Ex-CIA director wants oil to go the way of salt

Over 100 years ago world powers fought over salt. True - salt preserves meat. Then they invented refrigeration, and the salt wars stopped.

Is refrigeration one reason why Gandhi dodged the British bullet for his salt satyagraha (not to take anything from the fact that he was a brilliant strategist)? Just a thought.

Anyhoo, that's what we need to happen with oil, say James Woolsey, ex-CIA director from 1993 to 1995, and now a partner in clean-energy group, VantagePoint. So goes the history lesson.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Rudd: Mother of All Summits to futureproof Australia

He loves his summits, dun 'e? Global warming has to be at the top, one would have thought. Watch this space.

clipped from news.smh.com.au Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says a summit involving 1,000 Australians will be held to tackle 10 major problems that are facing Australia. The summit will be held at Parliament House in late April and is called Australia 2020. "The summit will bring together some of the best and brightest brains from across the country to tackle the long-term challenges confronting Australia's future," Mr Rudd said.

Bush bashed over vapid climate conference

Time Magazine reported on the White House organised Climate Change Conference. They were rather unflattering of Bush, and set him up as a foil for Clinton to do what he does best. Shine.

Look at the photos accompanying the article.



Clinton looks steely and resolved, Bush defensive ... hunched. Clinton's jaw is firmly set, in contrast to the slack-jawed look of Bush, which is unfortunately what can happen when one is photographed mid-sentence. He is looking down, Clinton is looking forwards. George is looking a mite wan against Bill's robust complexion.

If you think I am letting my biases get in the way of my judgement, you should read Time Magazine reporter and resident climate change geek, Jason Decrow.

Start with the headline — Climate Change: Filling the Bush Gap. Positioned above Bush's photo, the aforementioned gap seems to refer to the one between his hears. Very unfairly too.

Reporting on Bush:

You could Amtrak down to the White House and hear President George W. Bush tell the world's major economies that this global warming thing might actually be a problem and that we should maybe consider doing something about it eventually.

No hint of scorn for Clinton:

Of the three, it was the Clinton meeting that proved the best bet —

[...]

As part of his Clinton Climate Initiative, launched in August 2006, the former President has brought together business and philanthropy to generate locally focused efforts to reduce energy use and carbon emissions.

While President Bush offered mostly empty rhetoric, on Friday afternoon Clinton reeled off pledge after concrete pledge for his climate initiative: $150 million to harness geothermal energy in Africa, $5 million for the Alliance for Climate Protection in the U.S., $210 million for carbon offsetting in the developing world.

While UN action on climate change remains stalled by the deadlock between the developed and the developing world, Clinton has proved remarkably successful in fostering real engagement and investment on global warming across national lines. "Clinton just really gets it," says Ted Nordhaus, co-author of the new environmental politics book Break Through.

Good to see some balanced journalism, the type where you call a spade a spade.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Australia don't follow US climate policy failure — ACF

It seems I am not out-of-line describing Australia as the lap-dog of the US when it comes to climate policy, although Don Henry put it more diplomatically, when commenting on the White House-sponsored climate change conference, the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change in Washington.

Don Henry, executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said Australia needed to stop copying the US position on climate change immediately.

"It is disappointing the conference has not delivered,'' Mr Henry said.

''(US) President Bush is still resisting setting binding targets or commitments on greenhouse gas emissions.

"He wants the flexibility of voluntary targets.

"The US is the world's biggest climate laggard and are holding up global action on climate change.''

Mr Henry said Mr Bush's climate change policies were "disastrous'' and Australia had to "disconnect'' itself from them. "More than any other country on Earth we should tackle this issue seriously with our water supplies at risk and the Great Barrier Reef,'' he said.

"At the conference every developed country has taken on board binding targets and every developing country has committed to cleaning up their economy and set long-term aspirational goals.

"The only two that have not are Australia and the US who have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and stand out like sore thumbs.''

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Emissions reductions — aspirationals miss the binding obvious

Condoleeza Rice sounds as convincing a leader on climate change, as she is on the Palestinian crisis. But at least she knows that others regard her warily:

THE US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has tried to assuage European and green group concerns the US is trying to hijack the United Nations process for developing a new global deal on climate change. "I want to stress that the United States takes climate change very seriously," Dr Rice said at the start of a two-day conference. "Managing the status quo is simply not an adequate response."

Oh goodie... they are now up to speed in Washington. So how to they plan to respond?

But she repeated that the US did not support binding targets on individual countries - a key difference between the US and European position.

Oh — back to the status quo. "Yip, yip, yippy", yapped her lap-dog Downer-Under, issuing discombobulated climate policy like flying fur-ball:

Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, predicted that Australia, like the European Union, Canada and Japan, would ultimately embrace binding targets. This was because it was essential to make the Coalition's proposed carbon trading scheme work, he said. "In our case, the way the binding target will work, we'll set next year an aspirational goal, then to make that work, we have to get the emissions trading scheme into operation and you have to have binding targets under an emissions trading scheme, otherwise you can't create a price for carbon," Mr Downer said.

The South Africans don't sound too convinced by the conviction of the Kyoto Protocol hold-outs.

Critics have questioned whether the US approach of voluntary targets would work. "We appreciate the sentiments expressed by Secretary Rice, but the devil is always in the detail," said South Africa's Environment Minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk.

The Europeans are wary of a process that circumvented the United Nations. They were right about Iraq; they are right about climate change. A target is not a target if it is not binding. If it is not binding, if it is an aspirational target, it is a mere wish.
Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Fine ceramic tubes cut carbon dioxide out of coal-fired power

If this works out, I'm putting my money (ha) into advanced ceramic material...

clipped from www.sciencedaily.com Science Daily — Greenhouse gas emissions from power stations could be cut to almost zero by controlling the combustion process with tiny tubes made from an advanced ceramic material, claim engineers on August 3, 2007. The oxygen-depleted air, which consists mainly of nitrogen, can be returned to the atmosphere with no harmful effects on the environment, while the carbon dioxide can be collected separately from the inside of the tubes after combustion. An alternative would be to control the flow of air and methane so that only partial combustion took place. This would result in a flow of 'synthesis gas', a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which can easily be converted into a variety of useful hydrocarbon chemicals.

Bush pushes for international inaction on global warming

President Bush is organising a September conference and inviting the world's major polluters to develop strategies to hold onto business as usual for as long as possible.

I'll eat my Grand PooBah hat, Freemasons Apron, and publish the secret handshake on my blog, if they actually agree to reduce emissions.

In theory they should — they claim to want to contribute.

"The United States is committed to collaborating with other major economies to agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008, which would contribute to a global agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by 2009," Bush said in his invitation.

But here's the rub.

"In addition, we expect to place special emphasis on how major economies can, in close cooperation with the private sector, accelerate the development and deployment of clean technologies, a critical component of an effective global approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

It's about investing more into yet-to-be-developed 'clean coal' technology, or more tax-subsidised, long-term nuclear projects. Not about reducing emissions in the here-and-now at all. In other words, business-as-usual, for the polluters. Viewed against their record profits, it's galling.

clipped from www.smh.com.au US President George Bush has invited the world's major polluters, including Australia, to a September 27-28 conference to set long-term goals on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental groups have called the plan, which Bush proposed in a speech on May 31, a diversion from other global efforts to combat global warming, while Washington says it complements UN-driven talks on the issue. Bush has asked Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and South Korea in separate letters to send representatives to Washington for the meeting, officials said today. Like Australia, the United States - the world's number one emitter of greenhouse gases - has refused to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which mandates cuts in the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. It expires in 2012. Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Companies fighting climate change rated & ranked

The solution to global warming will be marketplace driven. For the market to work, consumers need to know what companies are doing to reduce their footprints. Schemes like Climate Count, and corporate carbon counting systems will be keenly observed.

clipped from blogs.wsj.com Companies Judged for Global-Warming Awareness, Found Lacking Posted by Mark Gongloff A new group is giving consumers a way to evaluate the companies whose products they buy based on their commitment to fighting climate change. The takeaway: There is a lot of room for improvement. A nonprofit group called Climate Counts has come out with a new ranking of 56 companies divided into eight sectors. Each company was assigned a score on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 meaning the company is perfectly committed to fighting global warming. The highest-scoring of all companies was camera maker Canon (part of the “electronics” group), with a score of 77. Second in the electronics group was IBM, with a score of 70. In the apparel group, shoe company Nike topped the list with a 73. Leading the food-products group was Unilever, which makes Dove soap and Lipton teas, with a score of 71. These were the only four companies to score 70 or higher. After that, the scores dropped off dramatically.

World Bank money now grows on trees

Incentives to avoid deforestation is big business on a warming globe.

clipped from online.wsj.com FREE PREVIEW World Bank Targets Forest Preservation-Climate Link By Tom Wright Word Count: 926 JAKARTA, Indonesia -- The global effort to stem climate change could soon include paying countries in the tropical belt to not cut down their rain forests, beginning with a World Bank pilot project. The World Bank is planning to start a $250 million investment fund to reward countries such as Indonesia, Brazil and Congo for "avoided deforestation." Until now, efforts under the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to cut greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, have centered on reducing emissions from industries. The Group of Eight leading nations, after meeting last week in Germany, concluded that stopping deforestation could ... • THE FULL WSJ.com ARTICLE IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS. Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Global warming survival guide

Just in Time.

clipped from www.time.com The Global Warming Survival Guide GLOBAL WARMING 51 Things We Can Do to Save the Environment Can one person slow global warming? Actually, yes. You—along with scientists, businesses and governments—can create paths to cut carbon emissions. Here is our guide to some of the planet's best ideas. Enter the Time Magazine Survival Guide More Stories Graphic: Effects of Climate Change by 2020 A forecast of how climate changes will impact the environment and society by mid century. Graphic: The Earth Friendly Home Are you wasting energy? There are ways you can alter your lifestyle to reduce your carbon footprint, the measure of carbon you produce What Now? On the Front Lines Of Climate Change By Mark Hertsgaard Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Bookmark this page and tell your everyone you care for about it.

To fight climate change grow by 0.1 per cent less

Is it my maths or his? Terry McCrann of The Australian thinks the cost of 0.1 per cent of GDP until 2050 to cut emissions by 50% is way too much to bear.

Now the cost, the very real cost of cutting emissions, tends to be airily dismissed as minor. So it might knock 0.1 per cent off our growth rate, perhaps even 0.2 per cent. But you'd hardly notice.

[...]

Aggressive emission cuts had been modelled to suggest that 2050 GDP (gross domestic product) would as a consequence be 5 per cent less than otherwise.

That's another of those "minor" numbers. Especially as it would be 5 per cent off a much bigger economy than now. But another way of looking at it, according to Switkowski, is that 5 per cent would represent about a $120 billion reduction in the size of the economy.

Even more critical, is the cumulative losses over the 43 years to 2050. Add them all up and you get around $1 trillion or $1000 billion. That was a serious amount of money, Switkowski added.

Now this is not a criticism, but Switkowski seriously understated the cost. A reduced growth path that ended up being 5% per cent below potential in 2050 would actually cost closer to $3 trillion - $3000 billion all-up.

To add some critical context. The Australian economy today is just a tick over $1 trillion - $1000 billion. So that would be tantamount to closing it down, completely, for three years.

As my table shows, even a seemingly completely unnoticeable 0.1 per cent reduction in the annual growth rate, from 3 per cent to 2.9 per cent, would mean GDP in 2050 - to stress again, in today's dollars - would be $145 billion less than otherwise.

But the cumulative loss over the 43 years would add up to $2220 billion - the equivalent of two of today's economy.

The hardly more noticeable reduction in growth to 2.8 per cent a year would cost $4390 billion of lost production.

The tyranny of big numbers. I failed to find a figure for the size of the Australian economy in say, 1950, using Google. But I established we lost 1.6% of GDP growth over the last 54 years since 2000.

Taking McCrann's figure for The Australian economy measuring $1 trillion - $1000 billion, I estimated the size of the economy in 1946 was between $113.84 billion and $116 billion, or 11.38% of size the today's. About nine times smaller.

I'm sure the good folk of 1946 would have accepted a growth rate of 0.1% less to ensure we had a stable, robust climate and a clean environment now, had they known about global warming. They were the war generation after-all, and they knew how to fight for their children's democratic future.

How soft have we become? We now know we have a new, unforgiving enemy - are we going to throw away the sacrifices and gains of our grandparents' past as well as our grandchildren right to a stable climate by taking this Neville Chamberlain policy of appeasement to greenhouse gas emissions?

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Bush seriously considers 50% emissions cut by 2050

Full marks to the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, for turning Bush's forward thrust on climate change into advantage with a neat little judo throw to extract "serious consideration" for her preferred benchmark of 50% cuts by 2050 - backed by the EU, Canada and Japan. Sure, Bush didn't commit to any targets, but he also didn't expect to find himself suddenly lying on his back being helped up by a smiling Merkel. Ippon to the Chancellor - a classic demonstration of back-rub blow-back.

clipped from news.bbc.co.uk G8 leaders agree to climate deal Leaders of the G8 nations have agreed to seek "substantial" cuts in emissions in an effort to tackle climate change. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the G8 would negotiate within a UN framework to seek a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol by the end of 2009. No mandatory target was set for the cuts, but Mrs Merkel's preference for a 50% emissions cut by the year 2050 was included in the agreed statement. "We agreed... that CO2 emissions must first be stopped and then followed by substantial reductions," the German chancellor said. Global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. G8 statement BBC Reaction to climate deal In pictures: Anti-G8 protests Her preferred benchmark of 50% cuts by 2050 - backed by the EU, Canada and Japan - would be given serious consideration, she said. From the agreed text published on the G8 website; the leaders agreed to take "strong and early" action. "Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions," the text says. Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Will Howard be alive to trade carbon?

Yesterday winter officially began in Australia, yet here I am still wearing me favourite t-shirt and blogging away in me favourite grundies. You, dear reader, should consider yourself seriously honoured.

So it is with a certain sense of irony that I witness that our prime global warming denialist, Prime Minister John Howard, release his Report on the Task Group on Emissions Trading into such an under-dressed climate. While his unprecedented acknowledgement of the need for emissions trading is a radical departure from his previous stances, and a welcome one, it is still hard to throw off those nagging doubts sparked by those within own party referring to him as The Lying Rodent.

ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT OF PRIME MINISTER HOWARD’S
TASK GROUP ON EMISSIONS TRADING

by Wadard

1. The PM's terms of reference are biased towards sustaining coal and uranium exports.

“Australia enjoys major competitive advantages through the possession of large reserves of fossil fuels and uranium. In assessing Australia’s further contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, these advantages must be preserved.
Against this background the Task Group will be asked to advise on the nature and design of a workable global emissions trading system in which Australia would be able to participate. The Task Group will advise and report on additional steps that might be taken, in Australia, consistent with the goal of establishing such a system."

2. Some of the submissions by interested parties are confidential, that is, not publicly available for scrutiny.

Why so? Is transparency not important? The list of 'non-confidential' submitting parties is here:

3. The Task Group Committee comprises of senior bureaucrats, mainly economists, and fossil-fuel industry representatives, not scientists or renewable energy experts.

The Bureaucrats:
David Borthwick – Economist and former member of the Office of the Prime Minister; Ken Henry - Secretary to the Treasury in 2005; Michael L’Estrange - secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Mark Patterson - the chairman of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2001).

The Fossil Fuel & Industry Representatives:
Peter Coates - coal miner Xstrata; Tony Concannon - International Power managing director; Chris Lynch - BHP Billiton executive director; John Marlay - Alumina Chief Executive; Margaret Jackson - chairwoman of Qantas; John Stewart - National Australia Bank.

So honestly - do I really need to take this analysis further?

If the godfathers of the local Mafia and the Yakusa, the snakeheads of the Chinese Triads, as well as the financial manager from the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan opium franchise, their Russian Crime Syndicate partners, and the Columbian Cocaine Cartels were all brought together at the taxpayers' expense to form a working group to develop a framework to combat drug trafficking, and they sought submissions from the Banditos, Nomads and Hells Angels motorbike gangs, amongst others, would you read their report with confidence or amusement?

Well, that's how I feel about this task force's report, which you can download here and judge for yourself. Let me know what you think.

I don't like being so cynical, but Howard's track record in the integrity stakes makes Judas look like Jesus. I may be wrong to be so dismissive; it's just that they want to wait to 2012 to kick-off their carbon trading. That's five years away; Given Howard's advanced age I wonder whether he is having a lend of us all?

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Project Andromeda reaches for the stars

Clumsily, I accidentally clicked one of the Google Ad links (I'm not supposed to on my site) but, happily, the action redirected me to The Andromeda Project:

Project Andromeda™ aims to measure, offset and reduce greenhouse gas emissions for large numbers of businesses in Australia at low cost. It is a call to action, an education strategy and a networking opportunity that will help businesses save money, sell more, and make staff proud.

We will provide a detailed explanation of the new rules of business in the climate change era. We aim to help make Australian businesses part of the solution to climate change, not part of the problem; to make Australia a great place to do business, and to set an example to the rest of the world. Project Andromeda™ is a transparent, accountable and authentic business offering real value for money, in partnership with the world‘s best professionals.

I discovered that one of those partners is the ANZ Investment Bank - coincidently my bank - they are providing the carbon credits to businesses participating in the scheme. It is seriously gratifying that the business outreach for global warming mitigation has begun in earnest with projects like Andromeda. All I know about Andromeda is that it is the nearest star to Earth. The long road to success only begins when we reach for the stars. Congratulation to participating companies, and to the sponsors and organisers. My liquid dollar is much biased toward you.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Costa Rica to be carbon neutral by 2030

In the early 1893 New Zealand was the first nation in the world to enfranchise women. Look at the revolution this started. Can you conceive that women shouldn't have the vote?

Nobody can take that away from the Kiwis (Even though the Aussies came a close second in 1901). If Costa Rica does achieve their ambition to become the first carbon neutral country, nobody will be able take that from them either. Our future lies in a world where we cannot conceive of not striving to be carbon neutral.

clipped from www.radioaustralia.net.au Green trail-blazer Costa Rica is drawing up plans to cut its net greenhouse gas emissions to zero before 2030, the government says. Environment Minister Roberto Dobles says the tiny, jungle-cloaked Central American nation aims to be the first nation to offset all its carbon. He says the country plans to clean up its fossil fuel-fired power plants, promote hybrid vehicles and increase tree planting to balance its emissions. "The goal is to be carbon neutral," Mr Dobles told Reuters news agency on Thursday. "We'd like to do it in the next 20 years." He said Costa Rica will also eliminate net emissions of other greenhouse gases. Costa Rica is a leader on green issues, with protected areas like national parks and biological reserves covering more than a quarter of its territory. The country generates 78 per cent of its energy with hydroelectric power and another 18 per cent by wind or geothermally. It now plans to cut emissions from transport, farming and industry. Global Warning Climate Change Energy

100 things YOU can do to save the environment

clipped from www.seql.org Conserve Energy Reduce Toxicity If you have central air conditioning, do not close vents in unused rooms. Wrap your water heater in an insulated blanket. Turn down or shut off your water heater when you will be away for extended periods. Turn off unneeded lights even when leaving a room for a short time. Set your refrigerator temperature at 36 to 38 and your freezer at 0 to 5 . Purchase appliances and office equipment with the Energy Star Label; old refrigerators, for example, use up to 50 more electricity than newer models. Use an electric lawn- mower instead of a gas-powered one. Shut off electrical equipment in the evening when you leave work. Burn seasoned wood - it burns cleaner than green wood. Use solar power for home and water heating. Ignite charcoal barbecues with an electric probe or other alternative to lighter fluid. Shop with a canvas bag instead of using paper and plastic bags. Buy rechargeable batteries for devices used frequently. Compost your vegetable scraps. Create Less Trash Global Warning Climate Change Energy

$10 per person will beat global warming

Kevin Grandia of the global warming denialist-busting website, DeSmogBlog, has done the calculations - it only takes $10 per person per year to save the planet.

He broadcast this email (which I amended to include his updated calculations).

4 May 07

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it would cost .12% of the world's domestic product to substantially reduce our collective greenhouse gas emissions.

• GDP of the world economy: US$60 trillion
• .12% of $60 trillion: $70 billion
• Total population of the earth: 6.5 billion
• Cost per person to significantly reduce heat-trapping gas worldwide: $10 a year
• Cost of saving the planet from droughts, famine, mass flooding, species extinction and rising sea levels: priceless.

His maths: $60 trillion/.0012/6.5 billion = $10 (rounded figures). He points out that it is more useful to break down the global figure by country and filter it though its GDP. For example, for Gambians this would cost $2.00 per head, and for Americans the cost would be $478.

Tags: global warming, climate change

Upbeat IPCC report points to an energy revolution.

In its third and final key findings, the IPCC panel reports:

■ A cost of $US20-50 a tonne of atmospheric carbon would have a big impact on cutting harmful emissions. "It could lead to a power generation sector with low greenhouse gas emission by 2050."

■ This would allow renewable energy to have a 30 to 35 per cent share of total electricity supply by 2030.

■ Nuclear power would provide only an additional 2 per cent of the world's electricity supply by 2030 because it is too expensive, and "safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as constraints".

■ Clean coal technology has the potential to make an important contribution by 2030.

■ Improving efficiency of energy supply and use would play a key role in reducing emissions by up to 30 billion tonnes a year by 2030.

clipped from www.smh.com.au THE cost of saving the planet from catastrophic climate change will not be a major burden on the world economy, shaving only a small amount from global growth if governments act now, says a report by the United Nations expert panel on climate change. A former CSIRO climate chief, Dr Graeme Pearman, of Monash University, said the impact on a healthy economy would be small. "The cost of letting climate change happen is a lot more than the cost of mitigation." Stabilising greenhouse gas emissions at a level that can limit the temperature rise to 2 to 3 degrees would reduce annual gross domestic product growth rates by only 0.12 per cent, the report said. Global emissions would need to be slashed between 50 and 85 per cent by 2050 from levels in 2000.

California and Victoria agree to combat climate change together

It has been a long time since I have taken back my unflattering comments about Arnold Schwarzenegger upon becoming the governor of California. Everything he does about global warming confirms my decision. Because he is a Hollywood star - a major one - with a direct line to the electorate, perhaps he does have the cachet needed to short-circuit traditional politics and it's embedded vested interests - like the fossil-fuel industry. He certainly is running counter to the Bush line on global warming and, as we can see by his latest move, he is recruiting like-minded leaders around the world in his campaign to tackle climate change square-on.

clipped from www.smh.com.au California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has recruited an Australian ally in his plan to terminate global warming. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks "We have to take care of our world," Schwarzenegger told reporters after signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Victoria to share environmental expertise. "We have to fight global warming." Schwarzenegger has been a leader in environmental reform in the US, overcoming resistance from President George W Bush's administration. California imposed America's first mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions, with emissions set to be cut by 80 per cent by 2050. Victoria, along with other Australian states and territories, have set targets to cut 60 per cent of emissions by 2050. The MOU will allow California and Victoria to share expertise in climate change, develop emission trading schemes and carbon offsets and encourage the development of clean energy technology.