Albrechtsen externalises, but not on externality

Janet Albrechtsen of the Australian newspaper shamelessly channels the spirit of Edmund Burke during the French Revolution when she laments that Howard's good work on climate change is just not understood by the Australian public. :::[Now for some sensible talk on climate change]

I love the way the headline implies that the talk up to now has been insensible. There's more irony in store — what follows is barely sensible in itself:

It's easier to listen to Missy Higgins, Wolfmother and Sneaky Sound System than read a copy of the Government's report from the Task Group on Emissions Trading.

It's boring to learn that Australia's economy and abatement challenges are different from those of many other industrialised nations, particularly those in Europe. And that our natural resources and access to low-cost energy are integral to our international competitiveness. And that any model for long-term emissions reductions must take account of the need to protect that prosperity.

Her reference to "access to low-cost energy" is were the flaw in her logic lives. Fossil fuels are not low cost fuels that protect our "prosperity" if the real cost is externalised into the future, and onto the generations to come, making that prosperity short lived. Leaving a tab to be picked up by our grandchildren in the the form of a debilitated climate. Albrechtsen's argument needs to address this to have any merit. Especially since it protects those who benefit now from leaving us with a debilitated climate, and all the implications.

What's so wrong with Wolfmother, anyway?

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Methane damns green hydro-electricity claims

Deutsche Welle Radio presents recent research from scientists in the Brazilian Amazon that is showing that many hydroelectric dams cause the release of more greenhouse gas for the
equivalent amounts of electricity created, that would be released if that electricity was created by burning fossil-fuels. (Audio link to DW Radio's program, Living Planet - the piece on the methane dams is a little under half way through the 30 min program)

The culprit is dam design and methane, the latter is created by the floating plants that feed off the rich nutrients that the dam traps, and is concentrated in dissolved form by the pressurised water on the dam side of the dam wall.

When the dam water is released to drive the turbines, water pressure radically decreases, and the water releases its methane as gas just as carbonated water releases co2 when the bottle is opened.

Tonne for tonne methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It’s estimated that around the world, 800 megatonnes of co2 equivalent is released a year in this way - more than the total emissions from the UK.

There are things that can be done to mitigate these problems; purposely harvesting the methane for clean electricity, and to move the turbine water intakes away from the pressurised methane rich water. And to design future dams to take these issues into account.

Powered by ScribeFire. Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change, methane, dams

Marginals want investment in biodiversity infrastructure

Eight in ten Australian voters in marginal seats believe the way to fortify against climate change is to strengthen the biodiversity of their natural habitats, according to Galaxy Research. It shows an encouraging sophistication in their understanding of climate change and the future it will bring. I'm guessing they believe a strong and healthy biodiversity is vital to our environmental health because it acts as a giant carbon sink.

This election season's colour is looking decidedly green.

The Australian Newspaper:
"Experts estimate that about $4 a year for five years is needed for every taxpayer to achieve the biodiversity protection targets agreed to by governments in 2005," WWF spokesman Dr MartinTaylor said.

These targets were agreed to by agreed to in 2005 by the Australian, state and territory governments.

"The Galaxy poll revealed that most Australians were willing to invest a lot more in safeguarding Australia's unique biodiversity against the effects of climate change by creating new national parks and nature reserves, with the average amount being $16.20 per taxpayer per year."

On the subject of climate change policy, the Liberal government is out of step with the marginal voters . The Federal Government invests only about 60 cents per tax payer per year on acquiring land for national parks or nature reserves.

The last word goes to WWF's, Dr MartinTaylor because they commissioned this nugget of a research finding.

"The poll shows that the average taxpayer is more than willing to chip in the money required, which is the equivalent of a box of corn flakes a year, to ensure our wildlife and wild places have a fair chance at surviving climate change."

clipped from www.theaustralian.news.com.au Voters 'want investment in natural habitats' March 06, 2007 AN opinion poll of 10 mostly marginal federal seats has found voters want more money invested to protect natural habitats against the upheavals of climate change. The Galaxy opinion poll, commissioned by environment group WWF-Australia, found more than nine in 10 people polled in Australia's marginal seats thought climate change was a significant threat to Australia's native wildlife and natural areas. And 78 per cent, or nearly eight in 10, wanted the Government to do more to counter the threat. The polling covered 500 respondents in the seats of Lindsay, Wentworth (NSW), Bonner, Griffith, Moreton (Qld), Kingston (SA), Deakin, La Trobe (Vic), Hasluck and Stirling (WA).

Global Warning Climate Change Environment Carbon Sink Australia >

Bush forced to regulate carbon dioxide from cars

In enormous news for the mitigation of global warming, the US Supreme Court has forced their federal government to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars. The directive forces the Bush Administration into a major policy u-turn: :::[CNN]

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.

The EPA had previously argued that the tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases were out of its jurisdiction. A coalition of 12 states and 13 environmental organisations, frustrated with Bush Administration inaction and obstruction on global warming, took the EPA to court:

The court had three questions before it.

--Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?

--Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?

--Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?

The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a "laundry list" of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.

The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

Justice Stevens' says his position "involves no judgement on whether global warming exists, what causes it, or the extent of the problem". The decision clears the way for the state of California to gain EPA approval for its own programme to limit tailpipe emissions. Federal law considers the state a laboratory on environmental issues and gives California the right to seek approval of standards that are stricter than national norms.

This is world-changing. California was the first state to introduce laws requiring catalytic converters to eliminate toxicity from fuel emissions, in 1975. This had implications for the rest of the world as it embraced the change. An additional benefit was the phasing out of high-octane leaded petrol that masks the effect of catalytic conversion.

Global Warning Climate Change Environment CO2 Kyoto Energy

Turnbull vs. Garrett in the great climate change clash

The 7:30 Report is the setting: Kerry O'Brien the referee. I'm expect a good clean bout by two high profile political newcomers. With science, economics, and politics for weapons there promises to be interesting jousting on hand, for a public newly engaged with global warming issues: :::[7:30 Report transcript]

Kerry O'Brien lays down the rules and terms.

KERRY O’BRIEN: This is the third decade we've been hearing about scientific fears of a climate change phenomenon described as a greenhouse effect, caused largely by greenhouse gas emissions, with carbon dioxide as the main culprit. But for governments, for big business, in some cases for whole populations, the stakes have been high. For a long time, an army of sceptics disputed the warnings. Today, the doubters’ ranks have thinned dramatically and the first tentative warnings are now a clarion call. Last Friday's exhaustive report from the UN's International Panel on Climate Change, involving hundreds of the world's top scientists, predicted potentially alarming changes ahead in temperatures, storm patterns, sea levels. The fact that politicians spent most of this week in Canberra debating global warming is testimony enough that Australians are now well and truly engaged and will probably remain so until election day. Malcolm Turnbull, the recently appointed Minister for Environment and Water Resources, and Peter Garrett, Labor's equally recently promoted shadow spokesman for the environment and climate change, have locked horns throughout the week and they're about to do so again tonight.

And in fact, Malcolm Turnbull, you've just come from the water summit with the Prime Minister and four of the states - Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia my understanding, listening to the Prime Minister a short time ago, there's been progress, but not actually much to talk about. Is that right?

Ding! Out he comes, moving easily.

MALCOLM TURNBULL, ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: Oh no, I think there is a great deal to talk about. The Prime Minister's water plan, this $10 billion, 10-point plan is determined or destined to, in a very historic way, to change forever the way water is managed outside of the big cities in Australia. It will make our irrigation industries the most efficient in the world. It will mean that we use water efficiently, make every drop count in rural Australia. And it will also mean that for the first time a great anomaly in our Constitution will be dealt with, which is that the Murray-Darling Basin will cease to be managed by four States, all of whom, of course, compete with each other and, instead, be managed, as many people have said even before we became a nation, it will be managed by the Commonwealth in the national interest. Now, it was a very good meeting with the premiers. The Prime Minister, as you know, has asked them to refer their powers over the Murray-Darling Basin, water management in the basin. It was a good meeting. We've agreed to meet in two weeks from tomorrow, 23rd February, and in the meantime the officials will be working and indeed I'll be working with them on a lot of the details, so that when we get to the 23rd we'll be able to have a substantive agreement.

KERRY O’BRIEN: And, very quickly, you're confident of a positive outcome?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I am confident. It was a very good meeting. I think everybody there was very confident and the Premiers went out of their way to say that they believed a deal could be done and that they were supportive. But they obviously have issues they want to deal with and, look, we look forward to working with them, because once we're committed to this national project of managing this enormous area of Australia, which has 80 per cent of our irrigated agriculture and produces nearly half of all of our agricultural production, once we have that national commitment to run this in the nation's interest, then I believe the officials and the experts and the politicians can work together collaboratively. Anyway, Kerry, we'll see, we'll see.

Garrett prods out a long arm, getting a feeling for his reach, and then, bang, a nice sharp reminder us all what the real contest is about.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Peter Garrett, your leader, Kevin Rudd, has been cautiously supportive of Mr Howard's water plan. Are you confident that this can be a bipartisan outcome?

PETER GARRETT, OPPOSITION ENVIRONMENT SPOKESMAN: Well, Kerry, I guess it depends on the sort of details that Mr Turnbull's talking about and I don't have the benefit of having had any discussion or know what the discussions with the premiers have resulted in. My understanding is that they're going to set up a working group. I think there's no doubt that the public wants to see politicians cooperate on water. And that's absolutely understandable, and that's as it should be. But we've been asking some serious questions about the way this is going to operate, and also I know Kevin Rudd had a request in for some detailed briefing from the Prime Minister beforehand, in a sense, to lend some weight to that bipartisan support. And I guess the only other comment I'd make is, in the light of climate change, we've been saying that if you want to have a real solution for dealing with the problems that we have in our inland river systems, particularly going forward, then we need to have some decent climate change policy as well.

Kerry saw it too. Straight into it. This audience is loving it.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Okay, well, that's the cue to move on to precisely that. Malcolm Turnbull, when did you become a convert to the broad body of science warnings about greenhouse emissions and, before we start looking at solutions, how do you define the problem? In your view, how big a crisis do we all face?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I think it's a very large challenge. I don't like using words like 'crisis' because I don't think it's helpful and, with respect to Peter there, I think Peter's strategy this week has been to try to create a sense of panic, almost of hysteria, over this issue. We do have a very serious challenge over the years ahead. We know that our climate is going to get warmer and it will continue to get warmer for many decades regardless of what is done by way of mitigating the emission of greenhouse gases. So, it's going to get warmer. In southern Australia, it will get drier - it's very likely to get drier, and there are other consequences. Now, the biggest manifestation of climate change in Australia is likely to be water scarcity. So everything we have been doing for a long time now in terms of managing our rivers and managing our water resources - and this goes back long before this agreement.

Turnbull goes straight into the clinch - straight to water - looking for Garretts kidneys. Kerry separates them, signals to touch gloves and recommence. Turnbull defines the problem smartly, then goes the watery clinch again. The Federal Government's strategy is to focus on water-management, not the context of the global hydrological cycle. To keep our mind on the drought, not global warming. The tree, not the forest.

KERRY O’BRIEN: We'll come to the solutions later in the debate. At the moment I want to define the problem.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: The problem is a hotter, a warmer planet and that has changes to climate and rainfall availability, water availability, because, you see, Kerry, it's not just a question of having less rainfall in an area. If you can have a 10 per cent decline in rainfall but if the climate is hotter or if it's a particularly warm part of the country anyway you might get a 30 per cent decline in stream flow. So small changes in rainfall or precipitation can result in very large changes in stream flow. So you have the case of Perth, where you have a city, a growing city, which in the last 10 or 15 years has seen its surface water stream flow decline by nearly two thirds, even though rainfall only declined by about 20 per cent.

Kerry set up Garrett's credibility, who steps forward and lands a good scoring blow. The crowd is thrilled.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Okay. We're of course dealing with a global problem. Peter Garrett, when did you become a convert to the main body of science warning about greenhouse? How do you define the extent of the problems? How big a crisis do you believe we face?

PETER GARRETT: Well, Kerry I've had a strong interest and campaigned on it for a number of years and, certainly, in my time as ACF President, we were aware that climate change and the sort of reports we were getting from the scientists about the prospects of a warming world were becoming increasingly validated. Look, we're not trying to panic people. We're just trying to recognise what the actual situation is when you have a report by the world's best scientists collecting the data, now, over a number of years about the kind of impact that we're having as we put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the prospects for a warming world and the sorts of impacts and effects that that most likely will have going forward. It is a crisis. There's unanimity amongst the scientific community, for the most part all of those people who worked on putting these reports together, that global warming, climate change, is real and that we can't be complacent about it in any way. What we really need to do is recognise that if we're going to slow down and abate this prospect of the world warming up over time - and we certainly can't stop the warming that's begun but what we've got to do act resolutely to make sure it doesn't continue to spiral. And the only way to do that is to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and, you know what? The Prime Minister's been a sceptic on climate change since day one. We have not been a part of the international community response on Kyoto. Our greenhouse gas emissions are due to rocket out of control. And the Government doesn't have credibility on this issue, and I think people know it.

Kerry want policies, not pandering to Labor's market research. So does the crowd .

KERRY O’BRIEN: But what definable benefits do you believe that Kyoto has delivered? What cuts in greenhouse do you believe Australia should be targeting? And over what timeframe?

Garrett shows off a nice combination punch, ducking details, disappointing, but still, an inspiring finish. He's a good media player.

PETER GARRETT: Well, it'll deliver about a 5 per cent greenhouse gas emissions across the board in terms of the countries involved. But it's also a very big carbon market that's developing out there, Kerry, and you've got the existence of clean development mechanisms in countries where Australian businesses who could export, for example, their solar energy or their wind power to other countries in the world, who are part of Kyoto, don't get to take the benefit and can't get in on the action. So Australian businesses have actually been sacrificed on the altar of the Howard Government's very, very strong rejections of Kyoto. The second thing is that, in order for us to build a sustainable economy into the future, including looking after the environment and addressing greenhouse gas emissions, we need to have a significant investment in renewables, in energy efficiency the kinds of things which we can employ people in, whether young scientists coming out of our universities - it's an education and knowledge challenge for us as well, and we need to get stuck into it right away

Turnbull comes out jabbing,ducking Kyoto and with fancy footwork ties rates of emissions growth to economic growth. This duplicious weapon that the government's been sharpening for a while promises to be double-edged.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Malcolm Turnbull, the Government has consistently refused to sign Kyoto. Do you believe that the Kyoto treaty has delivered any benefits at all?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I think Peter almost put his finger on it there when he said it's resulted in a 5 per cent reduction in emissions. Now, let's just put that in context. Most of the countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol in Europe that have reduced their emissions - and remember, the benchmark was 1990 - were countries whose emissions were reduced not because of any environmental awareness, but because, in the case of the Eastern Bloc, the Soviet Union and their satellites, their old sort of rust belt industries, defence industries, collapsed. That's why they've got so many credits, is because they're not building tanks any more. If you look at Britain, the reason Britain's emissions dropped was because Margaret Thatcher basically shut down Britain’s coal industry and moved to gas, North Sea gas, which is running out. So Britain is now importing coal, so you actually are importing coal to England in Newcastle in England, it's amazing. But the point I'm making, Kerry - let me just go on - the reduction in emissions that's occurred because of sorry, growth in emissions. The reduction in global growth in emissions that's occurred because of Kyoto is only 1 per cent. So it has not made a material impact. Why is that? Because the largest emitters are not party to it. The United States and, most importantly, the fastest growing emitters - China and India and other countries. China will overtake the United States within a couple of years as the world's largest emitter. You see, the best way to reduce emissions is to have no economic growth. If your economy collapses, then your emissions will reduce. And I'm afraid to say that Peter is on the record as favouring low economic growth.

PETER GARRETT: Oh, Malcolm, come on.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Let me just quote this.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Better be quick, Malcolm, in the interest of fairness.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: You said in 1987, Peter, in a book you wrote about politics, "The higher the standard of living, the greater burden on future generations to repair the damage by those living it up in the present." You said only a few years ago in 2004, let me finish, "Economic growth is always accompanied by a commensurate increase in environmental degradation." You see, your answer is to cut economic growth, okay? Good.

Garrett put us his shield and takes the blow. And then he rains down his attack.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Okay. I'm going to go to Peter Garrett now.

PETER GARRETT: Oh look, Kerry, there's only two developed countries that are outside of Kyoto, and that's Australia and America, and I think everybody watching this program who's taken an interest in this issue will know that Australia actually got a very good deal on its targets, the kind of targets we may just meet, but the Government continues to bag Kyoto even though it talks about reaching the targets. But, more importantly, what we're interested in is sustainable economic growth and the point about the challenge and the risk of climate change is that unless we actually now energetically and vigorously pursue the kinds of policies that are needed to reduce emissions and build industries as we go forward which, by the way, Labor and I are entirely committed to, then we will continue, ten years from this point in time, in facing an even more difficult problem. And that's simply this. We took a benefit in the Kyoto Protocol ratification process when we didn't sign on. But we took the benefit in those targets, because of the land clearing that we agreed to stop. Now, that land clearing benefit has gone. Australia's emissions are due to go up consistently over the next 10 or 20 years. 22 per cent by 2020, they'll go up. Now, that is an indictment of the Howard Government. But even more than that is the fact that we actually have industries who want a signal in the marketplace. We have industries who want to build sustainability - the solar, the wind, the geothermal. Our gas industry is ready to go forward. All of them still on the leash because of the Howard Government's position on Kyoto, and the fact that it’s sat on it hands for ten years and done nothing about climate change. I mean, the word "climate change" - there isn't even a climate change in the major environmental legislation in the Federal Parliament. They're allergic to climate change. They won't even have an environment trigger in their legislation to deal with it

Malcolm decides to go for a wrestle and spin.

KERRY O’BRIEN: If we can now move on, naturally and logically, to the actions. Malcolm Turnbull, what is the core Howard Government response to tackle the root causes of greenhouse emissions? Not the symptoms, but the root causes?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Sure. OK, the Howard Government has spent $2 billion over the last ten years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet its Kyoto target. We will meet our Kyoto target. Many countries Canada being a classic case - who ratified the protocol will miss that target, and by a long way. Now we will meet it and we will meet it because of investments made by the Howard Government in renewable energies, in the mandatory renewable energy target - MRET - and a whole range of measures, and that is a result of Government policy. Now, 10 years, more than 10 years ago, the Howard Government set up the Australian Greenhouse Office, which has been publishing data about greenhouse. It's been promoting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to say, as Peter did, that we are not part of the international work on combatting greenhouse is ridiculous. Howard Bamsey, who is head of the Australian Greenhouse Office, is the co chair of the new international talks on the post Kyoto approaches. So we're not only at the table, we're at the head of the table. Now, this proposition --

KERRY O’BRIEN: You've got 20 seconds to finish, Malcolm Turnbull. You're yielding - Peter Garrett?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Let Peter Garrett go on.

Garretts not yielding, he's going on the front foot.

PETER GARRETT: The team that was set to look at national emissions trading was disbanded. The AGO has been folded back into the department. The rhetoric and the actions of Mr Howard and his Government for ten years on climate change have been hostile. There's no question whatsoever that Australia's record in this area is a dismal one. Not only that, but we've missed the opportunity that countries that Malcolm talks about, like Germany and Japan, actually undertook when they started to develop alternative energy industries like solar, where they now are amongst the world's leaders and our solar engineers and solar businesses are going offshore. But even more than that, they have set about trying to reduce their emissions. We're not reducing ours and, Kerry, what the science tells us from this climate change report is that our entire economy, as well as our ecology, is at risk. I mean, it's tourism, it's agriculture, it's the likely impact that the sort of higher temperatures and less rainfall will make on drought. Those are the sort of effects that will be seen as we go forward, and when Nicholas Stern, who was commissioned by the UK to address this issue, said, "This is an issue of a scale of, terms of economic cost, two world wars and a Depression", he pretty much had it right.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Labor's core responses in Government to tackle the root causes of greenhouse emissions, what are Labor's core responses, briefly?

PETER GARRETT: Well, look, the first thing is, you need targets. If you don't know where you're going, then how are you going to get there? You need targets, and we are committed to a 50 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Our mandatory renewable energy target is at a miserable 2 per cent. We would expand it. We believe and support the idea of ratifying Kyoto and getting in with the other countries that are doing that good work as well. We would establish a national emissions trading system. The Government has been sitting on three or four reports about a national emissions trading system. Now we've got yet another report issued, and it's a discussion paper. People are anxious about this issue, Kerry, and I think we really feel that. I certainly do, I know Kevin does. They want to know that we're prepared to respond with solutions. We've got a very, very clear set of identified policies which we've put in place and at least, at the very least, we know we'd be setting ourselves on the path of building economy and sustaining environment as we go forward by reducing emissions.

Kerry starts asking hard questions.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Okay. We’ll talk about emissions trading in a moment, but Malcolm Turnbull, can we start by looking at the issue of cleaning up the coal that Australia burns for electricity, which for you is one of the front line issues to address?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: It absolutely is.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Is it a front-rank response by Government doesn't it concern you in that context that the IPCC has warned that it's too late to undo the damage and the effects of the damage we're going to see over the next 20 to 30 years, but that we should be taking action right now to try to limit the damage beyond that? But finding the right technology for clean coal is likely to take 10, 15 years and we don't know what the outcomes are going to be. Is that enough?

Back to clinching.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Kerry, we have to make sure that as we deal with greenhouse and as we reduce our emissions, and we are committed to reducing our emissions and will continue to do so - there's a Kyoto target, which we're going to meet - we have to remember that there is an economic cost. However you do it, whether you do it through taxes, whether you do it through subsidies which are funded by taxes, whether you do it through carbon trading, when you put a price on carbon, you impose a cost on the economy, and the higher that cost, the more impact that has. Now, Peter argues, Peter says all the Kyoto work has reduced the growth of emissions by 5 per cent by the countries involved. I gave some reasons as to why that growth is masked by collapses in economic activity in Europe. But just think of this. Peter is proposing that by 2050 and the Labor Party's policy is, in fact, 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – and that is a very, very big reduction; now, if we do that by ourselves it will make no difference to global warming, unless the rest of the world plays a part. Because this is a global problem. We can deal with water ourselves, within our own country. But global warming has to have a global solution. It's obvious, isn't it? A tonne of carbon put into the atmosphere in Sydney has as much impact on the atmosphere as one put into the atmosphere in Shanghai. So everybody's got to be in it together.

Kerry steps in to break them apart. Turnbull goes back in.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Hang on a second.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, hang on. If you impose a massive cost on the Australian economy you will do enormous damage to jobs. And that's why all this week interviewers have been saying to Peter, "What is it going to cost?" Three times on another channel he was asked and he would not say and, finally, the interviewer in frustration said, "Does this mean that consumers will have to pay more?" Peter said, "I don't know what ‘pay more’ means." Really, is that the sort of recklessness we can expect?

Garrett is lining up his target. Setting up the issues in focus for the crowd.

PETER GARRETT: Kerry, I'm not going to start responding to Malcolm's selective sort of viewing of hypotheticals that were put to me in an interview. What I would say is this. Arnie Schwarzenegger has showed us the way. He set clear targets - an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. He's put California on the road to a greenhouse gas reducing, but industry building, future. Why can't we do the same? Is the argument here that simply because other countries are producing greenhouse gas emissions, Australia, which actually does produce a fair bit of greenhouse gas, shouldn't? And why is Malcolm framing this debate always in terms of costs and scares? I mean, the CFMEU, the coal mining union, are totally in favour of ratifying Kyoto, are totally in favour of supporting renewable energy, are totally in favour of the Labor position and that's not only because of the association with Labor. They recognise that's the only way forward. And finally, and I think most importantly, let's look as a country at the opportunities. I mean, here we are with a wonderful inheritance of gas, a wonderful inheritance of solar, the capacity to build energy which can be delivered more cheaply than things like nuclear. Not as cheap as coal, certainly, but certainly more cheaper than nuclear, which is Mr Turnbull and Mr Howard's final solution to this issue and, at the same time, build industries which would employ young Australians, export that good technology to other parts of the world. I mean, that’s really, it’s, do we have a portfolio of energies which are greenhouse gas friendly? Or do we have a couple of energy sources, including nuclear, which are very expensive into the long term, have other additional problems that we need to manage?

Kerry points out the obvious flaw in the Government's strategy.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Malcolm Turnbull, like the Prime Minister, you have nominated nuclear power as part of the solution to the greenhouse problems but, again, like clean coal, the technology you're looking for for clean coal, if you embraced it tomorrow, if you embraced nuclear power tomorrow for Australia, and you're certainly not quite ready for that step yet, nuclear stations for Australia in sufficient numbers to make a difference are a long way into the future and, even if they're greenhouse friendly, it'll be years again before the positives of that kick in. Isn't that so?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, that's right, Kerry. But the ways in which you reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this is the International Energy Agency's opinion, not mine, is firstly by fuel efficiency, or energy efficiency, and that could be anything from better light bulbs to hybrid cars to all of the measures that are being promoted and used, deployed around our society. The second one is clean coal. Now, clean coal is actually not all years away. You're talking about carbon sequestration that has a way to go. But you can have power stations that are much more thermally efficient, and the more efficient they are, the less coal they need to burn, the less carbon they need to emit to generate a unit of power. That is, it may not be clean coal, but it is much cleaner coal. Now, that technology may well be the most important thing Australia does in terms of greenhouse, because we are working through the AP6, with the big emitters America, China, Japan and so forth and directly with China, to develop clean coal technologies. Why is that so important? Because China consumes 2,200 million tonnes of coal. We consume 125 million tonnes of coal. They are heavily coal dependent. That's not going to change. They are increasing their generation capacity every five or six months by an amount that's equal to ours. So unless they clean up their act and unless we can help them get the technology to do it, anything we do in Australia, any of the sacrifices to living standards, to jobs, that Peter is prepared to make, will not only hurt us, but be completely in vain.

Kerry sets off Labor's supposed weakness on nuclear.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Labor stands accused of having a closed mind on the benefits of nuclear power, regardless of how strong the scientific arguments may be to use it. Times change, technology changes. Even some environmentalists, a few environmentalists, are arguing that nuclear power is now safer than it once was, poses less risk than climate change does without nuclear as part of the armoury. Yet your party is about, at the same time that you oppose nuclear power, you're about to embrace, it would seem, increased mining and exports of uranium. You won't have nuclear power here but you'll sell uranium around the world to feed other people's nuclear power?

PETER GARRETT: That debate has got a little way to run. I just want to respond to something Malcolm said, though, and that's this. There's no doubt at all that one of the fastest growing areas of employment and economy in the world now is dealing with the carbon economy and constraining the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that we produce, and it is that particular part of, if you like, the Howard Government's approach that I find so bewildering because it's very clear that there's a huge market out there for energy efficiency, for renewables, for solar, for wind, for geothermal, for solar thermal where our CSIRO scientists reckon we could actually start to get baseload happening here over the next 8, 10, 15 years if we were prepared to invest in it and if the Government actually took it seriously. Now, it hasn't. The point here is a simple one. What that IPCC panel climate change report really said was, an enormous amount of damage has already been done because of the amount of CO2s that have gone into the atmosphere. We're about, what, 360, 370 parts per million. If we get over 500, 550, then we get into that 2, 3, 4 degree range. They are saying to us as scientists, you, as policy makers and politicians, need to act now in order to make sure it doesn't go too far. I think that's what people are really feeling and understanding. A lot of the people that went to the Al Gore film. Prime Minister Howard wouldn't see Al Gore, Al Gore was sort of lambasted by members of government. But a lot of people went to see that film and it was strongly factually based and he laid out the case very clearly. I think for Australians it's this idea they're not prepared to set targets. They keep on bagging Kyoto even though they use it as a reference point. They talk about nuclear down the track, but they never want to talk about what we can do now and what we need to do now to actually address this problem.

Turnbull's turn.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Malcolm Turnbull, are you embarrassed that a country like China that you quote as one of the great emitters, the great polluters, that China has a bigger target for using renewable energy resources than Australia does?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I'm not embarrassed by it at all. China uses a lot of wind power, more than we do, and the reason for that is they don't have a national electricity grid. So they can't zap power from one end of the country to the other like we can. If you are a Chinese community and you're generating, might be a village or a small town, and you're generating power from a diesel generator, which will be the typical source in most parts of China, you're not connected to the grid, putting a windmill there is very helpful because it enables you to deliver localised power. Wind, particularly in China, is very useful in localised communities and the same in India, separated from the grid. The economics differ from place to place. You shouldn't be prescriptive about particular types of energy source. That's why it's critical to have, ultimately, a price on carbon. Now, ideally, that should be a global emissions trading system. You'll get enormous distortions always if you've got some countries that are obligated by a trading system, and others that aren't. So a global system, everyone agrees, is the goal. What is the Howard Government doing? It is working now on a global emissions trading policy. That's what - the discussion paper that Peter referred to today is the precursor or the beginning of the inquiry into that. By May we'll have a report on which we can make policy decisions about emissions trading in the future.

He wriggles out of that. Not long before the bell, now. Garrett steps in landing some nice blows, tying Labor's fortunes to a US Democrat ascendency. He makes the idea of global warming consequences real by using examples involving our natural treasures.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Okay. Peter Garrett?

PETER GARRETT: Kerry, I suspect that when the Bush Administration's period passes through, that the Americans may, in fact, have a different position in terms of engaging with the world community on issues like climate change and Kyoto. There's certainly strong indication among the Democrats, particularly, in the United States, and a number of American states that want to get into the European trading system, that that's what will happen. And it's extraordinary that we in Australia have missed ten years, knowing that this problem was real and that we haven't acted upon it. And it's extraordinary that we've seen our businesses, whether they're solar business or wind businesses, go offshore. It's extraordinary that we actually don't have an absolutely up in your face profound energy policy which is driven at the national level which says, we will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by this amount within this amount of time. We will invest in these following industries, because we know by using the best of Australian brains and brain power we can actually bring our emissions down. We can actually start to look after nature and the planet, which doesn't really have a set of accounts other than, as Tim Flannery said, the amount of CO2 that's in the atmosphere, and do it in a way that actually guarantees jobs into the future but also looks after the environment. The environment, like the Great Barrier Reef, terribly at risk from climate change; Kakadu National Park, again, terribly at risk. But if we act now we can actually do something.

The bell goes. I score it Garrett's way. Kerry sets up the next contest.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Gentlemen, we're actually out of time. I know one thing we haven't touched on in any sort of detail at all is the whole issue of emissions trading. But it seems to me that that's something that's still got some way to go before we get a clear picture of where Australia is headed on that score. I hope that and other things will be the subject of our next debate, which I look forward to. I hope both of you do. Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull, thanks, both of you, for joining us tonight.

That's the program for tonight. A reminder that Stateline returns tomorrow night. Join us again on Monday, and John Clarke and Bryan Dawe will be back in their usual Thursday slot next week. For now, good night.

Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science Carbon Sink Earth Australia Kyoto Energy

Florida tornado kills 19 - withdraw emissions now

When I hear of a suicide bombing that kills a big number in Iraq straight after the Iraq Study Group withdrawal recommendations, I think, "C'on Bushy, surely this prompts you into taking the recommendations more soberly, and spurs you into a frenzy of remedial action?".

So the day after the release of the 2007 IPCC report telling us there is only a less than ten percent chance we are wrong about global warming, when I read of a tornado killing 19 in Florida, I think same.

Except now I can't stomach using the jovial "Bushy" to mask the depths of my feelings towards his incompetence - I am forced to see him as more defoliated and dumber in the light of reality, "C'on Twiggy^*, surely this prompts you into taking the recommendations more soberly, and spurs you into a frenzy of remedial action?": :::[SMH]

I am cautious attributing a single extreme weather event to global warming - one swallow doth not a summer make - but come on people, if you look up you can see entire gulps of swallows passing. We are way into the season.

Here is a summary of what the IPCC report has to say about extreme weather: :::[The Age: Key points in the UN experts' report]

Hurricanes

■ The report says it is "more likely than not" that a trend of increasing intense tropical cyclones and hurricanes has a human cause. It expects tropical cyclones to become more intense in the future. "There may not be an increase in number, there may be a redistribution to more intense events — which is what has been observed in the Atlantic since 1970," Mr Stott said

^*With apologies to Twiggy Lawson.

Global Warning Climate Change Environment IPCC CO2 Carbon Sink Earth Australia Kyoto Energy

Coal mining: Court rules in climate change considerations

This is the biggest thing to happen in global warming in Australia, so here it is verbatim: :::[ABC News]

Court finds climate change relevant to coal mine approval

A Newcastle environmentalist says a court ruling today means the New South Wales Government must take climate change into account when considering whether to approve new coal mines.

Peter Gray went to the New South Wales Land and Environment Court to challenge the environmental assessment for the proposed Anvill Hill coal mine in the Hunter Valley.

He argued the assessment was inadequate, because it did not take into account the impact that burning the coal would have on climate change.

The court voided the Government's decision that the environmental assessment was adequate.

Mr Gray is claiming victory, but says the ruling will not stop the mine from going ahead.

"It's certainly a setback for the process, I think it means a fresh look has to be taken at the mine," he said.

"The Government needs to consider the impacts that it will have on climate change so I do think it's a strong strike against Centennial Coal.'

The political and commercial repercussions of the Land and Environment Court ruling are being quickly felt as both the NSW and Federal Governments scramble to make sense of it. What, they didn't see the science coming? Not even the movie? But business has been asking for price signals on carbon for a while now. Now we know why.

That was late Monday. This is COD Tuesday:

The New South Wales Government says a court ruling on a coal mine proposed for the Hunter Valley could have significant implications for a range of industries, including mining.

and in federal politics, flushed from the gains of the Victorian Greens over the weekend,

Greens leader Bob Brown has attacked the Federal Opposition for voting against a motion to cap coal exports from Newcastle.

and scurrying from the light,

Federal Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell says a proposed amendment to federal environment laws to reflect a New South Wales Environment Court ruling is not a solution to climate change.

This blog is heating up at a rate of 0.2 degrees a decade. Come back often.

Global Warning Climate Change Environmental Law CO2 Coal Mining Earth Australia Kyoto Energy

Greenhouse Mafia runs Aussie government policy

Fossil fuel industry lobbyists writing government greenhouse policy. The nation's leading climate scientists censored at the behest of political masters. Only in America.

Wrong mate. It is happening here. ABC's Four Corners has aired amazing revelations by whistleblower Dr Guy Pearse, Speechwriter to the Environment Minister 1997-2000, that paint a picture of how industry lobbyists, calling themselves greenhouse "mafia", have burrowed deep into the government policy machine to successfully hijack greenhouse policy. In the same program Janine Cohen interviews Dr Graeme Pearman, Former CSIRO Climate Director, who claims that he has been prevented from speaking out on scientific matters adverse to the government's greenhouse policies, and that he is not the only one.

If all this is true, the implications are unsettling in the least. What is big coal and the government hiding?

Dr Guy Pearse joined the Liberal Party at a young age, has worked for Senator Hill and Senator McDonald and a range of state and federal MPs and has been encouraged to pursue his ambitions in politics himself. He also does consultancy work and lobbying for the energy sector. It is these blue ribbon credentials that makes his allegations more explosive:

Q. Now why have you decided to speak out and break Liberal Party solidarity?

A. I'm speaking out because ah I've spent seven years finding out about an issue and I don't think that with a clear conscience I could continue without saying something. One of the things I decided quite early when I joined the Liberal Party or I observed quite early was that the Labor Party tended to have ownership of the environment as a policy area and I felt very strongly that it was an area that they need not have ownership of and that the Liberal Party could do better. I think the Liberal Party has done a lot better since I joined in the late 80s and I'm very proud of a lot of the things that that we've done, um both under my former boss Senator Hill's stewardship and subsequent to that.

Q. So why are you talking now then?

A. I'm talking now because while I'm very proud of a lot of the things that the party has done on environment policy, ah I think climate change is an exception, um and having spent seven years ah writing a PhD and researching the issue and ah it's a very complex one and most people don't have the time to get across it, having found out what I've now found out, I find it impossible to continue with a clear conscience without speaking out.

Q. In a nutshell, what have you found out?

A. Well really I've discovered why ah Australian policy, greenhouse policy is being driven by the mining and energy sectors, ah which I thought was curious along the way, given that they have such a small contribution to the economy. Um in 1900 the commodities generated 30 per cent of our GDP and our employment. Ah today that's more like eight per cent. The mining and energy sectors only generate about two per cent of our jobs.

Q. So are you saying they have a disproportionate amount of influence?

A. That's right and I've found this very curious ah from the beginning of my PhD work and initially I set out to look at another question, which was why other sectors of the economy were playing such a small role and this had become apparent to me in my work for Senator Hill. But in discovering the answer to why some sections of business were so quiet, I couldn't help but discover the story behind the influence of the mining and energy industry - the fossil fuel lobby effectively.

Senator Robert Hill was the environment minister who played hard at the Kyoto conference and came back with some great targets for Australia to achieve (from an economic development perspective) and a good position from which to ratify the Kyoto protocol. He argued that Australia's large rainforests and vegetative biomass function as large carbon sink and this should be taken into account in setting the targets. But we didn't ratify and Dr Guy Pearse says he has since researched why, and how this came to be.

Q. Describe what you did for Senator Robert Hill.

A. I was Senator Hill's speech writer ah from about beginning of 1997 until the end of 99, ah which covered the Kyoto conference periods, so in that time there was a lot of emphasis on climate change as an issue as the Government was formulating its position in the lead up to Kyoto and then afterwards so Kyoto protocol and climate change more broadly made up a pretty large proportion of my work at the time.

Q. And did you enjoy working in that area?

A. I certainly did. As I said I long ago decided that environment policy was an area of great opportunity for the Liberal Party, ah and climate change is obviously the most important of the environmental issues facing Australia and the world and that's well acknowledged so it was a great time to be involved in one of the top priority issues and also for me Senator Hill had been a mentor for many years um and it was a wonderful opportunity to work for him and I regard very highly the achievements he had in this area. Getting through the Kyoto target that he negotiated was a magnificent achievement.

Q. Do you think however in some respects he was undermined by the fossil fuel industry?

A. Well the proof's in the pudding I suppose and history would show that he was heavily undermined and ultimately the government ah changed its mind on its ratification of the Kyoto protocol, which he'd worked so hard to negotiate. The work that I've done, it shows conclusively not just that he was undermined but how he was undermined.

Q. And how was he undermined?

A. Well the members of what we now refer to as the greenhouse mafia, and that's their own label for themselves, they bragged in my research about how they undermined Senator Hill ah through the government processes, the relevant cabinet committees and so on.

Q. Now during your time with Senator Hill, you became aware of a small but very powerful group of industry players. Who were they and how influential were they?

A. During my time with Senator Hill my interest in this issue, the question that I was most interested in was why some sections of the economy that seemed to me to have a glaring interest in climate change were silent on the issue and why the ah diary appointments were tended to be dominated by ah a very small section of the economy, particularly the fossil fuel lobby. That was the question that I wanted to investigate and what started out as a fairly innocent academic enquiry, you couldn't help but answer that question without discovering that in fact this small group of fossil fuel industry lobbyists had a highly disproportionate impact on government policy and so whilst I was looking at this other aspect of climate change, it became very apparent that that wasn't the main game.

We all know how this Liberal Government is tight, and how they have locked down the bureaucracy we pay for to the point that if anyone says something inconsistent about or contrary to government policy, it makes a headline. Fossil industry lobbyists feel no such restrictions.

Q. And of course you received amazing access to some industry insiders too.

A. That's right, that's right. That was, I was quite surprised in a way how openly people spoke. One of the things that if you're involved in greenhouse policy here in Canberra you'd know is that there's a high degree of self censorship in the bureaucracy because people have their jobs at risk if they say something that's inconsistent with government policy so they tend not to speak out. What amazed me when I interviewed industry association bosses was that not only were they willing to speak out but they were quite happy to brag about their role in running government greenhouse policy.

Q. What sort of things did they brag about?

A. They tended to ah say that they, because of their previous involvement in government departments, mainly the industry department but other departments as well, before coming out and running industry associations and often playing musical chairs between those associations. They had an incredible corporate knowledge of government policy going back for a generation or so they tended to brag about how much more they knew about government policy than the government. Ah they talked about knowing where all the skeletons were buried.

Q. What did that mean?

A. Well you'd have to ask them but I suspect it meant that ah if they didn't get their way, they knew what buttons to push to embarrass the government.

Q. Blackmail.

A. I wouldn't call it that, you might.

It seems that the fossil fuel industry has organised itself a nice little pincer movement in impacting government policy.

Q. Now if we could just talk about those industry players, did they keep close associations with their former colleagues in the department?

A. The industry association bosses that I'm talking about came from branches within government departments here in Canberra, and often in lobbying the Government on greenhouse policy from their industry association, they were dealing with former colleagues. Often those colleagues had worked under them ah when they had worked in the department, so that was the type of relationship that existed, and there was clear evidence in - the interviews that I conducted that they continued to play a strong role in preparing/advising their former colleagues on the briefs and cabinet submissions that they would send up to their ministers on greenhouse policy.

Q. So they were afforded special privileges because of their past employment.

A. It would appear that they were give incredible access ah to the government process. A number of them mentioned to me that they felt that perhaps since their departure there had been a decline in the skill level in those relevant branches of the departments and that because of their lack of knowledge about previous history, and about a current policy that there was an opening for them then to go in and help them prepare policy for government. So you ended up with this unique situation, a circular situation where the advice that the government was receiving from its bureaucrats was almost identical to the advice they were receiving from industry associations because effectively the same people were writing it.

So that is how it is done. My tax dollars at work, undermining my child's future. Lovely. You can find the links to the transcript of Dr Guy Pearse's interview and the interview with Dr Graeme Pearman here.

Tags: Climate+Change, Global+Warming, Government, Greenhouse+Policy, Greenhouse, News, Media, Australia, Oil, Coal, Industry