www.next100.com
Mar 02 2009
Wind energy today costs California utilities about twice what it did in 2003, due to rising prices for turbines, concrete and labor, but it's still a good value for clean energy, PG&E's top buyer of renewable power told a group of visiting experts from the Asia-Pacific region today.
Fong Wan, the utility's senior vice president for energy procurement, kicked off a five-day meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which is focusing on wind energy generation. The event is being hosted by PG&E.
The partnership, supported by the U.S. Departments of Energy and State, promotes technical collaboration among utilities and other private-sector energy partners in Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States to improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution and address the threat of climate change.
The member countries together have more than half the world's population and consume over half the world's energy--so finding common ground among them will go a long way toward enabling true global cooperation on energy issues and climate change.
Read more: www.next100.com/
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Salisbury to tame wind for big decal project
Adelaide Advertiser
Saturday 7/3/2009 Page: 22
AUSTRALIA'S largest wind energyed desalination plant is planned for Adelaide's north this year. Litre for litre, the City of Salisbury's plant should far outperform the State Government's $1.5 billion desalination project at Port Stanvac, because it uses brackish groundwater rather than seawater. The plant will be located near the Greenfields wetlands and powered by one or more wind turbines, Salisbury city projects director Colin Pitman said.
"One of these wind desalinators can produce 1.5 gigalitres per annum," Mr Pitman said. "So two of them is three gigalitres. Adelaide's consumption though the Murray in a normal year is 80 gigalitres a year, so we are producing 4% of Adelaide's needs from the Murray River." Every litre extracted from the aquifer will be replaced with cleaned stormwater, so the aquifer volume will remain constant.
Mr Pitman said the wind desalination of brackish groundwater had cost and environmental benefits. "It compares with seawater desalination, where you have to put a lot of energy into it because you have got very high salinities and you produce lots of brine," he said. The brackish water has a salinity of about 2000 parts per million, compared with about 500ppm in drinking water and 37,000ppm in seawater.
"It's our intention to pump discharge brine into a very saline aquifer at a depth of about 300m - so it does not pollute that aquifer but just puts in similar salty water," Mr Pitman said. The system will plug into Salisbury Council's 30-year pioneering development of wetlands that clean stormwater for reuse. Pilot trials preparing for the desalination plant are due to commence on April 2.
Barrie Harrop, executive director of SA's Windesal which will build the plant, said it would demonstrate the possibilities of green energy desalination. "It is a showcase that will establish a new industry in SA, which we believe will employ upwards of 1000 people," he said.
Saturday 7/3/2009 Page: 22
AUSTRALIA'S largest wind energyed desalination plant is planned for Adelaide's north this year. Litre for litre, the City of Salisbury's plant should far outperform the State Government's $1.5 billion desalination project at Port Stanvac, because it uses brackish groundwater rather than seawater. The plant will be located near the Greenfields wetlands and powered by one or more wind turbines, Salisbury city projects director Colin Pitman said.
"One of these wind desalinators can produce 1.5 gigalitres per annum," Mr Pitman said. "So two of them is three gigalitres. Adelaide's consumption though the Murray in a normal year is 80 gigalitres a year, so we are producing 4% of Adelaide's needs from the Murray River." Every litre extracted from the aquifer will be replaced with cleaned stormwater, so the aquifer volume will remain constant.
Mr Pitman said the wind desalination of brackish groundwater had cost and environmental benefits. "It compares with seawater desalination, where you have to put a lot of energy into it because you have got very high salinities and you produce lots of brine," he said. The brackish water has a salinity of about 2000 parts per million, compared with about 500ppm in drinking water and 37,000ppm in seawater.
"It's our intention to pump discharge brine into a very saline aquifer at a depth of about 300m - so it does not pollute that aquifer but just puts in similar salty water," Mr Pitman said. The system will plug into Salisbury Council's 30-year pioneering development of wetlands that clean stormwater for reuse. Pilot trials preparing for the desalination plant are due to commence on April 2.
Barrie Harrop, executive director of SA's Windesal which will build the plant, said it would demonstrate the possibilities of green energy desalination. "It is a showcase that will establish a new industry in SA, which we believe will employ upwards of 1000 people," he said.
Neat FIT a big saver
Daily Telegraph
Friday 6/3/2009 Page: 42
RECEIVING credits, rather than bills, from their electricity provider is one of the rewards for those who install solar panels on their homes. In NSW, most households with solar energy systems are paid by their electricity provider for the surplus energy they release back into the grid. But, as most solar energy is produced in the middle of the clay, payment for this energy is usually calculated on the lower offpeak rates.
Industry and environmental groups are now pushing the NSW Government to introduce a gross solar feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme, which would see households and businesses compensated for all the renewable energy they produce, rather than just what's surplus to their needs.
Campaigners say FIT rates should be higher than the market value of electricity by taking into account the savings represented by reducing electricity loss through transmission. Consumers would then buy back the electricity they require at market rates.
According to a recent Access Economics study commissioned by the Clean Energy Council, an average of 5.9% of electricity is lost during electricity generation within Australian networks. "A greater reliance on solar PV systems could reduce this lost capacity from having the source of production closer to the final point of use," the study reads.
"By siting a generator near a load, the amount of energy required to be imported from the network is reduced." If solar energy systems are more widely adopted by households and businesses, they would also reduce the need for costly system upgrades - something which would also be factored into gross FIT rates. It would also provide protection against power outages during times of high demand.
In a submission on the introduction of a solar FIT in NSW, released earlier this year, The Clean Energy Council argued that a gross FIT with a fair set price would avoid discriminating between those who use electricity during peak electricity production periods, such as small businesses and retirees, and workers who are away from the home when their system is producing the most electricity: "If a price is set for the buy back of energy at a point in network, it should be applicable to all energy produced at the site, regardless of whether it is used on site or exported, for small generation sites; the impact on energy flows in the grid is the same."
The ACT and Western Australia have saver already introduced a gross FIT scheme, while Queensland and Victoria have opted for a net version - the FIT rates apply to surplus, rather than all electricity produced. While the Federal Government's Solar Credits scheme, to be introduced in July, will make installing renewable energy systems a more affordable option for a wider proportion of the population, a gross FIT would ensure they're paid off sooner.
"If the scheme is long enough and the rate is high enough, it should be sufficient to provide a return on capital investment of less than 10 years," the submission states. "The scheme should be in place for no less than 15 years to provide investor confidence." The Clean Energy Council's general manager of policy, Rob Jackson, says a gross FIT would also make it easier for people to do a cost-benefit analysis when considering investing in solar technology.
It makes it much easier for those who are trying to value what they're getting, and how quickly they will be able to pay it off," he says. "It would help to attract a wider crowd, not just people with a keen environmental interest. It will move to a point where a solar PV system is seen as adding additional value to the house."
Case Study
Bills slashed - and the air is cleaner
BORROWING over $30,000 for a solar energy system was a big move, but every time their electricity bill arrives, Bill and Chrissie Holland are reassured that they did the right thing.
Before fitting their six-bedroom northern beaches home with solar panels two years ago, their quarterly electricity bill often reached over $700. Now, the family of seven receives credit from their electricity company for their surplus energy that's fed into the grid. Their last bill, for example, was $8o in their favour. The 3.64 kW system on their roof cost close to $38,000, minus a rebate and renewable energy certificates worth $5000 combined.
At current rates, the Holland family's electricity savings will outweigh the expenditure on the system in 10 to 12 years. But if energy prices rise as expected, and a gross feed-in tariff is introduced to increase the value of the surplus power they produce, this will come down to between five and eight years.
With a 25-year warranty, and similar systems lasting up to 40 years, Mr Holland believes he'll end up well ahead. "We're already saving the better part of $3000 a year in energy we're not having to pay for," he says. "Before we got the system, we were using up to 5o kW hours a day, and between 20 and 30 in summer.
"When I got my last $700 quarterly bill, I thought: 'I don't want to do this again.' " But it's not just about the money. Mr Holland says it's satisfying to know his family's electricity use isn't having an adverse environmental impact. Every year, they save around five tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, and in just over two years, have fed 1750 surplus kW hours back into the grid.
"Every day when I get home, I go and see what the production of power has been during the day," Mr Holland says. "It's such a good feeling knowing you are producing more power than you're using every day. "We have a north-facing roof, so I really couldn't justify not doing it.
"I'm so glad I did it that I'm always trying to convert others. My dad and sister have now done theirs and my brother wants to get solar panels too." Having the system has also made the family more aware of their energy consumption. Mr Holland now offers his younger children a pocket money bonus if they diligently turn off lights and electrical equipment when not in use, switch appliances off from the powerpoint rather than leaving them on standby and stick to three minute showers.
Friday 6/3/2009 Page: 42
RECEIVING credits, rather than bills, from their electricity provider is one of the rewards for those who install solar panels on their homes. In NSW, most households with solar energy systems are paid by their electricity provider for the surplus energy they release back into the grid. But, as most solar energy is produced in the middle of the clay, payment for this energy is usually calculated on the lower offpeak rates.Industry and environmental groups are now pushing the NSW Government to introduce a gross solar feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme, which would see households and businesses compensated for all the renewable energy they produce, rather than just what's surplus to their needs.
Campaigners say FIT rates should be higher than the market value of electricity by taking into account the savings represented by reducing electricity loss through transmission. Consumers would then buy back the electricity they require at market rates.
According to a recent Access Economics study commissioned by the Clean Energy Council, an average of 5.9% of electricity is lost during electricity generation within Australian networks. "A greater reliance on solar PV systems could reduce this lost capacity from having the source of production closer to the final point of use," the study reads.
"By siting a generator near a load, the amount of energy required to be imported from the network is reduced." If solar energy systems are more widely adopted by households and businesses, they would also reduce the need for costly system upgrades - something which would also be factored into gross FIT rates. It would also provide protection against power outages during times of high demand.
In a submission on the introduction of a solar FIT in NSW, released earlier this year, The Clean Energy Council argued that a gross FIT with a fair set price would avoid discriminating between those who use electricity during peak electricity production periods, such as small businesses and retirees, and workers who are away from the home when their system is producing the most electricity: "If a price is set for the buy back of energy at a point in network, it should be applicable to all energy produced at the site, regardless of whether it is used on site or exported, for small generation sites; the impact on energy flows in the grid is the same."
The ACT and Western Australia have saver already introduced a gross FIT scheme, while Queensland and Victoria have opted for a net version - the FIT rates apply to surplus, rather than all electricity produced. While the Federal Government's Solar Credits scheme, to be introduced in July, will make installing renewable energy systems a more affordable option for a wider proportion of the population, a gross FIT would ensure they're paid off sooner.
"If the scheme is long enough and the rate is high enough, it should be sufficient to provide a return on capital investment of less than 10 years," the submission states. "The scheme should be in place for no less than 15 years to provide investor confidence." The Clean Energy Council's general manager of policy, Rob Jackson, says a gross FIT would also make it easier for people to do a cost-benefit analysis when considering investing in solar technology.
It makes it much easier for those who are trying to value what they're getting, and how quickly they will be able to pay it off," he says. "It would help to attract a wider crowd, not just people with a keen environmental interest. It will move to a point where a solar PV system is seen as adding additional value to the house."
Case Study
Bills slashed - and the air is cleaner
BORROWING over $30,000 for a solar energy system was a big move, but every time their electricity bill arrives, Bill and Chrissie Holland are reassured that they did the right thing.
Before fitting their six-bedroom northern beaches home with solar panels two years ago, their quarterly electricity bill often reached over $700. Now, the family of seven receives credit from their electricity company for their surplus energy that's fed into the grid. Their last bill, for example, was $8o in their favour. The 3.64 kW system on their roof cost close to $38,000, minus a rebate and renewable energy certificates worth $5000 combined.
At current rates, the Holland family's electricity savings will outweigh the expenditure on the system in 10 to 12 years. But if energy prices rise as expected, and a gross feed-in tariff is introduced to increase the value of the surplus power they produce, this will come down to between five and eight years.
With a 25-year warranty, and similar systems lasting up to 40 years, Mr Holland believes he'll end up well ahead. "We're already saving the better part of $3000 a year in energy we're not having to pay for," he says. "Before we got the system, we were using up to 5o kW hours a day, and between 20 and 30 in summer.
"When I got my last $700 quarterly bill, I thought: 'I don't want to do this again.' " But it's not just about the money. Mr Holland says it's satisfying to know his family's electricity use isn't having an adverse environmental impact. Every year, they save around five tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, and in just over two years, have fed 1750 surplus kW hours back into the grid.
"Every day when I get home, I go and see what the production of power has been during the day," Mr Holland says. "It's such a good feeling knowing you are producing more power than you're using every day. "We have a north-facing roof, so I really couldn't justify not doing it.
"I'm so glad I did it that I'm always trying to convert others. My dad and sister have now done theirs and my brother wants to get solar panels too." Having the system has also made the family more aware of their energy consumption. Mr Holland now offers his younger children a pocket money bonus if they diligently turn off lights and electrical equipment when not in use, switch appliances off from the powerpoint rather than leaving them on standby and stick to three minute showers.
Santos reviews carbon-capture project
Courier Mail
Friday 6/3/2009 Page: 40
SANTOS is considering halting its carbon capture and storage project in the Cooper Basin due to weak oil prices and as the initial carbon price under the planned emissions trading scheme is too low to make it economical.
The mining industry is generally baulking at imminent action to dramatically cut carbon emissions and meantime more Australian projects aimed at establishing a low-emissions future for coal and gas are biting the dust as developers cite cost pressures.
Projects have recently been abandoned in Australia by the likes of Shell, Anglo American, BP, Rio Tinto and General Electric. Santos spokesman Matt Doman said: "When CCS will be proven up remains unknown. Even if that could happen, 80% of the (emissions cut) benefit can be delivered reliably and affordably by using gas-fired stations with technology that exists today (and) has a certain cost and higher reliability."
Friday 6/3/2009 Page: 40
SANTOS is considering halting its carbon capture and storage project in the Cooper Basin due to weak oil prices and as the initial carbon price under the planned emissions trading scheme is too low to make it economical.
The mining industry is generally baulking at imminent action to dramatically cut carbon emissions and meantime more Australian projects aimed at establishing a low-emissions future for coal and gas are biting the dust as developers cite cost pressures.
Projects have recently been abandoned in Australia by the likes of Shell, Anglo American, BP, Rio Tinto and General Electric. Santos spokesman Matt Doman said: "When CCS will be proven up remains unknown. Even if that could happen, 80% of the (emissions cut) benefit can be delivered reliably and affordably by using gas-fired stations with technology that exists today (and) has a certain cost and higher reliability."
We can keep jobs and save the planet
Age
Friday 6/3/2009 Page: 15
AS DEBATE on emissions trading demonstrates, an enormous gulf still separates rhetoric from action on global warming; there is a macabre irony in government, opposition, industry groups and economists all being hoist with the petard of their own inconsistent policies.
Emissions trading is one essential building block of a national emissions reduction strategy if the transition to a lowcarbon economy is to be achieved. There is nothing wrong with the framework proposed in the Federal Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS); it is essentially similar to various proposals under development since 1998. Where it falls down is that its key parameters are inconsistent with the task that, in theory, it is designed to undertake.
It is impossible to design a sensible emissions reduction strategy, and an emissions trading scheme (ETS), without first deciding on the targets to be achieved. The Government's stated objective is for strong action, but the targets, compensation and escape clauses in the CPRS imply exactly the opposite. Hence the avalanche of criticism.
Richard Denniss argues that individual incentives to reduce emissions is negated by the CPRS cap. John Humphreys and others maintain a carbon tax is preferable to emissions trading.
Geoff Carmody argues for a consumption, rather than a production-based, ETS. Most industry lobby groups want the whole process delayed until their members have weathered the financial crisis. The Greenhouse Mafia no doubt see a splendid opportunity to prevent any action at all for another decade.
The fatal flaw in the debate is that current mindsets and policy proposals are based on scientific information that is at least five years out of date. The latest information indicates that we now min a rapidly increasing risk of sudden and total failure of some part of the climatic system, from which recovery may be impossible.
Sensible risk management in this context requires emission reduction targets to be based on the latest, considered science, not on a political view of the art-of-the-possible. The target for stabilisation of atmospheric carbon to avoid catastrophic consequences and maintain a safe climate is now probably a concentration of less than 300 ppm carbon dioxide, not the outdated 450-550 ppm carbon dioxide in current proposals.
This means emission reductions by Australia must be in the range of 45 to 50% by 2020 and almost complete decarbonisation by 2050, rather than the 5 to 15% by 2020 and 60% by 2050 currently proposed.
Many will dismiss these targets as unattainable given that current concentrations are 385 ppm carbon dioxide; it will require not only the rapid curtailment of emissions, but the reabsorption of some carbon already in the atmosphere. We have the technology to achieve this and when real emergencies loons, as at present, then remarkable change is possible.
In this context, emissions trading alone is not enough. It must be complemented with regulatory initiatives and other incentives to accelerate energy efficiency, conservation and alternative energy supply, improve building codes, vehicle and aviation emission standards, personal carbon trading opportunities and carbon sequestration. This involves setting the right framework for rapid change. Compensation must be minimised - public funding should encourage a viable future, not prop up an unsustainable past, particularly when funding is going to be in short supply.
Looked at in the light of strong targets, the current bones of contention fall away. We will need every possible contribution to reduce emissions, with individual efforts encouraged by regulatory and personal trading initiatives. Carbon taxes make no sense as they do not deliver guaranteed emission reductions, the tax quantum required would have to be far higher than politically and commercially tenable, and the cost of meeting 11 targets would be higher than under an ETS.
As the world begins to understand the latest science, rapid global action is now probable, which takes away any justification for compensation to trade exposed industries. The world will be crying out for low carbon products, which will be a source of competitive advantage for those prepared to take up the challenge. There has never been any justification for compensation to domestic high emitters. Thus much of the argument for our consumption-based ETS falls away.
The current mantra is "the preservation of jobs" but this is a fallacy - at best it can only have a marginal impact on the devastation being wrought by the financial crisis. The real focus must be the creation of jobs in the new industries on which our low carbon future must be based, rather than the problems and costs of moving away from the old.
This is the right time to make the transition and it can be achieved at far less cost than the horror stories propagated by the fossil fuel lobby, in many cases with a net economic benefit. Employment is likely to rise because these new industries are far more labour intensive than the industry they replace.
A cautionary tale from the US car industry: GM and Ford lobbied very successfully in the late 1990s to prevent improvements in US vehicle emission standards. The net result is that they are facing bankruptcy while Toyota and Honda now lead the US car market. If the greenhouse mafia continue to get its way, the country will be condemned to penury for decades to come.
Ian Dunlop chaired the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998 - 2000, which developed the first Australian emissions trading concepts.
Friday 6/3/2009 Page: 15
AS DEBATE on emissions trading demonstrates, an enormous gulf still separates rhetoric from action on global warming; there is a macabre irony in government, opposition, industry groups and economists all being hoist with the petard of their own inconsistent policies.
Emissions trading is one essential building block of a national emissions reduction strategy if the transition to a lowcarbon economy is to be achieved. There is nothing wrong with the framework proposed in the Federal Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS); it is essentially similar to various proposals under development since 1998. Where it falls down is that its key parameters are inconsistent with the task that, in theory, it is designed to undertake.
It is impossible to design a sensible emissions reduction strategy, and an emissions trading scheme (ETS), without first deciding on the targets to be achieved. The Government's stated objective is for strong action, but the targets, compensation and escape clauses in the CPRS imply exactly the opposite. Hence the avalanche of criticism.
Richard Denniss argues that individual incentives to reduce emissions is negated by the CPRS cap. John Humphreys and others maintain a carbon tax is preferable to emissions trading.
Geoff Carmody argues for a consumption, rather than a production-based, ETS. Most industry lobby groups want the whole process delayed until their members have weathered the financial crisis. The Greenhouse Mafia no doubt see a splendid opportunity to prevent any action at all for another decade.
The fatal flaw in the debate is that current mindsets and policy proposals are based on scientific information that is at least five years out of date. The latest information indicates that we now min a rapidly increasing risk of sudden and total failure of some part of the climatic system, from which recovery may be impossible.
Sensible risk management in this context requires emission reduction targets to be based on the latest, considered science, not on a political view of the art-of-the-possible. The target for stabilisation of atmospheric carbon to avoid catastrophic consequences and maintain a safe climate is now probably a concentration of less than 300 ppm carbon dioxide, not the outdated 450-550 ppm carbon dioxide in current proposals.
This means emission reductions by Australia must be in the range of 45 to 50% by 2020 and almost complete decarbonisation by 2050, rather than the 5 to 15% by 2020 and 60% by 2050 currently proposed.
Many will dismiss these targets as unattainable given that current concentrations are 385 ppm carbon dioxide; it will require not only the rapid curtailment of emissions, but the reabsorption of some carbon already in the atmosphere. We have the technology to achieve this and when real emergencies loons, as at present, then remarkable change is possible.
In this context, emissions trading alone is not enough. It must be complemented with regulatory initiatives and other incentives to accelerate energy efficiency, conservation and alternative energy supply, improve building codes, vehicle and aviation emission standards, personal carbon trading opportunities and carbon sequestration. This involves setting the right framework for rapid change. Compensation must be minimised - public funding should encourage a viable future, not prop up an unsustainable past, particularly when funding is going to be in short supply.
Looked at in the light of strong targets, the current bones of contention fall away. We will need every possible contribution to reduce emissions, with individual efforts encouraged by regulatory and personal trading initiatives. Carbon taxes make no sense as they do not deliver guaranteed emission reductions, the tax quantum required would have to be far higher than politically and commercially tenable, and the cost of meeting 11 targets would be higher than under an ETS.
As the world begins to understand the latest science, rapid global action is now probable, which takes away any justification for compensation to trade exposed industries. The world will be crying out for low carbon products, which will be a source of competitive advantage for those prepared to take up the challenge. There has never been any justification for compensation to domestic high emitters. Thus much of the argument for our consumption-based ETS falls away.
The current mantra is "the preservation of jobs" but this is a fallacy - at best it can only have a marginal impact on the devastation being wrought by the financial crisis. The real focus must be the creation of jobs in the new industries on which our low carbon future must be based, rather than the problems and costs of moving away from the old.
This is the right time to make the transition and it can be achieved at far less cost than the horror stories propagated by the fossil fuel lobby, in many cases with a net economic benefit. Employment is likely to rise because these new industries are far more labour intensive than the industry they replace.
A cautionary tale from the US car industry: GM and Ford lobbied very successfully in the late 1990s to prevent improvements in US vehicle emission standards. The net result is that they are facing bankruptcy while Toyota and Honda now lead the US car market. If the greenhouse mafia continue to get its way, the country will be condemned to penury for decades to come.
Ian Dunlop chaired the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998 - 2000, which developed the first Australian emissions trading concepts.
Petratherm will chase $100m hot rocks grant
Adelaide Advertiser
Friday 6/3/2009 Page: 70
SA GEOTHERMAL explorer Petratherm will apply for a Federal Government grant of up to $100 million to set up a 30 MW demonstration project at its Paralana joint venture project. On behalf of partners TRUEnergy and Beach Petroleum, it has registered interest for a share of the $435 million Renewable Energy Demonstration Program.
The project's financially strong partners, potential to provide large-scale base load power, technical strengths and strong management capability would make a "compelling and competitive application", managing director Terry Kallis said. The REDP program is designed to accelerate commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy technologies for power generation across Australia. Petratherm shares closed 2c higher at 32c last night, while Beach Petroleum closed 0.5c higher at 78.5c.
Friday 6/3/2009 Page: 70
SA GEOTHERMAL explorer Petratherm will apply for a Federal Government grant of up to $100 million to set up a 30 MW demonstration project at its Paralana joint venture project. On behalf of partners TRUEnergy and Beach Petroleum, it has registered interest for a share of the $435 million Renewable Energy Demonstration Program.
The project's financially strong partners, potential to provide large-scale base load power, technical strengths and strong management capability would make a "compelling and competitive application", managing director Terry Kallis said. The REDP program is designed to accelerate commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy technologies for power generation across Australia. Petratherm shares closed 2c higher at 32c last night, while Beach Petroleum closed 0.5c higher at 78.5c.
Monday, 9 March 2009
$1 to pay for green power already in use
Northern Territory News
Thursday 5/3/2009 Page: 3
TERRITORY electricity users who sign up for the new Green Power scheme will not get any more power from renewable sources than they did beforehand. The Government and Power and Water have announced people will soon be able to pay an extra $1 per week for renewable energy. Essential Services Minister Rob Knight said it was a "fantastic opportunity" to help the environment. "Territorians can opt to buy some or all of their electricity from renewable energy sources for as little as $1 a week." he said.
But anyone who signs up will get the same power from the grid as they did last year - coming from the same sources as everyone who does not sign up. Power and Water general manager of retail Jim Bamber yesterday said this would be generated from a combination of gas, diesel generators and renewable energy from the Shoal Bay biomass generator. He said no one would be able to get all their power from renewable energy sources.
"The whole green power scheme is a voluntary scheme," he said. "But we've got to start somewhere." PWC figures show at peak periods 30% of Darwin's electricity comes from diesel generators at Channel Island power station. In cooler periods - during the monsoon - this dropped down to 15 % . Mr Bamber said the biomass power generator at Shoal Bay has been adding 9000 MW hours of power per year into the Darwin-Katherine grid for several years.
The biomass generator could provide 13,000 homes with 10% of their power. Mr Bamber said the extra $1 per week from customers was a way people could show their support for renewable energy and drive further Territory investment. Environment Centre co-ordinator Stuart Blanch said the NT had nowhere near the amount of green power production capacity to meet demand if users took up the option en masse.
Thursday 5/3/2009 Page: 3
TERRITORY electricity users who sign up for the new Green Power scheme will not get any more power from renewable sources than they did beforehand. The Government and Power and Water have announced people will soon be able to pay an extra $1 per week for renewable energy. Essential Services Minister Rob Knight said it was a "fantastic opportunity" to help the environment. "Territorians can opt to buy some or all of their electricity from renewable energy sources for as little as $1 a week." he said.
But anyone who signs up will get the same power from the grid as they did last year - coming from the same sources as everyone who does not sign up. Power and Water general manager of retail Jim Bamber yesterday said this would be generated from a combination of gas, diesel generators and renewable energy from the Shoal Bay biomass generator. He said no one would be able to get all their power from renewable energy sources.
"The whole green power scheme is a voluntary scheme," he said. "But we've got to start somewhere." PWC figures show at peak periods 30% of Darwin's electricity comes from diesel generators at Channel Island power station. In cooler periods - during the monsoon - this dropped down to 15 % . Mr Bamber said the biomass power generator at Shoal Bay has been adding 9000 MW hours of power per year into the Darwin-Katherine grid for several years.
The biomass generator could provide 13,000 homes with 10% of their power. Mr Bamber said the extra $1 per week from customers was a way people could show their support for renewable energy and drive further Territory investment. Environment Centre co-ordinator Stuart Blanch said the NT had nowhere near the amount of green power production capacity to meet demand if users took up the option en masse.
Fossil fuel use will lead to 'climate storm'
Adelaide Advertiser
Thursday 5/3/2009 Page: 19
UNTIL now, most discussion of climate change has been about what scientific evidence shows is likely to happen between now and 2100. However, scientific research shows that the carbon dioxide gas released from burning fossil fuels lasts in the atmosphere much longer than mere decades. David Archer, a leading climate researcher who teaches at the University of Chicago, has written a new book that looks at carbon dioxide's "long tail" and what it means for changes on Earth in the future.
If the world continues its heavy use of coal over the next couple of hundred years until it is essentially used up, it will take several centuries more for the oceans to absorb about three-quarters of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. In those centuries, there would be a "climate storm" that Archer says would be significantly worse than the climate forecast from now to 2100.
The remaining carbon dioxide - the long tail - would stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, leaving a warmer climate. About 10% of it would still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years, Mr Archer writes in The Long Thaw. How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate. "Ultimately, the amount of fossil fuel available could be enough to raise the atmospheric CO2, concentration higher than it has been in millions of years," Mr Archer writes.
Because of the long life of CO2, from fossil fuels, the climate impacts would last for many thousands of years. Ice sheets would melt, raising seas high enough to swamp 10% or more of the world's agricultural land.
Other climate impacts could include uncomfortable heat and drier continental interiors, Mr Archer writes. "In the long run, it could be a steep price to pay for a century or so of fossil fuel energy." Mr Archer studies the carbon cycle of Earth as it interacts with global climate. His slim book is a clear explanation of carbon dioxide and climate change for non-scientists. It also explains how the climate changed in the distant past and looks ahead to the deep future.
His work has been a part of what John Holdren, whom President Barack Obama named as his science adviser, has called the "tremendous effort" among scientists to reach a "centre of gravity" in the understanding of climate change. The results of this work are available in the reports of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The conclusion, as Mr Holdren summed up at his confirmation hearing recently: "Climate change is real, it's accelerating, it is caused in substantial part by human activity, it is dangerous and it is getting more so." Like Mr Holdren and other climate experts, Mr Archer concludes that there's still time to cut fossil fuel emissions enough to avoid disaster.
"The question may come down to ethics, rather than economics," he writes, much as the issue of slavery did more than a century ago. "Ultimately it didn't matter whether it was economically beneficial or costly to give up. It was simply wrong."
Thursday 5/3/2009 Page: 19
UNTIL now, most discussion of climate change has been about what scientific evidence shows is likely to happen between now and 2100. However, scientific research shows that the carbon dioxide gas released from burning fossil fuels lasts in the atmosphere much longer than mere decades. David Archer, a leading climate researcher who teaches at the University of Chicago, has written a new book that looks at carbon dioxide's "long tail" and what it means for changes on Earth in the future.
If the world continues its heavy use of coal over the next couple of hundred years until it is essentially used up, it will take several centuries more for the oceans to absorb about three-quarters of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. In those centuries, there would be a "climate storm" that Archer says would be significantly worse than the climate forecast from now to 2100.
The remaining carbon dioxide - the long tail - would stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, leaving a warmer climate. About 10% of it would still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years, Mr Archer writes in The Long Thaw. How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate. "Ultimately, the amount of fossil fuel available could be enough to raise the atmospheric CO2, concentration higher than it has been in millions of years," Mr Archer writes.
Because of the long life of CO2, from fossil fuels, the climate impacts would last for many thousands of years. Ice sheets would melt, raising seas high enough to swamp 10% or more of the world's agricultural land.
Other climate impacts could include uncomfortable heat and drier continental interiors, Mr Archer writes. "In the long run, it could be a steep price to pay for a century or so of fossil fuel energy." Mr Archer studies the carbon cycle of Earth as it interacts with global climate. His slim book is a clear explanation of carbon dioxide and climate change for non-scientists. It also explains how the climate changed in the distant past and looks ahead to the deep future.
His work has been a part of what John Holdren, whom President Barack Obama named as his science adviser, has called the "tremendous effort" among scientists to reach a "centre of gravity" in the understanding of climate change. The results of this work are available in the reports of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The conclusion, as Mr Holdren summed up at his confirmation hearing recently: "Climate change is real, it's accelerating, it is caused in substantial part by human activity, it is dangerous and it is getting more so." Like Mr Holdren and other climate experts, Mr Archer concludes that there's still time to cut fossil fuel emissions enough to avoid disaster.
"The question may come down to ethics, rather than economics," he writes, much as the issue of slavery did more than a century ago. "Ultimately it didn't matter whether it was economically beneficial or costly to give up. It was simply wrong."
Santos shelves $700m carbon carbon rescue
Adelaide Advertiser
Thursday 5/3/2009 Page: 3
Santos' Moomba project remains a future commercial opportunity.
OIL and gas giant Santos has effectively shelved a groundbreaking project to store huge quantities of carbon dioxide underground in South Australia's Outback. The company said yesterday it had put its Moomba carbon storage project "under review". The move is a blow to environmental hopes carbon sequestration would provide a quick avenue to make major cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
Using depleted gas fields at Moomba, Santos had planned to store 20 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide for 50 years - the equivalent of taking five million cars, or one third of the national fleet, off the roads. It also dashes hopes of job creation on the project, which was costed at more than $700 million for its initial phase. Santos said it had not abandoned the scheme but it was "not a high priority".
Two factors were weighing against it. Firstly, it relied on a high oil price because the concept involved an expensive system of pumping carbon dioxide underground to put remnant oil and gas under pressure for extraction. Secondly, Santos expects only a "modest" price for carbon permits under the Federal Government's pollution reduction scheme. "It relies on a certain oil price and a certain carbon price to make it a viable project," a Santos spokesman said. "We don't have those things at the moment." The Moomba project would use carbon gases captured from coal-fired power stations in the eastern states.
Santos said retrofitting those power stations to burn gas would provide 80% of the benefits of carbon capture but at known costs and without having to rely on experimental technology. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd visited Moomba last September to discuss the project and Santos said it had held encouraging talks with ministers. It was yet to make a formal application for federal funding but consistently has said the project would not be viable without at least $250 million in aid. The project was actively backed by the SA Government.
Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway said he was "disappointed" but accepted that "deferral of future investment in this multimillion-dollar project reflects the challenges of economic conditions". A spokesman for federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said potential carbon storage sites were still being mapped nationwide. "Santos' Moomba project remains a future commercial opportunity for the company," the spokesman said. Santos said it remained committed to the Cooper Basin which still had a long life.
Thursday 5/3/2009 Page: 3
Santos' Moomba project remains a future commercial opportunity.
OIL and gas giant Santos has effectively shelved a groundbreaking project to store huge quantities of carbon dioxide underground in South Australia's Outback. The company said yesterday it had put its Moomba carbon storage project "under review". The move is a blow to environmental hopes carbon sequestration would provide a quick avenue to make major cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
Using depleted gas fields at Moomba, Santos had planned to store 20 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide for 50 years - the equivalent of taking five million cars, or one third of the national fleet, off the roads. It also dashes hopes of job creation on the project, which was costed at more than $700 million for its initial phase. Santos said it had not abandoned the scheme but it was "not a high priority".
Two factors were weighing against it. Firstly, it relied on a high oil price because the concept involved an expensive system of pumping carbon dioxide underground to put remnant oil and gas under pressure for extraction. Secondly, Santos expects only a "modest" price for carbon permits under the Federal Government's pollution reduction scheme. "It relies on a certain oil price and a certain carbon price to make it a viable project," a Santos spokesman said. "We don't have those things at the moment." The Moomba project would use carbon gases captured from coal-fired power stations in the eastern states.
Santos said retrofitting those power stations to burn gas would provide 80% of the benefits of carbon capture but at known costs and without having to rely on experimental technology. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd visited Moomba last September to discuss the project and Santos said it had held encouraging talks with ministers. It was yet to make a formal application for federal funding but consistently has said the project would not be viable without at least $250 million in aid. The project was actively backed by the SA Government.
Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway said he was "disappointed" but accepted that "deferral of future investment in this multimillion-dollar project reflects the challenges of economic conditions". A spokesman for federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said potential carbon storage sites were still being mapped nationwide. "Santos' Moomba project remains a future commercial opportunity for the company," the spokesman said. Santos said it remained committed to the Cooper Basin which still had a long life.
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Home buyers hit for 51000 in environmental pitch - Cost of going green
Courier Mail
Tuesday 3/3/2009 Page: 11
NEW home owners will pay at least $1000 more for their houses from next year, under a Labor plan to make buildings more energy efficient and create green jobs. Queensland would become the first state to force new homes and those undergoing major renovations to meet six-star energy efficiency ratings by the end of 2010, if Labor is reelected.
All new units would have to meet five-star standards and office buildings install individual electricity meters for tenants in a bid to encourage energy savings and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Unveiling a wide-ranging green policy in Brisbane yesterday, Premier Anna Bligh said the regulations would add less than $1000 to the average cost of a new house, but the building industry described the figure as "optimistic". "On average there will be a small upfront cost in the construction of new homes, we anticipate that will be under $1000," Ms Bligh said.
"That of course is then easily paid off in reductions in electricity bills in the early part of the life of the home." In another green policy, Ms Bligh also revealed Labor would set up a "Green Door" into government giving ministers the power to fast-track ecofriendly developments with five or six-star energy ratings to boost green jobs.
Developers and body corporates would be banned from preventing owners from installing energy-efficient appliances such as solar hot water systems and new large commercial properties would have to have facilities for cyclists. Labor would also offer $500,000 to subsidise 3000 training places to boost environmentally friendly skills in the building industry.
Housing Industry Association executive director Warwick Temby said the group was concerned about the cost of some of the measures. He also called on Labor to overhaul the ratings system, saying it had been developed for Sydney and Melbourne and did not suit Brisbane's climate. It was "more expensive and in some cases just impossible" for owners to meet requirements, he said.
Under existing laws, new homes in Queensland must meet five-star energy standards and increasing it to six stars out of a maximum of 10 for the 33,000 new homes built each year could require them to have additional measures such as outdoor living areas or energy efficient appliances. Greens MP Ronan Lee yesterday accused the Government of stealing policies but indicated it may still not be enough to win preference deals.
"This Labor Government has a very poor record of delivering on policy commitments ... particularly on environmental issues," he said. LNP sustainability spokesman David Gibson said Ms Bligh was desperately chasing Greens preferences. "It's clear the only job she is concerned about saving is her own," he said.
Tuesday 3/3/2009 Page: 11
NEW home owners will pay at least $1000 more for their houses from next year, under a Labor plan to make buildings more energy efficient and create green jobs. Queensland would become the first state to force new homes and those undergoing major renovations to meet six-star energy efficiency ratings by the end of 2010, if Labor is reelected.All new units would have to meet five-star standards and office buildings install individual electricity meters for tenants in a bid to encourage energy savings and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Unveiling a wide-ranging green policy in Brisbane yesterday, Premier Anna Bligh said the regulations would add less than $1000 to the average cost of a new house, but the building industry described the figure as "optimistic". "On average there will be a small upfront cost in the construction of new homes, we anticipate that will be under $1000," Ms Bligh said.
"That of course is then easily paid off in reductions in electricity bills in the early part of the life of the home." In another green policy, Ms Bligh also revealed Labor would set up a "Green Door" into government giving ministers the power to fast-track ecofriendly developments with five or six-star energy ratings to boost green jobs.
Developers and body corporates would be banned from preventing owners from installing energy-efficient appliances such as solar hot water systems and new large commercial properties would have to have facilities for cyclists. Labor would also offer $500,000 to subsidise 3000 training places to boost environmentally friendly skills in the building industry.
Housing Industry Association executive director Warwick Temby said the group was concerned about the cost of some of the measures. He also called on Labor to overhaul the ratings system, saying it had been developed for Sydney and Melbourne and did not suit Brisbane's climate. It was "more expensive and in some cases just impossible" for owners to meet requirements, he said.
Under existing laws, new homes in Queensland must meet five-star energy standards and increasing it to six stars out of a maximum of 10 for the 33,000 new homes built each year could require them to have additional measures such as outdoor living areas or energy efficient appliances. Greens MP Ronan Lee yesterday accused the Government of stealing policies but indicated it may still not be enough to win preference deals.
"This Labor Government has a very poor record of delivering on policy commitments ... particularly on environmental issues," he said. LNP sustainability spokesman David Gibson said Ms Bligh was desperately chasing Greens preferences. "It's clear the only job she is concerned about saving is her own," he said.
Green power for extra $1 a week
Northern Territory News
Wednesday 4/3/2009 Page: 9
THE Territory Government yesterday launched the "green power" initiative - which gives Territorians the option of paying more on their electricity bill to subsidise the Government's use of renewable energy. Essential Services Minister Rob Knight said he expected Territorians would be interested in paying the $1 a week extra for green power. "This is a way of them being able to do their bit. Everyone needs to do their bit." he said. Mr Knight said running a household contributes to about 50% of greenhouse gas emissions across the nation each year.
Wednesday 4/3/2009 Page: 9
THE Territory Government yesterday launched the "green power" initiative - which gives Territorians the option of paying more on their electricity bill to subsidise the Government's use of renewable energy. Essential Services Minister Rob Knight said he expected Territorians would be interested in paying the $1 a week extra for green power. "This is a way of them being able to do their bit. Everyone needs to do their bit." he said. Mr Knight said running a household contributes to about 50% of greenhouse gas emissions across the nation each year.
Carbon capture on hold
Australian
Wednesday 4/3/2009 Page: 20
SANTOS, Australia's third biggest oil and gas producer, has suspended its Moomba carbon storage project a victim of weak government support and plunging prices for permits to release greenhouse gases. Credit prices to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere were too low to underpin the investment planned for central Australia's Cooper Basin, Santos spokesman Matthew Doman said yesterday.
Adelaide-based Santos estimated the project would have cost more than $700 million. Governments and energy companies worldwide are revising plans to build underground storage for carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, because stalled economies and lower permit prices are making them less attractive. "It just doesn't make sense for them to go ahead with these prices," said Gary Cox, vice president of commodities in Australia for Newedge Australia. Mr Cox said his last trade of domestic allowances, covering 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide for delivery in 2011, was at $21/t, compared with prices as high as $24.75 last year.
European Union emission permits for delivery in December have dropped about two-thirds from the 30.53/t price reached on July 1 last year. Carbon capture projects became viable when industrial pollution cost about $US50 (40) a tonne, more than three times the current over-the-counter price in Australia, said London School of Economics professor Nicholas Stern.
Santos had been talking to the federal and state governments about the Moomba project "for some time, and whilst we have received strong interest, we haven't had strong or direct support for it", Mr Doman said. A low carbon price makes it more profitable for coal-fired power plants to simply buy permits to cover future emissions rather than invest in projects to pump CO2 underground.
Some energy companies, including StatoilHydro, Norway's largest oil and gas company, are continuing to pursue carbon capture projects. Santos said that in June 2007 it had proposed to the federal Government to pump CO2 into its depleted fields at the Moomba site, provided that pipelines could be built to coal-fired power plants in the east that needed to dispose of the waste gas to comply with emissions targets. Santos and General Electric cancelled a low-emissions venture in Queensland in 2007. In May, BP and Rio Tinto dropped a plan to build a carbon capture power plant in WA.
Wednesday 4/3/2009 Page: 20
SANTOS, Australia's third biggest oil and gas producer, has suspended its Moomba carbon storage project a victim of weak government support and plunging prices for permits to release greenhouse gases. Credit prices to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere were too low to underpin the investment planned for central Australia's Cooper Basin, Santos spokesman Matthew Doman said yesterday.
Adelaide-based Santos estimated the project would have cost more than $700 million. Governments and energy companies worldwide are revising plans to build underground storage for carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, because stalled economies and lower permit prices are making them less attractive. "It just doesn't make sense for them to go ahead with these prices," said Gary Cox, vice president of commodities in Australia for Newedge Australia. Mr Cox said his last trade of domestic allowances, covering 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide for delivery in 2011, was at $21/t, compared with prices as high as $24.75 last year.
European Union emission permits for delivery in December have dropped about two-thirds from the 30.53/t price reached on July 1 last year. Carbon capture projects became viable when industrial pollution cost about $US50 (40) a tonne, more than three times the current over-the-counter price in Australia, said London School of Economics professor Nicholas Stern.
Santos had been talking to the federal and state governments about the Moomba project "for some time, and whilst we have received strong interest, we haven't had strong or direct support for it", Mr Doman said. A low carbon price makes it more profitable for coal-fired power plants to simply buy permits to cover future emissions rather than invest in projects to pump CO2 underground.
Some energy companies, including StatoilHydro, Norway's largest oil and gas company, are continuing to pursue carbon capture projects. Santos said that in June 2007 it had proposed to the federal Government to pump CO2 into its depleted fields at the Moomba site, provided that pipelines could be built to coal-fired power plants in the east that needed to dispose of the waste gas to comply with emissions targets. Santos and General Electric cancelled a low-emissions venture in Queensland in 2007. In May, BP and Rio Tinto dropped a plan to build a carbon capture power plant in WA.
Solar credits a con, say greens - Don't install panels, homes warned
Age
Wednesday 4/3/2009 Page: 8
CLEAN energy advocates are advising people to reconsider installing solar energy, warning it may perversely hurt the renewable energy industry. They say a proposed "solar credit scheme" will artificially inflate renewable energy figures, potentially limiting investment in large-scale projects. From mid-year, households installing solar panels will receive "phantom" credits worth five times the amount of energy generated at home.
If cashed in, the phantom certificates - those issued for energy that has not been generated - will be counted towards the Federal Government's renewable energy target of 20% of power coming from green sources by 2020. Moreland Energy Foundation energy strategy manager Brad Shone said it would be worse if people cashed in certificates issued for solar panels than if they did nothing.
"People installing solar are actually reducing the amount of renewable energy installed in Australia," he said. "We would have to recommend that people not claim the rebate available to them for solar, or just not install solar at all. And that is a horrible situation for an organisation like ours to be in." Alternative Technology Association energy advocate Damien Moyse said based on today's figures about 15% of certificates issued for renewable power generation would effectively be fake.
The policy experts also criticised the Government's decision to include solar hot water systems - which reduce energy consumption, but do not generate power - towards the renewable target. About one in five renewable energy certificates issued in 2007 were for solar water heaters. The solar credit scheme was a late addition to the renewable target proposal. It was announced in December as a cheaper replacement for the Government's $8000 solar panel rebate.
The number of certificates issued per kW-hour generated at home will be gradually reduced, ending in 2015. But a Moreland Energy Foundation analysis found the phantom certificates would remain in the system. It found that by 2020 the 20% target would in real terms equate to only 17% of the nation's energy coming from green sources.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong's spokeswoman, Ilsa Colson, said Government modelling showed otherwise - that it would reach the 20% target by 2020. And she said the inclusion of solar water heaters was justified as they displaced gas and electrical heating that uses fossil fuels.
Wednesday 4/3/2009 Page: 8
CLEAN energy advocates are advising people to reconsider installing solar energy, warning it may perversely hurt the renewable energy industry. They say a proposed "solar credit scheme" will artificially inflate renewable energy figures, potentially limiting investment in large-scale projects. From mid-year, households installing solar panels will receive "phantom" credits worth five times the amount of energy generated at home.
If cashed in, the phantom certificates - those issued for energy that has not been generated - will be counted towards the Federal Government's renewable energy target of 20% of power coming from green sources by 2020. Moreland Energy Foundation energy strategy manager Brad Shone said it would be worse if people cashed in certificates issued for solar panels than if they did nothing.
"People installing solar are actually reducing the amount of renewable energy installed in Australia," he said. "We would have to recommend that people not claim the rebate available to them for solar, or just not install solar at all. And that is a horrible situation for an organisation like ours to be in." Alternative Technology Association energy advocate Damien Moyse said based on today's figures about 15% of certificates issued for renewable power generation would effectively be fake.
The policy experts also criticised the Government's decision to include solar hot water systems - which reduce energy consumption, but do not generate power - towards the renewable target. About one in five renewable energy certificates issued in 2007 were for solar water heaters. The solar credit scheme was a late addition to the renewable target proposal. It was announced in December as a cheaper replacement for the Government's $8000 solar panel rebate.
The number of certificates issued per kW-hour generated at home will be gradually reduced, ending in 2015. But a Moreland Energy Foundation analysis found the phantom certificates would remain in the system. It found that by 2020 the 20% target would in real terms equate to only 17% of the nation's energy coming from green sources.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong's spokeswoman, Ilsa Colson, said Government modelling showed otherwise - that it would reach the 20% target by 2020. And she said the inclusion of solar water heaters was justified as they displaced gas and electrical heating that uses fossil fuels.
Garnaut dismisses calls for delay
Age
Wednesday 4/3/2009 Page: 5
THE Federal Government's former adviser on climate change, Professor Ross Garnaut, has rejected calls from business groups to delay the start of an emissions trading scheme. That is despite Professor Garnaut still having reservations about the design of the government's carbon cap-and-trade program, including its 2020 emissions reduction target of 15% on 2000 levels if there is a global agreement. "I think there are lots of advantages of bedding our system down (by 2010) so that business is comfortable with it," Professor Garnaut said.
"Then business will know how it works ahead of a time when it starts having to carry a heavier load after 2012, when we must play our full part in what we hope will be a strong global agreement." Last week the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry called on the government to delay the scheme until 2012 to offset the effects of the global financial crisis.
Professor Garnaut was speaking at an Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics conference in Canberra yesterday discussing the issues surrounding the agriculture sector's inclusion in an emissions trading scheme, which he said should occur "as soon as possible." Currently a decision on agriculture's inclusion in the scheme has been deferred by the Federal Government until 2013, for a possible full inclusion in 2015.
But federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said there were still a number of issues relating to agriculture's inclusion, especially monitoring, and the Government had not yet committed to a decision either way. Mr Burke extended one conciliatory offer to the sector yesterday, pledging $32 million in research money for biochar production, a program strongly supported by the Federal Opposition.
Wednesday 4/3/2009 Page: 5
THE Federal Government's former adviser on climate change, Professor Ross Garnaut, has rejected calls from business groups to delay the start of an emissions trading scheme. That is despite Professor Garnaut still having reservations about the design of the government's carbon cap-and-trade program, including its 2020 emissions reduction target of 15% on 2000 levels if there is a global agreement. "I think there are lots of advantages of bedding our system down (by 2010) so that business is comfortable with it," Professor Garnaut said.
"Then business will know how it works ahead of a time when it starts having to carry a heavier load after 2012, when we must play our full part in what we hope will be a strong global agreement." Last week the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry called on the government to delay the scheme until 2012 to offset the effects of the global financial crisis.
Professor Garnaut was speaking at an Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics conference in Canberra yesterday discussing the issues surrounding the agriculture sector's inclusion in an emissions trading scheme, which he said should occur "as soon as possible." Currently a decision on agriculture's inclusion in the scheme has been deferred by the Federal Government until 2013, for a possible full inclusion in 2015.
But federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said there were still a number of issues relating to agriculture's inclusion, especially monitoring, and the Government had not yet committed to a decision either way. Mr Burke extended one conciliatory offer to the sector yesterday, pledging $32 million in research money for biochar production, a program strongly supported by the Federal Opposition.
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
Soil carbon under study
Summaries - Australian Financial Review
Tuesday 3/3/2009 Page: 5
New research funded by the Federal Government will look at the role soil plays in storing and releasing greenhouses gases, as it seeks ways to involve farmers in climate change policy. Agriculture Minister Tony Burke announces today a $20 million study into how to measure and analyse soil carbon and a $12 million study on nitrous oxide emissions from soils.
The research would be revealed at the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics annual outlook conference. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told the same conference last year the government would investigate soil carbon. Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull's response to climate change relies on the role soil and forest play in sequestering carbon. Agriculture accounts for about 16% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, while farm emissions are not included in the government's emissions trading scheme that starts in 2010.
Tuesday 3/3/2009 Page: 5
New research funded by the Federal Government will look at the role soil plays in storing and releasing greenhouses gases, as it seeks ways to involve farmers in climate change policy. Agriculture Minister Tony Burke announces today a $20 million study into how to measure and analyse soil carbon and a $12 million study on nitrous oxide emissions from soils.
The research would be revealed at the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics annual outlook conference. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told the same conference last year the government would investigate soil carbon. Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull's response to climate change relies on the role soil and forest play in sequestering carbon. Agriculture accounts for about 16% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, while farm emissions are not included in the government's emissions trading scheme that starts in 2010.
US grapples with climate policy
Canberra Times
Saturday 28/2/2009 Page: 20
A mandatory cap on the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, which President Obama embraced this week as central to his domestic agenda, would be designed to generate badly needed revenue for the Government while addressing the world's most pressing environmental issue.
But only hours after his speech to Congress on Wednesday, the proposal triggered a heated exchange among senators on a key committee, underscoring that the effort to come up with a system that limits emissions, puts a price on carbon and allows industries to trade pollution allowances will be difficult to sell on Capitol Hill, especially in the current economic crisis.
A federal cap-and-trade program, which many scientific and policy experts see as key to curbing dangerous levels of global warming, would create a new commodity in the form of the allowances permitting industries to discharge specified amounts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A market for them that will be worth tens or perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars, along with a complex new regulatory system.
The political battle on Capitol Hill is largely divided along regional rather than party lines. While lawmakers from coastal states see a carbon cap as a critical goal whose public and long-term economic benefits will outweigh its costs, most Republicans and some Democrats from the middle of the country fear it will hurt their states' economies, dependent as they are on fossil fuels and manufacturing.
At a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on climate science Wednesday, Republican senator Christopher Bond, of Missouri, called any cap-and-trade system "a huge unfair tax" that "would devastate the Sinosteel-Midwest". Republican senator John Barrasso, of Wyoming, referred to it as "a trillion dollar climate bail-out". But the panel's chair, Democratic senator Barbara Boxer, of California, countered that a cap-and-trade system "isn't a bail-out. It's revenues coming into the Government".
"We think it will be a boon for our economy," she said. The extent to which states rely on coal-fired utilities, which produce roughly 40%of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, helps influence how their elected officials view the prospect of curbs on carbon. In Indiana, 94%of electric power comes from coal-fired plants, while in Florida - which relies more on nuclear plants that don't emit greenhouse gases - only 30%of electricity comes from coal.
In California and Rhode Island, only 1%of electricity comes from coal; in Vermont, none. Most analysts predict that over time, placing a price on carbon will spur technological innovation and ease American dependence on foreign oil, while probably driving tip energy prices in the short term. Although so far the mechanics of a cap-and-trade system have been debated mostly by business executives and a small but growing group of policy experts, the implications could be far-reaching. It would create a new commodity and a market to trade it worth tens of billions of dollars. It would create property rights where none exist today.
In a speech last week at Georgetown University, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, Dallas Burtraw said, "Emission allowances could be the greatest creation of property rights since the 19th century settlement of the West." The White House unveiled a budget yesterday that includes revenues from an emissions trading system as of 2012. In testimony to Congress in September, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and now Mr Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, estimated that revenues from a the cap-and-trade bill that died on the Senate floor last year would have generated $112 billion by 2012 and would have kept rising afterward.
By 2020, he estimated, that a cap-and - trade program might generate $50 billion to $300 billion a year. The executive director of the advocacy group Sierra Club, Carl Pope, said he had been surprised at the extent to which Mr Obama had made green energy a priority and had based his economic plan on the assumption that this sector would drive the nation's financial recovery.
Mr Pope said, "Obama's talking about this as the economic equivalent of war." The cost of carbon emissions and hence the revenue the Federal Government would receive from auctioning carbon allowances or permits remains highly uncertain. In Europe, which has a cap-and-trade system, the price of carbon has fluctuated roughly between 10 and 30 euro ($A20 to $60) a ton. With world economies in recession, European prices have slumped.
US experts have varying estimates for what the allowances might cost, all based on unknowable factors such as whether the cost of solar and wind energy will fall or whether industry will come up with an economic way to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions. Such advances might make it cheaper to cut emissions than to buy allowances.
John Rowe, the chief executive of Exelon, the nation's biggest nuclear energy producer, said one consultant estimated that carbon allowances would cost $US50 ($A77) a ton. "Personally I believe they will be closer to $70 or $100 a ton," he said. "There is no one solution and there are no cheap solutions" to climate change, Mr Rowe said. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, of New Mexico, favoured a ceiling on the price of carbon allowances, but his ceiling is well below what most energy experts believe is needed to generate the investment and innovation that would achieve big reductions in emissions.
Republican senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania - who co-sponsored the Democratic Senator Bingaman's Bill - and remains a key swing vote in the Senate, said at Wednesday's climate hearing that he saw global warming as "a central issue" but could not support a bill that was based on "speculative" technological advances. A broad alliance of business and environmental groups back a cap-and - trade program, though there are deep fissures about ]low it should be tailored. Many environmental groups and economists favour auctioning 100%of the carbon allowances, but many coal-intensive industries and utilities want to delay or phase in auctions.
A spokesman for Duke Energy, Tom Williams, said, "We do not support auction allowances in the early years at all, and certainly not for using the revenues in the general fund for purposes unrelated for climate change." Some lawmakers support returning mach of the revenue generated by carbon allowances back to taxpayers as either tax cuts or dividends, the way Alaska shares its oil revenues. That plan, however, would deprive the Federal Government of much of the money it hopes to capture through a cap-and-trade system.
Saturday 28/2/2009 Page: 20
A mandatory cap on the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, which President Obama embraced this week as central to his domestic agenda, would be designed to generate badly needed revenue for the Government while addressing the world's most pressing environmental issue.But only hours after his speech to Congress on Wednesday, the proposal triggered a heated exchange among senators on a key committee, underscoring that the effort to come up with a system that limits emissions, puts a price on carbon and allows industries to trade pollution allowances will be difficult to sell on Capitol Hill, especially in the current economic crisis.
A federal cap-and-trade program, which many scientific and policy experts see as key to curbing dangerous levels of global warming, would create a new commodity in the form of the allowances permitting industries to discharge specified amounts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A market for them that will be worth tens or perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars, along with a complex new regulatory system.
The political battle on Capitol Hill is largely divided along regional rather than party lines. While lawmakers from coastal states see a carbon cap as a critical goal whose public and long-term economic benefits will outweigh its costs, most Republicans and some Democrats from the middle of the country fear it will hurt their states' economies, dependent as they are on fossil fuels and manufacturing.
At a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on climate science Wednesday, Republican senator Christopher Bond, of Missouri, called any cap-and-trade system "a huge unfair tax" that "would devastate the Sinosteel-Midwest". Republican senator John Barrasso, of Wyoming, referred to it as "a trillion dollar climate bail-out". But the panel's chair, Democratic senator Barbara Boxer, of California, countered that a cap-and-trade system "isn't a bail-out. It's revenues coming into the Government".
"We think it will be a boon for our economy," she said. The extent to which states rely on coal-fired utilities, which produce roughly 40%of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, helps influence how their elected officials view the prospect of curbs on carbon. In Indiana, 94%of electric power comes from coal-fired plants, while in Florida - which relies more on nuclear plants that don't emit greenhouse gases - only 30%of electricity comes from coal.
In California and Rhode Island, only 1%of electricity comes from coal; in Vermont, none. Most analysts predict that over time, placing a price on carbon will spur technological innovation and ease American dependence on foreign oil, while probably driving tip energy prices in the short term. Although so far the mechanics of a cap-and-trade system have been debated mostly by business executives and a small but growing group of policy experts, the implications could be far-reaching. It would create a new commodity and a market to trade it worth tens of billions of dollars. It would create property rights where none exist today.
In a speech last week at Georgetown University, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, Dallas Burtraw said, "Emission allowances could be the greatest creation of property rights since the 19th century settlement of the West." The White House unveiled a budget yesterday that includes revenues from an emissions trading system as of 2012. In testimony to Congress in September, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and now Mr Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, estimated that revenues from a the cap-and-trade bill that died on the Senate floor last year would have generated $112 billion by 2012 and would have kept rising afterward.
By 2020, he estimated, that a cap-and - trade program might generate $50 billion to $300 billion a year. The executive director of the advocacy group Sierra Club, Carl Pope, said he had been surprised at the extent to which Mr Obama had made green energy a priority and had based his economic plan on the assumption that this sector would drive the nation's financial recovery.
Mr Pope said, "Obama's talking about this as the economic equivalent of war." The cost of carbon emissions and hence the revenue the Federal Government would receive from auctioning carbon allowances or permits remains highly uncertain. In Europe, which has a cap-and-trade system, the price of carbon has fluctuated roughly between 10 and 30 euro ($A20 to $60) a ton. With world economies in recession, European prices have slumped.
US experts have varying estimates for what the allowances might cost, all based on unknowable factors such as whether the cost of solar and wind energy will fall or whether industry will come up with an economic way to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions. Such advances might make it cheaper to cut emissions than to buy allowances.
John Rowe, the chief executive of Exelon, the nation's biggest nuclear energy producer, said one consultant estimated that carbon allowances would cost $US50 ($A77) a ton. "Personally I believe they will be closer to $70 or $100 a ton," he said. "There is no one solution and there are no cheap solutions" to climate change, Mr Rowe said. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, of New Mexico, favoured a ceiling on the price of carbon allowances, but his ceiling is well below what most energy experts believe is needed to generate the investment and innovation that would achieve big reductions in emissions.
Republican senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania - who co-sponsored the Democratic Senator Bingaman's Bill - and remains a key swing vote in the Senate, said at Wednesday's climate hearing that he saw global warming as "a central issue" but could not support a bill that was based on "speculative" technological advances. A broad alliance of business and environmental groups back a cap-and - trade program, though there are deep fissures about ]low it should be tailored. Many environmental groups and economists favour auctioning 100%of the carbon allowances, but many coal-intensive industries and utilities want to delay or phase in auctions.
A spokesman for Duke Energy, Tom Williams, said, "We do not support auction allowances in the early years at all, and certainly not for using the revenues in the general fund for purposes unrelated for climate change." Some lawmakers support returning mach of the revenue generated by carbon allowances back to taxpayers as either tax cuts or dividends, the way Alaska shares its oil revenues. That plan, however, would deprive the Federal Government of much of the money it hopes to capture through a cap-and-trade system.
Emissions plan may loll GreenPower
Sydney Morning Herald
Monday 2/3/2009 Page: 4
THE future of Australia's renewable energy program, GreenPower, is in doubt, after big energy companies warned it might not be viable under the Rudd Government's planned emissions trading scheme. The GreenPower program has been heavily promoted by state and federal governments and environment groups. Householders pay extra on their power bills, which is invested by energy companies in renewable sources like wind and hydro.
The head of the Energy Retailers Association of Australia, Cameron O'Reilly, has written to state energy ministers asking for their support to save the program, which has more than 800,000 customers nationally. A household's voluntary purchase of GreenPower would not technically be recognised under the Government's scheme as reducing national greenhouse gas emissions, according to the letter.
In the letter, obtained by the Herald, Mr O'Reilly warns ministers: "[Energy] retailers are likely to face a number of consequences if GreenPower ceases to be a viable proposition, the most obvious of these involves contacting each of the 800,000 GreenPower customers, explaining to them how the premise under which they had entered into their contract has changed and offering them the ability to transition to an alternative nonrenewable product".
The predicament has arisen because the GreenPower program, considered one of the most successful efforts by households to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, is voluntary. Under the Rudd Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme, energy companies and all big greenhouse polluters must, by law, obtain permits to emit greenhouse gases.
The Government is also introducing a renewable energy target aimed at providing 20%of the electricity supply from green sources by 2020. The scheme sets a target or limit on the greenhouse pollution for Australia of between 5% and 15% below 2000 levels. Mr O'Reilly told the Herald that energy companies were still hopeful GreenPower could be brought into the new scheme and counted towards cuts to the nation's emissions.
"There are a lot of people who have fully embraced the GreenPower policy. It is about taking additional action and it might be wise to give them that option, particularly if you look at the debate on the targets," Mr O'Reilly said. The voluntary program has no obvious way of fitting into the new system because energy retailers will not have a direct incentive to promote green power.
The Federal Government is aware of the problem and is trying to work out a way to incorporate GreenPower but has so far been unable to. Environment groups have criticised the Rudd Government's national targets as too low and there is growing criticism that household efforts to cut emissions will allow big polluting companies to make less effort to reduce their emissions. A spokeswoman for the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, said buying GreenPower "will continue to drive investment in renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar".
Monday 2/3/2009 Page: 4
THE future of Australia's renewable energy program, GreenPower, is in doubt, after big energy companies warned it might not be viable under the Rudd Government's planned emissions trading scheme. The GreenPower program has been heavily promoted by state and federal governments and environment groups. Householders pay extra on their power bills, which is invested by energy companies in renewable sources like wind and hydro.
The head of the Energy Retailers Association of Australia, Cameron O'Reilly, has written to state energy ministers asking for their support to save the program, which has more than 800,000 customers nationally. A household's voluntary purchase of GreenPower would not technically be recognised under the Government's scheme as reducing national greenhouse gas emissions, according to the letter.
In the letter, obtained by the Herald, Mr O'Reilly warns ministers: "[Energy] retailers are likely to face a number of consequences if GreenPower ceases to be a viable proposition, the most obvious of these involves contacting each of the 800,000 GreenPower customers, explaining to them how the premise under which they had entered into their contract has changed and offering them the ability to transition to an alternative nonrenewable product".
The predicament has arisen because the GreenPower program, considered one of the most successful efforts by households to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, is voluntary. Under the Rudd Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme, energy companies and all big greenhouse polluters must, by law, obtain permits to emit greenhouse gases.
The Government is also introducing a renewable energy target aimed at providing 20%of the electricity supply from green sources by 2020. The scheme sets a target or limit on the greenhouse pollution for Australia of between 5% and 15% below 2000 levels. Mr O'Reilly told the Herald that energy companies were still hopeful GreenPower could be brought into the new scheme and counted towards cuts to the nation's emissions.
"There are a lot of people who have fully embraced the GreenPower policy. It is about taking additional action and it might be wise to give them that option, particularly if you look at the debate on the targets," Mr O'Reilly said. The voluntary program has no obvious way of fitting into the new system because energy retailers will not have a direct incentive to promote green power.
The Federal Government is aware of the problem and is trying to work out a way to incorporate GreenPower but has so far been unable to. Environment groups have criticised the Rudd Government's national targets as too low and there is growing criticism that household efforts to cut emissions will allow big polluting companies to make less effort to reduce their emissions. A spokeswoman for the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, said buying GreenPower "will continue to drive investment in renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar".
Second chance at free carbon permits
Age
Saturday 28/2/2009 Page: 9
HEAVY carbon-emitting industries that miss out on government compensation will get a second chance at free carbon permits through a committee established by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong. The committee will be led by former Caltex chairman Dick Warburton and has been asked to review all industries not already qualified for free permits under the Government's proposed emissions trading scheme.
In advice released last week, the Government listed 33 industries that will qualify for free permits as "trade exposed". These industries included petrol refining, aluminium refining and methanol production. But Mr Warburton told The Age that industries that missed out would have a chance to have the decision reviewed by the expert panel to determine whether they had been treated fairly by the Department of Climate Change.
"We will be looking at the types of activities that have been assessed as being valid for some assistance," he said. "Some industries have already been proclaimed as valid within that, but the Government has properly covered all of the industries." The committee review conies after one of the Government's closest industry allies, the Australian Industry Group, changed its stance on the emissions trading scheme, calling for it to be delayed by two years to
2012.
The group did, however, retain support for the design of the scheme, but its call for a delay was backed yesterday by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Senator Wong rejected industry calls for a delay to the scheme, saying the Government had set its time line and would stick with what was outlined in its policy document last year. However, Ms Wong did announce a delay in the release of the draft legislation for the scheme from the scheduled "late February" to March 10.
Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull welcomed the calls by industry for a delay. "For the risk of a year or two of rushing into it, (Prime Minister Kevin Rudd) is putting our economy at very grave risk and no environmental gain," he said. The Opposition has yet to form an official position on emissions trading or the Government's scheme and is awaiting advice from economist David Pearce, whose report is expected to be handed to the Opposition within a fortnight.
Saturday 28/2/2009 Page: 9
HEAVY carbon-emitting industries that miss out on government compensation will get a second chance at free carbon permits through a committee established by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong. The committee will be led by former Caltex chairman Dick Warburton and has been asked to review all industries not already qualified for free permits under the Government's proposed emissions trading scheme.In advice released last week, the Government listed 33 industries that will qualify for free permits as "trade exposed". These industries included petrol refining, aluminium refining and methanol production. But Mr Warburton told The Age that industries that missed out would have a chance to have the decision reviewed by the expert panel to determine whether they had been treated fairly by the Department of Climate Change.
"We will be looking at the types of activities that have been assessed as being valid for some assistance," he said. "Some industries have already been proclaimed as valid within that, but the Government has properly covered all of the industries." The committee review conies after one of the Government's closest industry allies, the Australian Industry Group, changed its stance on the emissions trading scheme, calling for it to be delayed by two years to
2012.
The group did, however, retain support for the design of the scheme, but its call for a delay was backed yesterday by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Senator Wong rejected industry calls for a delay to the scheme, saying the Government had set its time line and would stick with what was outlined in its policy document last year. However, Ms Wong did announce a delay in the release of the draft legislation for the scheme from the scheduled "late February" to March 10.
Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull welcomed the calls by industry for a delay. "For the risk of a year or two of rushing into it, (Prime Minister Kevin Rudd) is putting our economy at very grave risk and no environmental gain," he said. The Opposition has yet to form an official position on emissions trading or the Government's scheme and is awaiting advice from economist David Pearce, whose report is expected to be handed to the Opposition within a fortnight.
Jump in GreenPower
Age
Monday 2/3/2009 Page: 6
GREENPOWER subscriptions jumped dramatically last year, with the number of Australian households paying extra to support renewable energy approaching 880,000.
The 26% rise comes as energy companies and environmentalists warn that the Federal Government's proposed emissions trading scheme could hit household subscriptions to green electricity. Lobby group GetUp! last week launched a campaign warning that, under the scheme, voluntary cuts in emissions would limit the reductions necessary by big industry.
Figures released yesterday showed Victoria had the most GreenPower subscriptions, with 330,000 households signed on - 37% of the national total. Price comparison service Switchwise said Origin Energy was the most successful GreenPower retailer.
Monday 2/3/2009 Page: 6
GREENPOWER subscriptions jumped dramatically last year, with the number of Australian households paying extra to support renewable energy approaching 880,000.
The 26% rise comes as energy companies and environmentalists warn that the Federal Government's proposed emissions trading scheme could hit household subscriptions to green electricity. Lobby group GetUp! last week launched a campaign warning that, under the scheme, voluntary cuts in emissions would limit the reductions necessary by big industry.
Figures released yesterday showed Victoria had the most GreenPower subscriptions, with 330,000 households signed on - 37% of the national total. Price comparison service Switchwise said Origin Energy was the most successful GreenPower retailer.
Green rubbish to cost
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday 1/3/2009 Page: 26
HOUSEHOLD waste collection will be revamped in Victoria under a radical rubbish plan that could increase the cost of taking out the trash. The Brumby Government will unveil a 20-year plan today focused on turning household waste into renewable energy and reusable products. Up to seven superwaste stations are likely to be built throughout Melbourne under the strategy to reduce the state's landfill.
Remarkably, the Government will also investigate building rubbish tips that can transform garbage into electricity. The Government will set a target of recovering 65% of municipal waste by 2014 in a bid to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The plan is expected to reduce emissions by up to 400,000 tonnes a year. However, experts predicted the cost of making Victoria's waste collection greener would lead to higher costs for consumers, but beneficial long-term results for the environment. The frequency of rubbish collections could be reduced.
The Government is also expected to investigate what bins are used to collect the waste and private companies are set to profit from charging people to take their trash, similar to the way in which people pay to dump their rubbish in landfills. Environment Minister Gavin Jennings said the plan "set a new direction for waste management in Melbourne", moving away from landfill and toward new technologies that make use of what Victorians throw away.
"Melburnians have been great recyclers, but we are going to need to more than double the amount of waste we recover, recycle and reprocess," he said. A Sydney rubbish tip, which takes 8% of the city's waste, already turns organic waste into electricity and sorts recyclables. Similar tips are expected to be built in Victoria soon, under private public partnerships. Greenhouse emissions rose by 1.3% in Victoria last year, according to a report released last month.
Sunday 1/3/2009 Page: 26
HOUSEHOLD waste collection will be revamped in Victoria under a radical rubbish plan that could increase the cost of taking out the trash. The Brumby Government will unveil a 20-year plan today focused on turning household waste into renewable energy and reusable products. Up to seven superwaste stations are likely to be built throughout Melbourne under the strategy to reduce the state's landfill.
Remarkably, the Government will also investigate building rubbish tips that can transform garbage into electricity. The Government will set a target of recovering 65% of municipal waste by 2014 in a bid to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The plan is expected to reduce emissions by up to 400,000 tonnes a year. However, experts predicted the cost of making Victoria's waste collection greener would lead to higher costs for consumers, but beneficial long-term results for the environment. The frequency of rubbish collections could be reduced.
The Government is also expected to investigate what bins are used to collect the waste and private companies are set to profit from charging people to take their trash, similar to the way in which people pay to dump their rubbish in landfills. Environment Minister Gavin Jennings said the plan "set a new direction for waste management in Melbourne", moving away from landfill and toward new technologies that make use of what Victorians throw away.
"Melburnians have been great recyclers, but we are going to need to more than double the amount of waste we recover, recycle and reprocess," he said. A Sydney rubbish tip, which takes 8% of the city's waste, already turns organic waste into electricity and sorts recyclables. Similar tips are expected to be built in Victoria soon, under private public partnerships. Greenhouse emissions rose by 1.3% in Victoria last year, according to a report released last month.
Kallis takes on energy role
Independent Weekly
Friday 27/2/2009 Page: 14
Petratherm managing director Terry Kallis has been appointed chairman of the Australian Geothermal Energy Association, the main national body representing the interests of the Australian geothermal energy industry. Mr Kallis takes over from Gerry Grove-White, managing director of GeoDynamics, who has held the position since the association was formed in 2007.
AGEA chief executive officer Susan Jeanes said Mr Kallis's experience and leadership would provide "a major boost to the association and assist AGEA to draw closer to our ultimate vision for geothermal energy, which is to provide the lowest-cost, emissions-free, renewable-base-load energy to Australian homes and businesses for centuries to come".
The association has 25 members, including major geothermal energy project developers, direct heat equipment suppliers, and service providers to the industry. Since 2007, its has provided input on policy reforms affecting Australia's geothermal energy industry, including the $50 million Geothermal Drilling Program and the $435 million Renewable Energy Demonstration Program.
AGEA also played a key role helping shape the Federal Government's Geothermal Energy Industry Development Framework, launched in December last year, as well as its carbon pollution reduction scheme and 2020 Renewable Energy Target.
Friday 27/2/2009 Page: 14
Petratherm managing director Terry Kallis has been appointed chairman of the Australian Geothermal Energy Association, the main national body representing the interests of the Australian geothermal energy industry. Mr Kallis takes over from Gerry Grove-White, managing director of GeoDynamics, who has held the position since the association was formed in 2007.
AGEA chief executive officer Susan Jeanes said Mr Kallis's experience and leadership would provide "a major boost to the association and assist AGEA to draw closer to our ultimate vision for geothermal energy, which is to provide the lowest-cost, emissions-free, renewable-base-load energy to Australian homes and businesses for centuries to come".
The association has 25 members, including major geothermal energy project developers, direct heat equipment suppliers, and service providers to the industry. Since 2007, its has provided input on policy reforms affecting Australia's geothermal energy industry, including the $50 million Geothermal Drilling Program and the $435 million Renewable Energy Demonstration Program.
AGEA also played a key role helping shape the Federal Government's Geothermal Energy Industry Development Framework, launched in December last year, as well as its carbon pollution reduction scheme and 2020 Renewable Energy Target.
Rees to ease the way for 40 wind farm projects
Sydney Morning Herald
Saturday 28/2/2009 Page: 9
THE State Government is to pave the way for a speedy rollout of windfarms across NSW by relaxing development controls throughout much of the State. The Federal Government wants as much as one-fifth of Australia's energy to come from renewable sources by 2020, which is expected to lead to a big rise in investment in wind turbines throughout NSW.
The Premier, Nathan Rees, said yesterday the big beneficiary would likely be windfarms, which he said would generate as much as 70%of the state's renewable energy. To prepare for this, windfarms planned for the NSW-ACT border area, the Central and New England tablelands, the South Coast and the Upper Hunter would be given access to accelerated planning approvals.
At the same time, farms as small as 30 MWs would be considered critical infrastructure, down from 250 MWs at present, which also means quicker consideration for development approval. "The Rees Government is trying to address community opposition to large-scale windfarms by forcing Department of Planning project managers to act as promoters," NSW Greens MP John Kaye said. But Mr Rees said there were "regional sensitivities to be considered". ''Working more closely on these important projects is about local buy-in and ownership - getting the strong local input into the process," he said.
The State Government also outlined a plan to force electricity retailers to cut 4%of their electricity sales a year within five years by working with customers to introduce energy efficiencies. These measures might slash the need for big new coal-fired power stations by the second half of the next decade, a government official said. Initially, the energy efficiency scheme would target measures such as retrofitting downlights and the use of more energy efficient appliances, perhaps through rebates offered by the electricity retailer. Then more detailed steps would be introduced to cut the heating, cooling and lighting costs of businesses.
From July 1, power retailers such as Integral and EnergyAustralia would have to take measures to begin cutting electricity sales by an initial 0.4% by helping customers adopt energy efficiencies, or face financial penalties of $24 per MW. The efficiency target will rise to 4% in 2014. The scheme is hoped to boost investment in low-cost energy efficiency measures which will cut electricity use.
Once the scheme is up and running, improved efficiency would shave as much as $50 a year off the household electricity bill, the Government said. From 2014 to 2020 the energy improvements delivered by the scheme will save as much as 32 million MW hours of electricity a year, which would equal 3.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually, the Government said.
Saturday 28/2/2009 Page: 9
THE State Government is to pave the way for a speedy rollout of windfarms across NSW by relaxing development controls throughout much of the State. The Federal Government wants as much as one-fifth of Australia's energy to come from renewable sources by 2020, which is expected to lead to a big rise in investment in wind turbines throughout NSW.
The Premier, Nathan Rees, said yesterday the big beneficiary would likely be windfarms, which he said would generate as much as 70%of the state's renewable energy. To prepare for this, windfarms planned for the NSW-ACT border area, the Central and New England tablelands, the South Coast and the Upper Hunter would be given access to accelerated planning approvals.
At the same time, farms as small as 30 MWs would be considered critical infrastructure, down from 250 MWs at present, which also means quicker consideration for development approval. "The Rees Government is trying to address community opposition to large-scale windfarms by forcing Department of Planning project managers to act as promoters," NSW Greens MP John Kaye said. But Mr Rees said there were "regional sensitivities to be considered". ''Working more closely on these important projects is about local buy-in and ownership - getting the strong local input into the process," he said.
The State Government also outlined a plan to force electricity retailers to cut 4%of their electricity sales a year within five years by working with customers to introduce energy efficiencies. These measures might slash the need for big new coal-fired power stations by the second half of the next decade, a government official said. Initially, the energy efficiency scheme would target measures such as retrofitting downlights and the use of more energy efficient appliances, perhaps through rebates offered by the electricity retailer. Then more detailed steps would be introduced to cut the heating, cooling and lighting costs of businesses.
From July 1, power retailers such as Integral and EnergyAustralia would have to take measures to begin cutting electricity sales by an initial 0.4% by helping customers adopt energy efficiencies, or face financial penalties of $24 per MW. The efficiency target will rise to 4% in 2014. The scheme is hoped to boost investment in low-cost energy efficiency measures which will cut electricity use.
Once the scheme is up and running, improved efficiency would shave as much as $50 a year off the household electricity bill, the Government said. From 2014 to 2020 the energy improvements delivered by the scheme will save as much as 32 million MW hours of electricity a year, which would equal 3.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually, the Government said.
Monday, 2 March 2009
Renewable Energy Target legislation won't deliver election promise
Clean Energy Council
19 February 2009
The Rudd government needs to make small but important adjustments to the design of its draft renewable energy target (RET) legislation if it wants to honour its election commitment of delivering 20%of Australia's electricity from renewable sources by 2020. In its submission on the draft RET legislation, the Clean Energy Council (CEC) has highlighted the detailed repairs needed to achieve the target and stimulate more than $20 billion of investment in Australia's emerging clean energy industry.
CEC Chief Executive Matthew Warren said the government was to be congratulated on finally delivering its RET legislation as a key complementary measure in its climate change strategy. "Now we've just got to get the details right. The legislation as currently drafted will create a boom-bust cycle for the industry, undermining long-term industry development and the capacity for Australia to be a leader in developing a world class industry and exporting exciting new technologies," Mr Warren said.
As Australia's peak representative body for clean energy, the CEC has analysed the government proposal in detail and has identified a key flaw in the design of the proposed trajectory that will effectively stall investment in clean energy generation after 2014. Economic modelling recently commissioned by the CEC found the government's proposed draft RET legislation will only reach 15 %, well short of the government's promised 20%target by 2020.
"This flaw will become an impossible hurdle to many of the exciting and emerging new generation technologies like geothermal, solar thermal and ocean energy and undermine the government's election promise before the legislation is even enacted," Mr Warren said. "It is imperative that we get RET design right to deliver immediate action on climate change in Australia and leave no stone unturned in discovering the lowest cost way of transitioning to a low carbon energy future."
The Council accepts the use of a multiplier as an interim step to developing Australia's PV industry but has concerns over the continued limits on system size and the potential for "phantom" certificates to also undermine the overall target promised by the government at the 2007 election.
The Clean Energy Council's submission will be available for download at www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/info
19 February 2009
The Rudd government needs to make small but important adjustments to the design of its draft renewable energy target (RET) legislation if it wants to honour its election commitment of delivering 20%of Australia's electricity from renewable sources by 2020. In its submission on the draft RET legislation, the Clean Energy Council (CEC) has highlighted the detailed repairs needed to achieve the target and stimulate more than $20 billion of investment in Australia's emerging clean energy industry.CEC Chief Executive Matthew Warren said the government was to be congratulated on finally delivering its RET legislation as a key complementary measure in its climate change strategy. "Now we've just got to get the details right. The legislation as currently drafted will create a boom-bust cycle for the industry, undermining long-term industry development and the capacity for Australia to be a leader in developing a world class industry and exporting exciting new technologies," Mr Warren said.
As Australia's peak representative body for clean energy, the CEC has analysed the government proposal in detail and has identified a key flaw in the design of the proposed trajectory that will effectively stall investment in clean energy generation after 2014. Economic modelling recently commissioned by the CEC found the government's proposed draft RET legislation will only reach 15 %, well short of the government's promised 20%target by 2020.
"This flaw will become an impossible hurdle to many of the exciting and emerging new generation technologies like geothermal, solar thermal and ocean energy and undermine the government's election promise before the legislation is even enacted," Mr Warren said. "It is imperative that we get RET design right to deliver immediate action on climate change in Australia and leave no stone unturned in discovering the lowest cost way of transitioning to a low carbon energy future."
The Council accepts the use of a multiplier as an interim step to developing Australia's PV industry but has concerns over the continued limits on system size and the potential for "phantom" certificates to also undermine the overall target promised by the government at the 2007 election.
The Clean Energy Council's submission will be available for download at www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/info
Climate change raises spectre of insurance market failure
www.environmental-finance.com
London, 26 February:
Climate change increases the possibility of the failure of insurance markets, according to a Chartered Insurance Institute report, which cites the need for better measures of market robustness. Extreme weather events present the most obvious risk to insurers, says the Coping with climate change: risks and opportunities for insurers report, but global warming may already be compounding catastrophe losses by 2% a year, it warns.
"Social disorder and international tensions could deteriorate to the point where substantial markets become uninsurable. Another potential problem is 'claims contagion', when systems cannot cope with the sheer volume of work," the report says. Insurance markets can fail to operate as intended in four ways, the report notes: through lack of capital, lack of cover, inability to pay claims, or failure to contract.
"Lack of cover is the most likely of these problems to spread with climate change," it says. Insurers withdrawing from a market can lead to many problems, the report states, such as shareholder doubts about a firm's long-term strategic capabilities, exit costs, and customer and intermediary distrust.
The report's lead author, Andrew Dlugolecki, a visiting research fellow at the University of East Anglia's climate research unit, advocates the creation of an independent index of market robustness that would indicate the aggregate degree of coverage, the collective vulnerability to catastrophes, and the overall capacity to manage a disaster claims situation.
"The most important strategy to preserve insurability is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Insurers can play a role as underwriters and investors [in] clean technology, and by lobbying for action on policies," the report concludes. The global insurance industry manages assets worth $55 trillion, which are impacted by and have an impact on climate change. "Yet this factor is still largely ignored," the report says.
London, 26 February:
Climate change increases the possibility of the failure of insurance markets, according to a Chartered Insurance Institute report, which cites the need for better measures of market robustness. Extreme weather events present the most obvious risk to insurers, says the Coping with climate change: risks and opportunities for insurers report, but global warming may already be compounding catastrophe losses by 2% a year, it warns.
"Social disorder and international tensions could deteriorate to the point where substantial markets become uninsurable. Another potential problem is 'claims contagion', when systems cannot cope with the sheer volume of work," the report says. Insurance markets can fail to operate as intended in four ways, the report notes: through lack of capital, lack of cover, inability to pay claims, or failure to contract.
"Lack of cover is the most likely of these problems to spread with climate change," it says. Insurers withdrawing from a market can lead to many problems, the report states, such as shareholder doubts about a firm's long-term strategic capabilities, exit costs, and customer and intermediary distrust.
The report's lead author, Andrew Dlugolecki, a visiting research fellow at the University of East Anglia's climate research unit, advocates the creation of an independent index of market robustness that would indicate the aggregate degree of coverage, the collective vulnerability to catastrophes, and the overall capacity to manage a disaster claims situation.
"The most important strategy to preserve insurability is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Insurers can play a role as underwriters and investors [in] clean technology, and by lobbying for action on policies," the report concludes. The global insurance industry manages assets worth $55 trillion, which are impacted by and have an impact on climate change. "Yet this factor is still largely ignored," the report says.
Obama goes for green light at end of tunnel
Sydney Morning Herald
Friday 27/2/2009 Page: 14
A MANDATORY cap on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, which the President, Barack Obama, has made central to his domestic agenda, would be designed to generate revenue for the Government while addressing arguably the world's most pressing environmental issue.
As debate rages in Australia about Kevin Rudd's proposed emissions trading scheme, the White House will unveil a budget that assumes revenue from a cap-and-trade system by 2012. A source familiar with the document said it would direct $US15 billion ($23 billion) of that revenue to clean energy projects, $US60 billion to aid the working poor and additional money to help offset higher energy costs for families and small businesses. But a system that limits emissions, puts a price on carbon and allows industries to trade pollution allowances will be a difficult sell on Capitol Hill, especially in the current economic crisis.
The political battle on Capitol Hill is largely divided along regional lines. Politicians from coastal states see a carbon cap as a critical goal whose public and long-term economic benefits would outweigh its costs. Most Republicans and some Democrats from the middle of the country fear it would hurt their states' economies, dependent as they are on fossil fuels and manufacturing.
The implications of a cap-and-trade system could be far reaching. It would create a new commodity and a market to trade it worth tens of billions of dollars. It would create property rights where none exist now. "Emission allowances could be the greatest creation of property rights since the 19th-century settlement of the West," said Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. Carl Pope, executive director of the advocacy group Sierra Club, said he has been surprised at the extent to which Mr Obama has made green energy a priority.
"Obama's talking about this as the economic equivalent of war. His Administration sees that the green economy is the only train leaving the station and they are eager to hitch on to it to pull its out of this crisis." The cost of carbon emissions - and hence the revenue the Government would receive from auctioning carbon allowances or permits - remains uncertain.
In Europe, which has a cap-and-trade system, the price of carbon has fluctuated between about 10 and 30 ($20-$60) a tonne. But with economies in recession, prices have slumped by up to two-thirds. US estimates are based on such unknowable factors as whether industry will cone up with an affordable way to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions.
Friday 27/2/2009 Page: 14
A MANDATORY cap on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, which the President, Barack Obama, has made central to his domestic agenda, would be designed to generate revenue for the Government while addressing arguably the world's most pressing environmental issue.
As debate rages in Australia about Kevin Rudd's proposed emissions trading scheme, the White House will unveil a budget that assumes revenue from a cap-and-trade system by 2012. A source familiar with the document said it would direct $US15 billion ($23 billion) of that revenue to clean energy projects, $US60 billion to aid the working poor and additional money to help offset higher energy costs for families and small businesses. But a system that limits emissions, puts a price on carbon and allows industries to trade pollution allowances will be a difficult sell on Capitol Hill, especially in the current economic crisis.
The political battle on Capitol Hill is largely divided along regional lines. Politicians from coastal states see a carbon cap as a critical goal whose public and long-term economic benefits would outweigh its costs. Most Republicans and some Democrats from the middle of the country fear it would hurt their states' economies, dependent as they are on fossil fuels and manufacturing.
The implications of a cap-and-trade system could be far reaching. It would create a new commodity and a market to trade it worth tens of billions of dollars. It would create property rights where none exist now. "Emission allowances could be the greatest creation of property rights since the 19th-century settlement of the West," said Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. Carl Pope, executive director of the advocacy group Sierra Club, said he has been surprised at the extent to which Mr Obama has made green energy a priority.
"Obama's talking about this as the economic equivalent of war. His Administration sees that the green economy is the only train leaving the station and they are eager to hitch on to it to pull its out of this crisis." The cost of carbon emissions - and hence the revenue the Government would receive from auctioning carbon allowances or permits - remains uncertain.
In Europe, which has a cap-and-trade system, the price of carbon has fluctuated between about 10 and 30 ($20-$60) a tonne. But with economies in recession, prices have slumped by up to two-thirds. US estimates are based on such unknowable factors as whether industry will cone up with an affordable way to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions.
Green status of Snowy power station in doubt
Sydney Morning Herald
Friday 27/2/2009 Page: 11
A KEY power station in the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme may have breached its status as a "green power" provider, because its environmental effect downstream appears to outweigh the benefits of the renewable power it creates. The Jindabyne darn plant received green power accreditation in 2006, but studies show that downstream water flows have slowed to a trickle, putting native fish, plants and animals in jeopardy.
A report by the independent Snowy Scientific Committee, completed in October but kept secret for four months by the State Government, showed a river system starved of water. Environmental flows were only a third of those promised and water was being diverted to the Murray River to boost crop irrigation. Under the rules for green power accreditation, hydro plants must allow for ''adequate" environmental flows, and the leaked Snowy report says "environmental releases to date have not been adequate".
"There's a lot at stake here if green power is going to keep its clean reputation, and the Snowy Hydro debacle is a low point in it's credibility,'' said the director of the Total Environment Centre, Jeff Angel. The group has written to the Department of Water and Energy, which oversees green power, requesting that Lake Jindabyne be removed from the list of approved renewable energy generators.
The NSW Government is standing by the power plant's green credentials. The complaints were "typical pettiness by some elements of the Green movement", said the Minister for Energy, Ian McDonald. Snowy Hydro Limited, the corporation that manages the hydro-electric scheme, including Lake Jindabyne, said it regarded the power plant as accredited green power.
''From our point of view we're releasing environmental water that is improving the river, and Lake Jindabyne is completely green, clean power," said a Snowy Hydro spokesman, Paul Johnson. ''We don't determine the amount of flow; that's up to the NSW Government." The water licence that determined how much of the Snowy River should be released downstream was being reviewed, with a decision due within weeks, the Department of Water and Energy said.
The NSW Opposition believes public confidence in green power, in which people pay extra on their power bills to support renewable energy, will be undermined if the accreditation process is not reviewed in the Jindabyne case. About 10%of households and businesses support the greenpower program. The Opposition spokeswoman on environmental sustainability, Catherine Cusack, said: ''The State Government must be scrupulous about maintaining the integrity of the green power scheme, otherwise it undermines consumers and all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing. It's appalling that the Government isn't reaching those standards."
The Jindabyne hydro plant was built in 2006, when another river was diverted to Lake Jindabyne to allow for environmental flows mandated by the Snowy water licence agreement. It harvests water flows to spin turbines and generate electricity.
Friday 27/2/2009 Page: 11
A KEY power station in the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme may have breached its status as a "green power" provider, because its environmental effect downstream appears to outweigh the benefits of the renewable power it creates. The Jindabyne darn plant received green power accreditation in 2006, but studies show that downstream water flows have slowed to a trickle, putting native fish, plants and animals in jeopardy.
A report by the independent Snowy Scientific Committee, completed in October but kept secret for four months by the State Government, showed a river system starved of water. Environmental flows were only a third of those promised and water was being diverted to the Murray River to boost crop irrigation. Under the rules for green power accreditation, hydro plants must allow for ''adequate" environmental flows, and the leaked Snowy report says "environmental releases to date have not been adequate".
"There's a lot at stake here if green power is going to keep its clean reputation, and the Snowy Hydro debacle is a low point in it's credibility,'' said the director of the Total Environment Centre, Jeff Angel. The group has written to the Department of Water and Energy, which oversees green power, requesting that Lake Jindabyne be removed from the list of approved renewable energy generators.
The NSW Government is standing by the power plant's green credentials. The complaints were "typical pettiness by some elements of the Green movement", said the Minister for Energy, Ian McDonald. Snowy Hydro Limited, the corporation that manages the hydro-electric scheme, including Lake Jindabyne, said it regarded the power plant as accredited green power.
''From our point of view we're releasing environmental water that is improving the river, and Lake Jindabyne is completely green, clean power," said a Snowy Hydro spokesman, Paul Johnson. ''We don't determine the amount of flow; that's up to the NSW Government." The water licence that determined how much of the Snowy River should be released downstream was being reviewed, with a decision due within weeks, the Department of Water and Energy said.
The NSW Opposition believes public confidence in green power, in which people pay extra on their power bills to support renewable energy, will be undermined if the accreditation process is not reviewed in the Jindabyne case. About 10%of households and businesses support the greenpower program. The Opposition spokeswoman on environmental sustainability, Catherine Cusack, said: ''The State Government must be scrupulous about maintaining the integrity of the green power scheme, otherwise it undermines consumers and all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing. It's appalling that the Government isn't reaching those standards."
The Jindabyne hydro plant was built in 2006, when another river was diverted to Lake Jindabyne to allow for environmental flows mandated by the Snowy water licence agreement. It harvests water flows to spin turbines and generate electricity.
The Carbon Club
Summaries - Australian Financial Review
Friday 27/2/2009 Page: 20
There is a growing legion of business executives creating the new arena of climate change and carbon trading with a distinctly capitalistic bent. Former options trader Geoff Evison founded the Arkx carbon fund with former Citigroup trader Lisa Wade with the intention of convincing investors that superior returns can be had from alternative energy plays.
After 30 years with BP, Greg Bourne became CEO of WWF Australia. A graduate of the University of Western Australia, he admires Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, is on friendly terms with Malcolm Turnbull, and says his line of communication with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is very good. When he encouraged the Howard government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol he found himself immediately cut off.
Gerry McGowan founded Impulse Airlines but now heads a renewable energy company that is building wind turbines on the Chatham Islands. Maria Atkinson was only offered jobs in the Environmental Protection Authority and National Parks when she graduated with a degree in environmental science back in 1996. Today she is global head of sustainability with Lend Lease.
Cassandra McCarthy is the manager of energy and climate change policy at Xstrata. She was formerly with the Australian Coal Association. Petrea Bradford is group manager, carbon at Origin Energy. Sean Lucy did stints with PricewaterhouseCoopers, Maddocks, and Mallesons Stephen Jaques before joining nabCapital as head of the carbon solutions group.
Friday 27/2/2009 Page: 20
There is a growing legion of business executives creating the new arena of climate change and carbon trading with a distinctly capitalistic bent. Former options trader Geoff Evison founded the Arkx carbon fund with former Citigroup trader Lisa Wade with the intention of convincing investors that superior returns can be had from alternative energy plays.
After 30 years with BP, Greg Bourne became CEO of WWF Australia. A graduate of the University of Western Australia, he admires Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, is on friendly terms with Malcolm Turnbull, and says his line of communication with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is very good. When he encouraged the Howard government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol he found himself immediately cut off.
Gerry McGowan founded Impulse Airlines but now heads a renewable energy company that is building wind turbines on the Chatham Islands. Maria Atkinson was only offered jobs in the Environmental Protection Authority and National Parks when she graduated with a degree in environmental science back in 1996. Today she is global head of sustainability with Lend Lease.
Cassandra McCarthy is the manager of energy and climate change policy at Xstrata. She was formerly with the Australian Coal Association. Petrea Bradford is group manager, carbon at Origin Energy. Sean Lucy did stints with PricewaterhouseCoopers, Maddocks, and Mallesons Stephen Jaques before joining nabCapital as head of the carbon solutions group.
Green plan delayed - Supporters turn on trading scheme
Courier Mail
Friday 27/2/2009 Page: 17
THE Rudd Government will delay the release of its draft legislation on the emissions trading scheme as two key supporters demand sweeping changes. And in a blow to Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, yesterday strongly advised the Government to postpone its ETS until 2012.
It means that the position of Ms Ridout, often referred to as the Government's 21st Cabinet minister because of her influence within Labor circles, is now more aligned to the policy of the Opposition, which also wants the scheme delayed. Ms Ridout said the ETS legislation should still be passed in 2009 so that business had certainty, but the Government's starting date of 2010 was "neither necessary nor realistic". "Australia is already on track to meet its Kyoto commitments over the period to 2012," Ms Ridout said.
"The sharp downturn in the economy and the associated reduction in emissions for example from reduced metals production and slower growth in energy demand across the economy will reduce our abatement task in the short term." Senator Wong has signalled the draft legislation, which was due at the end of February, might now be "a little bit later". Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull is expected to receive his commissioned research on the emissions white paper by tomorrow.
Meanwhile, a survey released yesterday by the Australian National University showed that the community wanted to address climate change but not if it cost them too much money. The results compiled after interviews with 600 Sydney residents revealed households were willing to pay an extra $135 a month to address climate change but when aggregated across the nation it represented significantly less than what Treasury had estimated.
And in print advertisements to start today, the left-leaning lobby group GetUp encourages readers to fill out a petition against the Government's "weak" targets and send them directly to Mr Rudd. "You've designed your carbon pollution reduction scheme so badly that when I save energy at home, I free up permits to pollute for energy company's to sell on to polluting companies like aluminium smelters," it says.
Queensland Senator Ron Boswell said the community needed to be told about the hidden costs of an ETS. "Every sewing machine, every production line, every mill, every conveyor belt, every piece of machinery that uses energy will suffer a new cost as a result of the ETS that our overseas competitors will not have to face," he said.
Friday 27/2/2009 Page: 17
THE Rudd Government will delay the release of its draft legislation on the emissions trading scheme as two key supporters demand sweeping changes. And in a blow to Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, yesterday strongly advised the Government to postpone its ETS until 2012.
It means that the position of Ms Ridout, often referred to as the Government's 21st Cabinet minister because of her influence within Labor circles, is now more aligned to the policy of the Opposition, which also wants the scheme delayed. Ms Ridout said the ETS legislation should still be passed in 2009 so that business had certainty, but the Government's starting date of 2010 was "neither necessary nor realistic". "Australia is already on track to meet its Kyoto commitments over the period to 2012," Ms Ridout said.
"The sharp downturn in the economy and the associated reduction in emissions for example from reduced metals production and slower growth in energy demand across the economy will reduce our abatement task in the short term." Senator Wong has signalled the draft legislation, which was due at the end of February, might now be "a little bit later". Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull is expected to receive his commissioned research on the emissions white paper by tomorrow.
Meanwhile, a survey released yesterday by the Australian National University showed that the community wanted to address climate change but not if it cost them too much money. The results compiled after interviews with 600 Sydney residents revealed households were willing to pay an extra $135 a month to address climate change but when aggregated across the nation it represented significantly less than what Treasury had estimated.
And in print advertisements to start today, the left-leaning lobby group GetUp encourages readers to fill out a petition against the Government's "weak" targets and send them directly to Mr Rudd. "You've designed your carbon pollution reduction scheme so badly that when I save energy at home, I free up permits to pollute for energy company's to sell on to polluting companies like aluminium smelters," it says.
Queensland Senator Ron Boswell said the community needed to be told about the hidden costs of an ETS. "Every sewing machine, every production line, every mill, every conveyor belt, every piece of machinery that uses energy will suffer a new cost as a result of the ETS that our overseas competitors will not have to face," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)