way that policymakers think they need to know," Dr Pearman said. "It is an enormous human experiment, and thank goodness we are doing it."
Friday, 2 February 2007
Lifesaving energy to come to Narooma
Narooma News
Wednesday 31/1/2007 Page: 29
THE Clean Energy for Eternity group have been busy on the Far South Coast of NSW with the launch on Saturday, January 20 of the renewable energy project for the Tathra Surf Lifesaving Club, and are now planning to spread their energy across NSW and the entire country.
Bega Valley mayor Tony Allen officially launched the project, which includes a wind turbine and solar photovoltaic cells on the roof of Tathra Surf Club. This will be followed by a solar hot water service, which will see the Surf Club running with a negligible carbon footprint.
The benefit of renewable energy for the surf club is threefold. The installation will save the surf club about $1000 per year on electricity bills which can be better utilised on lifesaving equipment. More will be saved following the installation of solar hot water system. Increase education and awareness of global warming and climate change and demonstrate solutions by showing the community renewable energy at work.
This project will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about three tonnes of per year. Although this may appear to be a modest start, collectively every little bit counts and will create a flow on effect.
The Tathra installation was supported by funds raised by local businesses and community members. The Department of Energy & Utilities (NSW) and the Greenhouse Office provided $4,000 as a rebate which is available to anyone who installs solar photovoltaic cells before July 2007.
Bega Valley Shire Council also was a major contributor matching funds raised by the community dollar for dollar. Clean Energy for Eternity are planning to fit out all surf clubs in the BVSC and Eurobodalla Shire Council areas with renewable energy before moving on to other surf clubs in the state.
Eurobodalla residents are confident Eurobodalla Shire Council will show the same support and follow in the footsteps of Bega Valley Council by also funding the surf clubs dollar for dollar. The next Clubs to be fitted out with renewable energy are Narooma Surf Lifesaving Club, with Broulee, Moruya and Batemans Bay to follow.
Clean Energy for Eternity is looking for local businesses and community members to support this initiative. For information call Julia Mayo-Ramsay 0419 848 057 or email surfclubpmject@yalwo. com. au
Wednesday 31/1/2007 Page: 29
THE Clean Energy for Eternity group have been busy on the Far South Coast of NSW with the launch on Saturday, January 20 of the renewable energy project for the Tathra Surf Lifesaving Club, and are now planning to spread their energy across NSW and the entire country.
Bega Valley mayor Tony Allen officially launched the project, which includes a wind turbine and solar photovoltaic cells on the roof of Tathra Surf Club. This will be followed by a solar hot water service, which will see the Surf Club running with a negligible carbon footprint.
The benefit of renewable energy for the surf club is threefold. The installation will save the surf club about $1000 per year on electricity bills which can be better utilised on lifesaving equipment. More will be saved following the installation of solar hot water system. Increase education and awareness of global warming and climate change and demonstrate solutions by showing the community renewable energy at work.
This project will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about three tonnes of per year. Although this may appear to be a modest start, collectively every little bit counts and will create a flow on effect.
The Tathra installation was supported by funds raised by local businesses and community members. The Department of Energy & Utilities (NSW) and the Greenhouse Office provided $4,000 as a rebate which is available to anyone who installs solar photovoltaic cells before July 2007.
Bega Valley Shire Council also was a major contributor matching funds raised by the community dollar for dollar. Clean Energy for Eternity are planning to fit out all surf clubs in the BVSC and Eurobodalla Shire Council areas with renewable energy before moving on to other surf clubs in the state.
Eurobodalla residents are confident Eurobodalla Shire Council will show the same support and follow in the footsteps of Bega Valley Council by also funding the surf clubs dollar for dollar. The next Clubs to be fitted out with renewable energy are Narooma Surf Lifesaving Club, with Broulee, Moruya and Batemans Bay to follow.
Clean Energy for Eternity is looking for local businesses and community members to support this initiative. For information call Julia Mayo-Ramsay 0419 848 057 or email surfclubpmject@yalwo. com. au
It's time to dip a toe into-the rising water
Geelong Advertiser
Friday 2/2/2007 Page: 19
THE Queen Mary turns very slowly. In this case the old ship is the Federal Government and industry who, together, are still only making slight directional changes in their response to the heated issue of global warming and climate change.
The persistent, collective sitting on hands attitude was adopted as scientists, lobby groups and environmentalists continued to argue that the Earth's surface and atmosphere have been hotting up since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Today the world's leading body of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its fourth report outlining the scientific view. It will forecast global temperature rises by 2100 of between 2C and 4.5C and a rising of sea levels by 43cm and up to 80cm over the next 300 years.
Prime Minister John Howard has, of late, indicated that he is aware that climate change is becoming the big ticket item but now his government needs to be far more decisive. Despite the enormous effect former presidential candidate Al Gore has had globally with his film warning of the damage climate change has already done, George W. Bush is in no hurry to react in any positive way.
Australia has to cease being a follower of the United States on this particular issue. The US and Australia are the only two countries which failed to sign the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse emissions. It seems the cringe factor is still within us and we run the risk of being left behind if more affirmative action isn't taken.
Other northern hemisphere countries, particularly Germany, are racing ahead with their research and development of the technology to counter climate change, to cut emissions by industry and to search for effective and cheaper power sources. Wind farm technology is high on the agenda.
It's time for Australia to knuckle down and do the same. An entirely new economy is there for the taking if the required effort is put in. If not, the best we'll be able to do is import new systems and an opportunity to contribute significantly to emission reduction and at the same time be at the forefront of the new wav will be lost.
Friday 2/2/2007 Page: 19
THE Queen Mary turns very slowly. In this case the old ship is the Federal Government and industry who, together, are still only making slight directional changes in their response to the heated issue of global warming and climate change.
The persistent, collective sitting on hands attitude was adopted as scientists, lobby groups and environmentalists continued to argue that the Earth's surface and atmosphere have been hotting up since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Today the world's leading body of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its fourth report outlining the scientific view. It will forecast global temperature rises by 2100 of between 2C and 4.5C and a rising of sea levels by 43cm and up to 80cm over the next 300 years.
Prime Minister John Howard has, of late, indicated that he is aware that climate change is becoming the big ticket item but now his government needs to be far more decisive. Despite the enormous effect former presidential candidate Al Gore has had globally with his film warning of the damage climate change has already done, George W. Bush is in no hurry to react in any positive way.
Australia has to cease being a follower of the United States on this particular issue. The US and Australia are the only two countries which failed to sign the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse emissions. It seems the cringe factor is still within us and we run the risk of being left behind if more affirmative action isn't taken.
Other northern hemisphere countries, particularly Germany, are racing ahead with their research and development of the technology to counter climate change, to cut emissions by industry and to search for effective and cheaper power sources. Wind farm technology is high on the agenda.
It's time for Australia to knuckle down and do the same. An entirely new economy is there for the taking if the required effort is put in. If not, the best we'll be able to do is import new systems and an opportunity to contribute significantly to emission reduction and at the same time be at the forefront of the new wav will be lost.
Council reaches 20pc greenpower commitment
Border Watch
Friday 2/2/2007 Page: 1
THE City of Mount Gambier is leading the fight against gas emissions by being one of 38 councils across the state to purchase greenpower. Council - which has a massive power bill each year - three months ago signed up to access 20pc of its energy use from greenpower sources.
"Council moved quickly to sign up to greenpower to show we are committed to renewable energy," council operational services director Daryl Sexton said.
He said the cost of greenpower - which was traditionally higher - would not be felt by ratepayers because council's contract was part of a statewide Local Government buying group which meant prices would be lower than last year. Mr Sexton said council had substantial power commitments, which included public lighting and powering its buildings, sporting grounds and aquatic centre.
"A lot of the electricity we use is used for public lighting," he said.
Accredited greenpower is generated by renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, water or biomass - in SA it is mostly wind power. The South East is home to some of the largest operational wind farms in Australia near Millicent.
Grant District Council has also signed up recently to access renewable energy. Council development manager Rod Storan said yesterday council had committed to accessing five percent of its energy needs from greenpower. But he said this figure would be renewed at budget time.
Meanwhile, Local Government president John Rich said 38 councils out of 66 on the national electricity grid (excluding Coober Pedy and Roxby Downs) were now using renewable energy.
Cr Rich said the additional cost of greenpower had turned out to be lower than expected and was partly offset by overall savings in the bulk purchasing of power by councils. He said with the State Government's Contract Service and Local Government bodies, SA councils had saved about $1.3m a year on electricity costs since 2003. "This is about community leadership and recognising the importance of climate change issues," Cr Rich said.
He estimated that if all SA councils achieved the 20pc target, it would reduce greenhouse gas output by some 24,600 tonnes per year - the equivalent to taking 4900 cars off the road. "I would join the Premier's challenge to business and domestic users to make the same switch to help SA become a leader in renewable energy use," Cr Rich said.
Friday 2/2/2007 Page: 1
THE City of Mount Gambier is leading the fight against gas emissions by being one of 38 councils across the state to purchase greenpower. Council - which has a massive power bill each year - three months ago signed up to access 20pc of its energy use from greenpower sources.
"Council moved quickly to sign up to greenpower to show we are committed to renewable energy," council operational services director Daryl Sexton said.
He said the cost of greenpower - which was traditionally higher - would not be felt by ratepayers because council's contract was part of a statewide Local Government buying group which meant prices would be lower than last year. Mr Sexton said council had substantial power commitments, which included public lighting and powering its buildings, sporting grounds and aquatic centre.
"A lot of the electricity we use is used for public lighting," he said.
Accredited greenpower is generated by renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, water or biomass - in SA it is mostly wind power. The South East is home to some of the largest operational wind farms in Australia near Millicent.
Grant District Council has also signed up recently to access renewable energy. Council development manager Rod Storan said yesterday council had committed to accessing five percent of its energy needs from greenpower. But he said this figure would be renewed at budget time.
Meanwhile, Local Government president John Rich said 38 councils out of 66 on the national electricity grid (excluding Coober Pedy and Roxby Downs) were now using renewable energy.
Cr Rich said the additional cost of greenpower had turned out to be lower than expected and was partly offset by overall savings in the bulk purchasing of power by councils. He said with the State Government's Contract Service and Local Government bodies, SA councils had saved about $1.3m a year on electricity costs since 2003. "This is about community leadership and recognising the importance of climate change issues," Cr Rich said.
He estimated that if all SA councils achieved the 20pc target, it would reduce greenhouse gas output by some 24,600 tonnes per year - the equivalent to taking 4900 cars off the road. "I would join the Premier's challenge to business and domestic users to make the same switch to help SA become a leader in renewable energy use," Cr Rich said.
Bush has to tackle global warming, now
Age
Friday 2/2/2007 Page: 15
The US President is under increasing pressure from his supporters.
PRESIDENT Bush is playing catch-up. His warning in last week's State of the Union address about the "serious challenge of global climate change" and his commitment to cut domestic petrol consumption by 20 per cent during the next decade was an attempt to seize back the initiative in a public debate that was running away from him.
But he is falling short. Constituencies that are important to him are demanding tougher action. Unless he makes further substantial adjustments to policy, support for the Administration on this important issue is likely to fall. Leaders representing an unusual coalition of interests - the evangelical movement, big business, the national security establishment and environmental groups - have united in their call for the President to outline a more aggressive response to global warming.
With leading Republicans such as Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and presidential aspirant Senator John McCain also publicly promoting their green credentials at every opportunity, Bush has been left with little room for political manoeuvre.
Perhaps most interesting of all has been the environmental advocacy of the religious groups. With white evangelicals making up nearly a quarter of the American electorate, Bush's victory in 2004 depended heavily on winning their votes - 78 per cent voted for him, according to the National Election Pool exit poll.
However, last year, 85 evangelical leaders co-signed a statement that called for greater use of renewable energy and more stringent legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions, including a market-based cap and trade program that the President is yet to support.
Citing both the social justice implications of global warming on the world's poor and mankind's God-given responsibility to exercise "proper" stewardship over the Earth, the Christian leaders are running radio and television campaigns in states with influential legislators. The combination of this targeted advertising and an extensive educational campaign among the various congregations is having a discernible impact on the Republican voting base.
Attitudes to global warming are also shifting within another important Republican constituency, big business. Earlier this month 10 major companies among them General Electric, DuPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar and Duke Energy joined leading non-government organisations under the banner of the US Climate Action Partnership.
In a joint letter to Bush, these captains of American industry called on "lawmakers to enact a policy framework for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions" and in so doing issued a direct challenge to the President's approach that supports only voluntary reductions.
What gave this corporate initiative added significance was that a number of the companies themselves are either energy producers, distributors or highend users. This meant their policy proposals could mean additional costs for them.
Overlaying the domestic debate on global warming has been another important issue, that of energy security. Cognisant of America's over-reliance on imported oil, distinguished members of the national security establishment are also pushing for an increase in the use of renewables and better vehicle fuel economy programs.
Figures such as former CIA director James Woolsey and Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, Robert McFarlane, have been calling for a one-third reduction in American oil consumption and a one-third reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over the next 25 years.
With imports already comprising nearly 60 per cent of US oil consumption, they believe that America is increasingly vulnerable to foreign interests who may be willing to deploy the oil weapon. Woolsey has teamed up with senior environmentalists, labour and industry representatives in a group called the Energy Future Coalition.
Bush now has an opportunity to lead his country and the world in tackling climate change. It is to be hoped that his recent comments are the start of an ambitious new agenda of initiatives that seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions using new technologies and market-based mechanisms.
With advocates of more stringent measures already prominent among his voting base and within the business and national security communities, he will find many fellow travellers. Climate change is not and has never been a partisan issue. Indeed, one of the strongest and early advocates of preventive measures was Margaret Thatcher, a doyen of conservatism.
In a speech in 1990 to the World Climate Conference in Geneva, she said: "But the threat to our world comes not only from tyrants and their tanks. It can be more insidious though less visible. The danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices so that we do not live at the expense of future generations. We must remember our duty to Nature before it's too late. That duty is constant. It is never complete." As Bush puts together the final details of his climate change policy in this, the last years of his term, one hopes he heeds Thatcher's warning.
Joshua Frydenberg is a former senior adviser to John Howard and a director of a leading international investment bank. He recently participated in the Australia- America Leadership Dialogue in California.
Friday 2/2/2007 Page: 15
The US President is under increasing pressure from his supporters.
PRESIDENT Bush is playing catch-up. His warning in last week's State of the Union address about the "serious challenge of global climate change" and his commitment to cut domestic petrol consumption by 20 per cent during the next decade was an attempt to seize back the initiative in a public debate that was running away from him.
But he is falling short. Constituencies that are important to him are demanding tougher action. Unless he makes further substantial adjustments to policy, support for the Administration on this important issue is likely to fall. Leaders representing an unusual coalition of interests - the evangelical movement, big business, the national security establishment and environmental groups - have united in their call for the President to outline a more aggressive response to global warming.
With leading Republicans such as Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and presidential aspirant Senator John McCain also publicly promoting their green credentials at every opportunity, Bush has been left with little room for political manoeuvre.
Perhaps most interesting of all has been the environmental advocacy of the religious groups. With white evangelicals making up nearly a quarter of the American electorate, Bush's victory in 2004 depended heavily on winning their votes - 78 per cent voted for him, according to the National Election Pool exit poll.
However, last year, 85 evangelical leaders co-signed a statement that called for greater use of renewable energy and more stringent legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions, including a market-based cap and trade program that the President is yet to support.
Citing both the social justice implications of global warming on the world's poor and mankind's God-given responsibility to exercise "proper" stewardship over the Earth, the Christian leaders are running radio and television campaigns in states with influential legislators. The combination of this targeted advertising and an extensive educational campaign among the various congregations is having a discernible impact on the Republican voting base.
Attitudes to global warming are also shifting within another important Republican constituency, big business. Earlier this month 10 major companies among them General Electric, DuPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar and Duke Energy joined leading non-government organisations under the banner of the US Climate Action Partnership.
In a joint letter to Bush, these captains of American industry called on "lawmakers to enact a policy framework for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions" and in so doing issued a direct challenge to the President's approach that supports only voluntary reductions.
What gave this corporate initiative added significance was that a number of the companies themselves are either energy producers, distributors or highend users. This meant their policy proposals could mean additional costs for them.
Overlaying the domestic debate on global warming has been another important issue, that of energy security. Cognisant of America's over-reliance on imported oil, distinguished members of the national security establishment are also pushing for an increase in the use of renewables and better vehicle fuel economy programs.
Figures such as former CIA director James Woolsey and Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, Robert McFarlane, have been calling for a one-third reduction in American oil consumption and a one-third reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over the next 25 years.
With imports already comprising nearly 60 per cent of US oil consumption, they believe that America is increasingly vulnerable to foreign interests who may be willing to deploy the oil weapon. Woolsey has teamed up with senior environmentalists, labour and industry representatives in a group called the Energy Future Coalition.
Bush now has an opportunity to lead his country and the world in tackling climate change. It is to be hoped that his recent comments are the start of an ambitious new agenda of initiatives that seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions using new technologies and market-based mechanisms.
With advocates of more stringent measures already prominent among his voting base and within the business and national security communities, he will find many fellow travellers. Climate change is not and has never been a partisan issue. Indeed, one of the strongest and early advocates of preventive measures was Margaret Thatcher, a doyen of conservatism.
In a speech in 1990 to the World Climate Conference in Geneva, she said: "But the threat to our world comes not only from tyrants and their tanks. It can be more insidious though less visible. The danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices so that we do not live at the expense of future generations. We must remember our duty to Nature before it's too late. That duty is constant. It is never complete." As Bush puts together the final details of his climate change policy in this, the last years of his term, one hopes he heeds Thatcher's warning.
Joshua Frydenberg is a former senior adviser to John Howard and a director of a leading international investment bank. He recently participated in the Australia- America Leadership Dialogue in California.
Energy needs to be the next priority
Adelaide Advertiser
Friday 2/2/2007 Page: 20
LAST week the Prime Minister delivered a landmark address on Australia's rural water crisis. Imagine the word "water" replaced with "energy" throughout the speech and you would have a framework for a bold national approach to another challenge - climate change.
The use of energy, particularly burning coal in electricity generation, is Australia's biggest source of greenhouse pollution. Like the leaky channels along the Murray, every day Australia wastes vast amounts of energy (and money) unnecessarily.
Improving energy productivity in businesses and households could save between 10 and 30 per cent on energy costs and reduce our energy bill by $5-$15 billion. More efficient homes, appliances, offices and industries could, over the next 20 years, avoid using as much energy as would be contained in nearly 300 Happy Valley Reservoirs filled with oil.
Like the Prime Minister's water plan, climate policy requires sensible pricing and long-term incentives for investment in major infrastructure projects. The energy industry says cutting emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 would need clean energy investment costing $70-80 billion over the coming decades. With decisive, effective policy this is achievable.
By world standards, Australia has a weak clean energy program and even this has recently generated about $1 billion in investment in the renewable energy sector alone. Much of this has been in SA where wind power now accounts for about 15 per cent of the state's electricity supply.
However, while industry can pollute the atmosphere for free we will never see large-scale investments in clean energy. Only through effective price signals will governments reward businesses for switching to clean energy alternatives. Economic analysis has shown this action on climate change is affordable for the economy and households.
This brings us to putting aside parochial interests. Like water, climate does not respect state or even national borders. Climate change may halve Murray- Darling basin river flows within the lifetime of this generation. This will be driven by the actions of people, business and governments across Australia and indeed the world. Australia should join the Kyoto Protocol and drive the global clean energy boom.
South Australian Premier Mike Rann has played a significant role in getting the issue of climate change on the national agenda. With SA having so much to lose, Premier Rann now has a crucial role to play in encouraging the Australian Government to commit to a clean energy plan to ensure new electricity generation is from clean energy sources.
Australia has abundant clean energy resources and could be a world leader in tackling climate change but not without the Australian Government introducing strong climate change laws, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and rewarding business for investment in clean energy technologies.
As the Prime Minister has said: "with the resilience, adaptability and boldness Australians have shown in the past" Australia can overcome the challenges it faces. A bold, ambitious climate change policy framework could start to switch Australia to clean energy today. The health and well being of current and future generations of Australians demands nothing less.
Erwin Jackson works as independent adviser to the Climate Institute Australia and business and research organisations.
Friday 2/2/2007 Page: 20
LAST week the Prime Minister delivered a landmark address on Australia's rural water crisis. Imagine the word "water" replaced with "energy" throughout the speech and you would have a framework for a bold national approach to another challenge - climate change.
The use of energy, particularly burning coal in electricity generation, is Australia's biggest source of greenhouse pollution. Like the leaky channels along the Murray, every day Australia wastes vast amounts of energy (and money) unnecessarily.
Improving energy productivity in businesses and households could save between 10 and 30 per cent on energy costs and reduce our energy bill by $5-$15 billion. More efficient homes, appliances, offices and industries could, over the next 20 years, avoid using as much energy as would be contained in nearly 300 Happy Valley Reservoirs filled with oil.
Like the Prime Minister's water plan, climate policy requires sensible pricing and long-term incentives for investment in major infrastructure projects. The energy industry says cutting emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 would need clean energy investment costing $70-80 billion over the coming decades. With decisive, effective policy this is achievable.
By world standards, Australia has a weak clean energy program and even this has recently generated about $1 billion in investment in the renewable energy sector alone. Much of this has been in SA where wind power now accounts for about 15 per cent of the state's electricity supply.
However, while industry can pollute the atmosphere for free we will never see large-scale investments in clean energy. Only through effective price signals will governments reward businesses for switching to clean energy alternatives. Economic analysis has shown this action on climate change is affordable for the economy and households.
This brings us to putting aside parochial interests. Like water, climate does not respect state or even national borders. Climate change may halve Murray- Darling basin river flows within the lifetime of this generation. This will be driven by the actions of people, business and governments across Australia and indeed the world. Australia should join the Kyoto Protocol and drive the global clean energy boom.
South Australian Premier Mike Rann has played a significant role in getting the issue of climate change on the national agenda. With SA having so much to lose, Premier Rann now has a crucial role to play in encouraging the Australian Government to commit to a clean energy plan to ensure new electricity generation is from clean energy sources.
Australia has abundant clean energy resources and could be a world leader in tackling climate change but not without the Australian Government introducing strong climate change laws, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and rewarding business for investment in clean energy technologies.
As the Prime Minister has said: "with the resilience, adaptability and boldness Australians have shown in the past" Australia can overcome the challenges it faces. A bold, ambitious climate change policy framework could start to switch Australia to clean energy today. The health and well being of current and future generations of Australians demands nothing less.
Erwin Jackson works as independent adviser to the Climate Institute Australia and business and research organisations.
Aviva goes green on carbon
Financial Standard
Monday 29/1/2007 Page: 6
Aviva is aiming to be the first insurer to carbon neutralise its operations on a worldwide basis.
Aviva's carbon output stems from business travel and its use of non-renewable sourced electricity and gas in its offices. Aviva aims to neutralise its global carbon output through investments in projects that generate carbon credits.
The carbon credits will come from a combination of investment in carbon mitigation methods, such as tree planting, and renewable energy generation projects like solar and wind power.
Aviva Australia will also continue its targeted community education program, including sustainable agreements with suppliers, public reporting through its annual Corporate Social Responsibility Report and public presentations and papers on sound sustainable practice.
Monday 29/1/2007 Page: 6
Aviva is aiming to be the first insurer to carbon neutralise its operations on a worldwide basis.
Aviva's carbon output stems from business travel and its use of non-renewable sourced electricity and gas in its offices. Aviva aims to neutralise its global carbon output through investments in projects that generate carbon credits.
The carbon credits will come from a combination of investment in carbon mitigation methods, such as tree planting, and renewable energy generation projects like solar and wind power.
Aviva Australia will also continue its targeted community education program, including sustainable agreements with suppliers, public reporting through its annual Corporate Social Responsibility Report and public presentations and papers on sound sustainable practice.
Renewable energy expo at Jindabyne
Bega District News
Tuesday 30/1/2007 Page: 3
A GREAT deal of interest is being generated in climate change, and the need to respond. In SE NSW that interest needs to be turned into action. 2007 needs to be the year that we start making changes that reduce our carbon footprint.
With the Tathra Surf Club, we have seen how quickly renewable energy can be installed. The speed at which renewable energy can be set up is one of its biggest selling points. We need to move fast. In the words of Arnold Scharzenegger "the debate is over. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now" Arnie is in charge of the eight biggest economy in the world.
When it comes to clean energy, what are the practical options for us in SE NSW? What is going to make a difference and how much is it going to cost? A renewable energy expo in Jindabyne will showcase what is on offer. People from the South Coast are invited.
The first Snowy Mountains Renewable Energy And Climate Change Expo will be held in Banjo Paterson Park, Jindabyne, on Sunday, February 11, from gam to 3pm and there is no entrance fee. The park will be filled with a diversity of displays and information stalls.
Go along and see electric cars and an electric scooter, displays of solar panels and wind turbines. Find out about renewable fuels or how much a solar hot water system will cost you.
Gather information on climate change and what you can do to help. Attend the presentation of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" or find out about sustainable building and much more. This expo is a must for everyone.
Matthew Nott on behalf of Friends of Renewable Energy
Tuesday 30/1/2007 Page: 3
A GREAT deal of interest is being generated in climate change, and the need to respond. In SE NSW that interest needs to be turned into action. 2007 needs to be the year that we start making changes that reduce our carbon footprint.
With the Tathra Surf Club, we have seen how quickly renewable energy can be installed. The speed at which renewable energy can be set up is one of its biggest selling points. We need to move fast. In the words of Arnold Scharzenegger "the debate is over. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now" Arnie is in charge of the eight biggest economy in the world.
When it comes to clean energy, what are the practical options for us in SE NSW? What is going to make a difference and how much is it going to cost? A renewable energy expo in Jindabyne will showcase what is on offer. People from the South Coast are invited.
The first Snowy Mountains Renewable Energy And Climate Change Expo will be held in Banjo Paterson Park, Jindabyne, on Sunday, February 11, from gam to 3pm and there is no entrance fee. The park will be filled with a diversity of displays and information stalls.
Go along and see electric cars and an electric scooter, displays of solar panels and wind turbines. Find out about renewable fuels or how much a solar hot water system will cost you.
Gather information on climate change and what you can do to help. Attend the presentation of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" or find out about sustainable building and much more. This expo is a must for everyone.
Matthew Nott on behalf of Friends of Renewable Energy
Energy giant head visiting
Hobart Mercury
Thursday 1/2/2007 Page: 10
THE president of China's largest power-generation corporation is leading a high-powered delegation to Tasmania from today. China Datang Corporation president Zhai Ruoyu and nine others will spend three days touring and discussing Tasmania's renewable energy assets.
Energy Minister David Llewellyn said the CDT delegation's visit represented a great opportunity for Tasmania. "To put how important this visit is into perspective. CDT has a total controlled installed capacity of more than 50,000MW, which is more than Australia's entire generating capacity," Mr Llewellyn said.
Mr Llewellyn said CDT was active in developing renewable energy and had set up aggressive targets. which could only benefit Tasmania's energy businesses. "Roaring 40s already has a joint-venture arrangement with the Datang Jilin Resourceful Power Generation Company, a subsidiary of CDT, to build the Shuangliao Wind Farm, in the Jilin Province," he said.
"The wind farm is currently nearing completion, with 54 turbines out of 58 in total having been commissioned." Mr Llewellyn said projects such as the Shuangliao wind farm could just be the tip of the iceberg for Tasmania's involvement in China. "For wind energy alone, the CDT has plans to build 1700MW in renewable energy assets by 2010," he said.
"The potential of Roaring 40s to expand current activities with CDT is excellent, with negotiations under way for further joint-venture wind energy developments in China." The group's tour includes meetings with Hydro Tasmania and Roaring 40s and visits to the Gordon power station and Woolnorth wind farm.
Thursday 1/2/2007 Page: 10
THE president of China's largest power-generation corporation is leading a high-powered delegation to Tasmania from today. China Datang Corporation president Zhai Ruoyu and nine others will spend three days touring and discussing Tasmania's renewable energy assets.
Energy Minister David Llewellyn said the CDT delegation's visit represented a great opportunity for Tasmania. "To put how important this visit is into perspective. CDT has a total controlled installed capacity of more than 50,000MW, which is more than Australia's entire generating capacity," Mr Llewellyn said.
Mr Llewellyn said CDT was active in developing renewable energy and had set up aggressive targets. which could only benefit Tasmania's energy businesses. "Roaring 40s already has a joint-venture arrangement with the Datang Jilin Resourceful Power Generation Company, a subsidiary of CDT, to build the Shuangliao Wind Farm, in the Jilin Province," he said.
"The wind farm is currently nearing completion, with 54 turbines out of 58 in total having been commissioned." Mr Llewellyn said projects such as the Shuangliao wind farm could just be the tip of the iceberg for Tasmania's involvement in China. "For wind energy alone, the CDT has plans to build 1700MW in renewable energy assets by 2010," he said.
"The potential of Roaring 40s to expand current activities with CDT is excellent, with negotiations under way for further joint-venture wind energy developments in China." The group's tour includes meetings with Hydro Tasmania and Roaring 40s and visits to the Gordon power station and Woolnorth wind farm.
Climate a chance to profit
Bendigo Advertiser
Thursday 1/2/2007 Page: 5
Bendigo City and LaTrobe University Bendigo will team up to host a conference on renewable energy in regional Australia in Bendigo in September. Organisers are looking for key business and community speakers to join national and international experts to tease out ideas on developing a renewable energy industry outside Australia's capital cities.
The driving force behind the conference is Cr Keith Reynard, who said yesterday he hoped that the ideas discussed would be able to reduce country Victoria's reliance on greenhouse gas-emitting coal. "It's going to be a cocktail of different technologies that will replace the reliance on coal," he said.
Cr Reynard sounded a dire warning for those who doubted the veracity of climate change. "We can't afford to sit on our hands on this issue any longer," he said. "We are at the tipping point, where if we do delay taking action it's going to be too late. "We will experience climate change over the next 50 years that is a result of what we are doing now, which will have major implications for rural Australia." Cr Reynard said the drought was but one effect of climate change.
Professor John Martin, from the Centre for Sustainable Regional Communities at La Trobe University, said the conference was a chance for rural communities to take advantage of the economic opportunities of a renewable energy industry.
"From manufacturing solar panels to developing materials and refitting houses and so on, there is a major economic opportunity for regional Australia to find out how to do this," he said. "In crisis there is both threat and opportunity. "You can say the world is getting hotter and we will all be doomed. "But we are thinking that the glass is half full and this is a great opportunity.
Speakers already booked for the conference, from September 16 to 18, include Bendigo Bank chief executive Rob Hunt, and the chief executive of the federal agency responsible for renewable energy policy, David Rossiter.
Thursday 1/2/2007 Page: 5
Bendigo City and LaTrobe University Bendigo will team up to host a conference on renewable energy in regional Australia in Bendigo in September. Organisers are looking for key business and community speakers to join national and international experts to tease out ideas on developing a renewable energy industry outside Australia's capital cities.
The driving force behind the conference is Cr Keith Reynard, who said yesterday he hoped that the ideas discussed would be able to reduce country Victoria's reliance on greenhouse gas-emitting coal. "It's going to be a cocktail of different technologies that will replace the reliance on coal," he said.
Cr Reynard sounded a dire warning for those who doubted the veracity of climate change. "We can't afford to sit on our hands on this issue any longer," he said. "We are at the tipping point, where if we do delay taking action it's going to be too late. "We will experience climate change over the next 50 years that is a result of what we are doing now, which will have major implications for rural Australia." Cr Reynard said the drought was but one effect of climate change.
Professor John Martin, from the Centre for Sustainable Regional Communities at La Trobe University, said the conference was a chance for rural communities to take advantage of the economic opportunities of a renewable energy industry.
"From manufacturing solar panels to developing materials and refitting houses and so on, there is a major economic opportunity for regional Australia to find out how to do this," he said. "In crisis there is both threat and opportunity. "You can say the world is getting hotter and we will all be doomed. "But we are thinking that the glass is half full and this is a great opportunity.
Speakers already booked for the conference, from September 16 to 18, include Bendigo Bank chief executive Rob Hunt, and the chief executive of the federal agency responsible for renewable energy policy, David Rossiter.
`Emissions trade vital
Australian
Thursday 1/2/2007 Page: 6
Matthew Warren Environment writer
THE future of Australia's energy supply will be decided by an emissions trading scheme, not technical reports trying to forecast the future, according to the renewable energy industry.
The industry is incredulous at the release of a report by the Energy Supply Association, revealed in The Australian yesterday, which predicts clean coal, nuclear and gas will be the cheapest sources of low emission energy by 2030, ahead of renewable sources such as wind and solar power.
Auswind chief executive Dominique La Fontaine said the study was based on flawed estimates for wind energy, which were lower than those used in the report.
While welcoming debate about how to deliver the cheapest greenhouse gas cuts possible, Ms La Fontaine said this would ultimately be decided by an emissions trading scheme, which she said should be introduced as quickly as possible.
"There is a lot that is uncertain about all these technologies, but the wind industry has a technology that we know works and it's the fastest-growing technology around the world because it's the most cost-efficient," she said.
"Let's not lose sight of what is reality under our noses today." Business Council for Sustainable Energy chief Ric Brazzale said renewable energy, as well as clean coal and gas, would play a role in addressing climate change.
Thursday 1/2/2007 Page: 6
Matthew Warren Environment writer
THE future of Australia's energy supply will be decided by an emissions trading scheme, not technical reports trying to forecast the future, according to the renewable energy industry.
The industry is incredulous at the release of a report by the Energy Supply Association, revealed in The Australian yesterday, which predicts clean coal, nuclear and gas will be the cheapest sources of low emission energy by 2030, ahead of renewable sources such as wind and solar power.
Auswind chief executive Dominique La Fontaine said the study was based on flawed estimates for wind energy, which were lower than those used in the report.
While welcoming debate about how to deliver the cheapest greenhouse gas cuts possible, Ms La Fontaine said this would ultimately be decided by an emissions trading scheme, which she said should be introduced as quickly as possible.
"There is a lot that is uncertain about all these technologies, but the wind industry has a technology that we know works and it's the fastest-growing technology around the world because it's the most cost-efficient," she said.
"Let's not lose sight of what is reality under our noses today." Business Council for Sustainable Energy chief Ric Brazzale said renewable energy, as well as clean coal and gas, would play a role in addressing climate change.
Change clouds the commercial front: It's not just politics
Age
Thursday 1/2/2007 Page: 8
Rachel Kleinman talks to a scientist who's taking climate change to business.
IT WAS the late 1980s, and a young man from Manchester was working through the night, cocooned in a nuclear physics complex that straddled the French-Swiss border. Fresh from Liverpool University, Karl Mallon had accepted a scholarship at Geneva's prestigious European Centre for Nuclear Research and his career path seemed assured. That is, until he became increasingly unsettled by a nagging question.
Should nuclear physicists take any responsibility for the future use of the technology? Or was it OK to develop knowledge for knowledge's sake and not worry about the consequences? Unconvinced, he swapped nuclear physics for a Melbourne University Phd on fluid dynamic energy, including wind power. "I worked with utility companies on how to manage alternative energy sources - it was the early days of green power, if you like," Dr Mallon says.
Dr Mallon completed his doctorate in the run-up to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol - and his career has since fused with the climate debate. Last year, he and business partner Gareth Johnson set up Climate Risk, advising the commercial sector on risk management measures to minimise the economic impact of climate change.
"The focus up till now has been is it affordable to fix it?' Dr Mallon says. "But there has been very little information about the cost of not fixing the problem. That came as quite a shock (to me) but also a startling opportunity.
"That was the impetus behind starting Climate Risk - to build the bridge between climate change science and the economy or commercial sector." Insurance companies, which operate exclusively on risk factors, are already standing to attention, Dr Mallon says.
People are buying homes, making life-long decisions, on the assumption that the world will be the same in 10 or 20 years. But scientists working in climate change are fully comfortable with the knowledge that it won't be the same, so there is a disconnect between the two," he says.
"Imagine you are going off to buy a great house on the coast and the mortgage lender wants you to get insurance.
You say: `I can get insurance but it is not covered for flood.' And the bank says: No way, it is a coastal area, we won't lend on that property.' " British research shows property drops about 80 per cent of its value when it is uninsurable, Dr Mallon says. Somewhere, not too far down the track, people are going to start suing over such issues.
"It is like when there was eventually sufficient proof to say smoking kills you or asbestos causes cancer," he says. "We are now at that point where we can say `climate change is actually happening'. "The climate debate has been so political - all about left versus right or business versus greens.
"But climate impacts are completely apolitical. They are coming, they are here and they are going to get worse." Dr Mallon says business is quickly realising it must set the politics aside and get on with managing the risks or risk being sued by investors for not being on top of the issue.
"This is straight business. It is about investment, risk, liability and accountability." But Dr Mallon, an acute combination of businessman and scientist, wants to focus on the opportunities as well as the risks.
"For example, where will we build retirement homes?" He says Queensland might not be such an appealing retirement playground if temperatures rise. "Heatwaves are killers for elderly people," he explains.
"So do we expect that will be a great place to retire in the future? Probably not. South-east Victoria and Tasmania might be better." Climate change would affect every business from coal-fired power stations to soft drink manufacturers, he said. "It is as grand and as mundane as that."
Thursday 1/2/2007 Page: 8
Rachel Kleinman talks to a scientist who's taking climate change to business.
IT WAS the late 1980s, and a young man from Manchester was working through the night, cocooned in a nuclear physics complex that straddled the French-Swiss border. Fresh from Liverpool University, Karl Mallon had accepted a scholarship at Geneva's prestigious European Centre for Nuclear Research and his career path seemed assured. That is, until he became increasingly unsettled by a nagging question.
Should nuclear physicists take any responsibility for the future use of the technology? Or was it OK to develop knowledge for knowledge's sake and not worry about the consequences? Unconvinced, he swapped nuclear physics for a Melbourne University Phd on fluid dynamic energy, including wind power. "I worked with utility companies on how to manage alternative energy sources - it was the early days of green power, if you like," Dr Mallon says.
Dr Mallon completed his doctorate in the run-up to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol - and his career has since fused with the climate debate. Last year, he and business partner Gareth Johnson set up Climate Risk, advising the commercial sector on risk management measures to minimise the economic impact of climate change.
"The focus up till now has been is it affordable to fix it?' Dr Mallon says. "But there has been very little information about the cost of not fixing the problem. That came as quite a shock (to me) but also a startling opportunity.
"That was the impetus behind starting Climate Risk - to build the bridge between climate change science and the economy or commercial sector." Insurance companies, which operate exclusively on risk factors, are already standing to attention, Dr Mallon says.
People are buying homes, making life-long decisions, on the assumption that the world will be the same in 10 or 20 years. But scientists working in climate change are fully comfortable with the knowledge that it won't be the same, so there is a disconnect between the two," he says.
"Imagine you are going off to buy a great house on the coast and the mortgage lender wants you to get insurance.
You say: `I can get insurance but it is not covered for flood.' And the bank says: No way, it is a coastal area, we won't lend on that property.' " British research shows property drops about 80 per cent of its value when it is uninsurable, Dr Mallon says. Somewhere, not too far down the track, people are going to start suing over such issues.
"It is like when there was eventually sufficient proof to say smoking kills you or asbestos causes cancer," he says. "We are now at that point where we can say `climate change is actually happening'. "The climate debate has been so political - all about left versus right or business versus greens.
"But climate impacts are completely apolitical. They are coming, they are here and they are going to get worse." Dr Mallon says business is quickly realising it must set the politics aside and get on with managing the risks or risk being sued by investors for not being on top of the issue.
"This is straight business. It is about investment, risk, liability and accountability." But Dr Mallon, an acute combination of businessman and scientist, wants to focus on the opportunities as well as the risks.
"For example, where will we build retirement homes?" He says Queensland might not be such an appealing retirement playground if temperatures rise. "Heatwaves are killers for elderly people," he explains.
"So do we expect that will be a great place to retire in the future? Probably not. South-east Victoria and Tasmania might be better." Climate change would affect every business from coal-fired power stations to soft drink manufacturers, he said. "It is as grand and as mundane as that."
Councils beat target
Adelaide Advertiser
Thursday 1/2/2007 Page: 1
MOST local councils have already reached a statewide target for renewable energy use years before a 2014 deadline set by the State Government only months ago. Thirty-eight of the 66 local councils connected to the national electricity grid are obtaining 20 per cent of their power from renewable energy.
Local Government Association acting executive director Chris Russell said yesterday the remaining councils were expected to reach the target in the next year.
In October last year, Premier Mike Rann challenged all South Australians to increase their use of renewable energy to 20 per cent of total electricity consumption by 2014. The Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Bill 2006 also set a target to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050. Before the challenge, some councils were considering using only about 5 per cent to 10 per cent of green electricity.
Mr Russell said the cost of using more expensive renewable energy was offset by improving and consolidating council contracts. "On balance, it means the total bill (to ratepayers) is the same," he said.
"The reality is the councils have taken the SA Strategic Plan seriously, and we've been doing a lot of work on assessing those targets and where the councils fit in." SA Federation of Residents and Ratepayers Association president Kevin Kaeding said ratepayers would probably be happy to pay a small amount to help the environment, if that was required. Council facilities are now powered by Origin Energy Green Power and AGL, sourced from renewable resources including wind, hydro generation, solar, landfill and biomass gases.
Premier Mike Rann said he was ''absolutely thrilled" at the move. "We as a state are leading the nation in the push for renewable energy, and soon we will be only the third jurisdiction in the world to enshrine in law our greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy targets," he said.
"It's through the initiatives like this that we.. . can continue to lead the nation in tackling climate change." Mr Rann said the Government was also on track to meet its environmental targets, and was giving South Australians incentives to use renewable energy in their homes.
Opposition Leader Iain Evans said the target was "arbitrary", and there were no programs in place to support it. "The state Liberal Party were the first to set a target on the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gas of 60 per cent by 2050," he said.
"If you want to reduce greenhouse gas, you have to reduce energy consumption or use energy that doesn't produce greenhouse gases. "There are no penalties in this Bill, so it really is just a Bill that sets an arbitrary target." Renewable energy experts agreed that the target was still not enough.
Renewable Energy Generators chief executive Susan Jeanes said she only expected renewable energy to get to about 14 or 15 per cent of total electricity supply by 2014.
"It's a nice target, but there are no new incentives for any further large-scale renewable energy development," she said. Business SA chief executive officer Peter Vaughan said the business community was realising that "good environmental practice equates to good business practice".
Thursday 1/2/2007 Page: 1
MOST local councils have already reached a statewide target for renewable energy use years before a 2014 deadline set by the State Government only months ago. Thirty-eight of the 66 local councils connected to the national electricity grid are obtaining 20 per cent of their power from renewable energy.
Local Government Association acting executive director Chris Russell said yesterday the remaining councils were expected to reach the target in the next year.
In October last year, Premier Mike Rann challenged all South Australians to increase their use of renewable energy to 20 per cent of total electricity consumption by 2014. The Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Bill 2006 also set a target to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050. Before the challenge, some councils were considering using only about 5 per cent to 10 per cent of green electricity.
Mr Russell said the cost of using more expensive renewable energy was offset by improving and consolidating council contracts. "On balance, it means the total bill (to ratepayers) is the same," he said.
"The reality is the councils have taken the SA Strategic Plan seriously, and we've been doing a lot of work on assessing those targets and where the councils fit in." SA Federation of Residents and Ratepayers Association president Kevin Kaeding said ratepayers would probably be happy to pay a small amount to help the environment, if that was required. Council facilities are now powered by Origin Energy Green Power and AGL, sourced from renewable resources including wind, hydro generation, solar, landfill and biomass gases.
Premier Mike Rann said he was ''absolutely thrilled" at the move. "We as a state are leading the nation in the push for renewable energy, and soon we will be only the third jurisdiction in the world to enshrine in law our greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy targets," he said.
"It's through the initiatives like this that we.. . can continue to lead the nation in tackling climate change." Mr Rann said the Government was also on track to meet its environmental targets, and was giving South Australians incentives to use renewable energy in their homes.
Opposition Leader Iain Evans said the target was "arbitrary", and there were no programs in place to support it. "The state Liberal Party were the first to set a target on the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gas of 60 per cent by 2050," he said.
"If you want to reduce greenhouse gas, you have to reduce energy consumption or use energy that doesn't produce greenhouse gases. "There are no penalties in this Bill, so it really is just a Bill that sets an arbitrary target." Renewable energy experts agreed that the target was still not enough.
Renewable Energy Generators chief executive Susan Jeanes said she only expected renewable energy to get to about 14 or 15 per cent of total electricity supply by 2014.
"It's a nice target, but there are no new incentives for any further large-scale renewable energy development," she said. Business SA chief executive officer Peter Vaughan said the business community was realising that "good environmental practice equates to good business practice".
Energy report off target on wind
Auswind Media Release,
Wednesday 31 January 2007:
The wind energy industry is warning that the findings of the latest report on Australia's energy future are based on flawed cost estimates. Auswind CEO, Dominique La Fontaine, said wind energy is supplying significant quantities of electricity right now at a reasonable cost, with prices expected to fall by up to 30% in the coming years.
The Energy Supply Association of Australia report concludes that renewable energy technologies will have only a minor part to play in Australia's energy mix by 2030 because they will be unable to compete on price, but the figures quoted for wind energy paint a misleading picture.
"The report puts the price of wind energy above $85 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2030, which is simply ridiculous," said Ms La Fontaine. "Right now wind energy often sells at less than $80/MWh, and with the effect of economies of scale and technological advances, that figure could easily be $50/MWh or less by 2030.
"The wind energy industry worldwide has grown at more than 25% each year for the last decade, and those increased volumes can only lead to lower prices in the years to come. "When it comes to outputs, the average wind turbine now produces 180 times the power that its equivalent of 20 years ago did, at half the cost per unit of electricity. It is crazy to believe that wind energy technology will not continue to improve, lowering costs even further," she said.
But even if Australia is largely dependent on coal and nuclear in 2030, as the report predicts, there is no mention of any moves to clean up the stationary energy sector in the short term.
"Both nuclear and so-called ‘clean coal' are at least 15 years away and their prices are uncertain, but wind energy is here and now, creating power with zero fuel costs and zero emissions," said Ms La Fontaine.
Auswind maintains that the market should be left to decide which technologies will best serve the nation's needs, and that can only happen through the use of a market mechanism which creates a level playing field.
Wednesday 31 January 2007:
The wind energy industry is warning that the findings of the latest report on Australia's energy future are based on flawed cost estimates. Auswind CEO, Dominique La Fontaine, said wind energy is supplying significant quantities of electricity right now at a reasonable cost, with prices expected to fall by up to 30% in the coming years.
The Energy Supply Association of Australia report concludes that renewable energy technologies will have only a minor part to play in Australia's energy mix by 2030 because they will be unable to compete on price, but the figures quoted for wind energy paint a misleading picture.
"The report puts the price of wind energy above $85 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2030, which is simply ridiculous," said Ms La Fontaine. "Right now wind energy often sells at less than $80/MWh, and with the effect of economies of scale and technological advances, that figure could easily be $50/MWh or less by 2030.
"The wind energy industry worldwide has grown at more than 25% each year for the last decade, and those increased volumes can only lead to lower prices in the years to come. "When it comes to outputs, the average wind turbine now produces 180 times the power that its equivalent of 20 years ago did, at half the cost per unit of electricity. It is crazy to believe that wind energy technology will not continue to improve, lowering costs even further," she said.
But even if Australia is largely dependent on coal and nuclear in 2030, as the report predicts, there is no mention of any moves to clean up the stationary energy sector in the short term.
"Both nuclear and so-called ‘clean coal' are at least 15 years away and their prices are uncertain, but wind energy is here and now, creating power with zero fuel costs and zero emissions," said Ms La Fontaine.
Auswind maintains that the market should be left to decide which technologies will best serve the nation's needs, and that can only happen through the use of a market mechanism which creates a level playing field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)