Great!
The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) called on the Federal and State governments to toughen the Building Code of Australia and address the problem of "brittle buildings".
It seems research conducted by Professor Alan Jeary, a structural design specialist from the University of Western Sydney's school of engineering, concludes that roofs tiles will not withstand the onslaught of a summer storm season. Sydney's present roofing materials - up to 75 per cent ceramic tile and 10 per cent slate - were easily damaged by relatively minor hail storms.
In the past 20 years, Sydney has been hit by five significant hailstorms, which have caused more than $6 billion damage. Climate change research indicates that the problems could get much worse.
Global Warning Climate Change Energy
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia. Show all posts
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Hottest Australian January on record
 clipped from www.ncdc.noaa.gov
|
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Climate Change in Australia
The CSIRO and the BOM put their heads together to work out what the findings of the 2007 IPCC Report means to Australia.
In a nutshell, we have to dramatically reduce emissions to keep Australia's average temperature from increasing more than the 1% that is already programmed into the system.
If this is a Government agency report, then how can any self-respecting Government ignore the implications.
In a nutshell, we have to dramatically reduce emissions to keep Australia's average temperature from increasing more than the 1% that is already programmed into the system.
If this is a Government agency report, then how can any self-respecting Government ignore the implications.
 clipped from www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.auIn 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their fourth assessment report, concluding that:
|
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Rich's carbon emissions doubles the poor's
The more we learn about the impact of global warming, the more it is apparent that the poor are going to bear the brunt of it.
We see that in Bangladesh. And in Australia. New research on carbon footprints across the socio-economic spectrum here, reveals that:
We see that in Bangladesh. And in Australia. New research on carbon footprints across the socio-economic spectrum here, reveals that:
At a relatively low carbon price of $25 a tonne of greenhouse pollution, poor families around Australia would be paying about $558 a year more on their bills, while the wealthiest households would pay around $1446 extra.
But once those extra costs are adjusted to take into consideration income levels, as a proportion of their total spending, poor people could pay almost seven times more than the rich.
 clipped from www.theage.com.au
The analysis was conducted by the Melbourne-based National Institute of Economic and Industry Research. |
The last word goes to the executive director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Tony Nicholson, who commissioned the analysis.
"This is a great opportunity, because if we seriously address climate change we can also do a lot to address entrenched disadvantage," Mr Nicholson said.
"For instance, we're advocating a national rental incentive scheme for landlords to make private rental properties more energy efficient, because we know many disadvantaged people have high energy bills because their homes aren't properly insulated.
"Australia has a national roads strategy; why don't we have a national public transport policy? More disadvantaged people tend to have older cars that consume a lot of fuel, and many live on the outskirts of cities and in country towns. So by improving public transport, you address both problems at once."
Friday, June 01, 2007
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:
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
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
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Global warming terrorism will see more exploding trees
What's summer without a bushfire or two? Indeed, some of our plant life has evolved to germinate as a result of bushfire, but bushfires all year round would be an entirely different thing.
Overseas readers may not know this, but the eucalyptus tree has a such a high oil content that they virtually explode in the path of an approaching bushfire that has reached such an intensity it is crowning.
Overseas readers may not know this, but the eucalyptus tree has a such a high oil content that they virtually explode in the path of an approaching bushfire that has reached such an intensity it is crowning.
 clipped from www.smh.com.au
|
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Solar breakthrough: households can power grid
Australia's future energy may be secured by a grid of good, old fashioned, trusty nuclear. Nuclear families, that is, and the roofs over their heads linked into a giant electranet, if the following breakthrough in photovoltaic cells holds true to its market promise.
 clipped from www.theage.com.auResearchers at the University of New South Wales ARC Photovoltaics Centre of Excellence have developed a means of increasing the cell's light-trapping ability by up to 50 per cent. Such improvement to an electric solar system could power an average house with panels covering 10 square metres. "Overall, our new solar cells increase power generated by 30 per cent," said Dr Kylie Catchpole, co-author of the study.
|
Global Warning Climate Change
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
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."
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
|
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Carbon Sink Australia >
Monday, April 23, 2007
Howard denies moral dimension to global warming
Honestly, if John Howard had been reading Global Warming Watch, like he should, he would have known months ago that global warming will feature heavily at the next Australian election. And he wouldn't have made this faux pas. :::[SMH]
Which has me wondering - what is Howard's idea of the overwhelming moral challenge facing Australians subsequent to our lovely experiment with ditching habeas corpus for David Hicks, and tearing up our United Nations obligations to refugees? Methinks gay Muslim Aboriginals who throw their stem-celled children overboard for native title could soon be co-opted for Howard's next bogeyman. Eat your babies now or face the ensuing Prime Ministerial pillorying!
Mr Howard ignores the leverage that we could bring to bear on the world's biggest emitter, the United States, by totally isolating them if we signed the Kyoto Protocol. As our two countries are the only two hold-outs left, it is disingenuous in the extreme for Howard to suggest we would be acting alone, or indeed that we have no influence on the global climate.
A minor emitter? Australia is actually the world's biggest emitter per capita: We produce 27.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per person per year. This is enough to fill 27 family homes. The figure is 27 per cent higher than the amount produced by American citizens and more than double the average figure for people living in most other industrialised countries.
Lastly, we are the world's biggest exporter of coal - none of it clean. It may be convenient for Howard to say the coal gets burnt elsewhere, however these externalised costs do come back to us in climate change. That's why they call it global warming.
If only. The issue of global warming has been in the political pipeline for 20 years, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988. Imagine if we had listened then?
If only the Liberal Party presented a decent opposition to the Labor and the Greens on climate change. Then the electorate would have a real choice.
Mate - until last year, global warming was not even on your radar. Anything you cobble together now is, by definition, 'knee-jerk' - like throwing around $200 million trying to get 'illegal' Indonesian loggers and their militias to stop logging while ignoring the activities of our own virgin rainforest loggers because they are you mates come election time. And you can't deflect the charge of ideologue yourself when you have studiously ignored the science behind global warming, and allowed our fossil-fuel industry to set our climate change policy.
Then there is this duplicity...
...contradicting this one:
Which one is it? Are we worried about the "very serious costs" from "acting alone", or are we refusing to act with the European Union?
Anyway, we are getting distracted. If you accept the science, Mr Howard, then it is clearly a moral imperative to do everything possible to pass on to your children and grandchildren a similar or better environmental heritage than the one you inherited. It's immoral to do otherwise.
If only because no economy can exist outside it's natural environment.
UPDATE:
Chuckled over this comment from a Road to Surfdom reader:
Ouch!
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science Australia Kyoto Energy
Prime Minister John Howard has rejected Labor leader Kevin Rudd's claim that climate change is the overwhelming moral challenge facing Australians.
Which has me wondering - what is Howard's idea of the overwhelming moral challenge facing Australians subsequent to our lovely experiment with ditching habeas corpus for David Hicks, and tearing up our United Nations obligations to refugees? Methinks gay Muslim Aboriginals who throw their stem-celled children overboard for native title could soon be co-opted for Howard's next bogeyman. Eat your babies now or face the ensuing Prime Ministerial pillorying!
Mr Howard said Australia was a minor emitter of greenhouse gases and could not influence the global climate by acting alone.
Mr Howard ignores the leverage that we could bring to bear on the world's biggest emitter, the United States, by totally isolating them if we signed the Kyoto Protocol. As our two countries are the only two hold-outs left, it is disingenuous in the extreme for Howard to suggest we would be acting alone, or indeed that we have no influence on the global climate.
A minor emitter? Australia is actually the world's biggest emitter per capita: We produce 27.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per person per year. This is enough to fill 27 family homes. The figure is 27 per cent higher than the amount produced by American citizens and more than double the average figure for people living in most other industrialised countries.
Lastly, we are the world's biggest exporter of coal - none of it clean. It may be convenient for Howard to say the coal gets burnt elsewhere, however these externalised costs do come back to us in climate change. That's why they call it global warming.
The prime minister said he rejected the Labor Party's zealotry about the issue.
If only. The issue of global warming has been in the political pipeline for 20 years, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988. Imagine if we had listened then?
If only the Liberal Party presented a decent opposition to the Labor and the Greens on climate change. Then the electorate would have a real choice.
Mr Howard said such an approach also obscured the need for balanced government decision-making and fed ideological demands with kneejerk policy reactions.
Mate - until last year, global warming was not even on your radar. Anything you cobble together now is, by definition, 'knee-jerk' - like throwing around $200 million trying to get 'illegal' Indonesian loggers and their militias to stop logging while ignoring the activities of our own virgin rainforest loggers because they are you mates come election time. And you can't deflect the charge of ideologue yourself when you have studiously ignored the science behind global warming, and allowed our fossil-fuel industry to set our climate change policy.
Then there is this duplicity...
"As the Productivity Council has warned, there are potentially very serious costs to Australia from acting alone,'' Mr Howard said.
...contradicting this one:
"I will not sub-contract our climate change policy to the European Union.''
Which one is it? Are we worried about the "very serious costs" from "acting alone", or are we refusing to act with the European Union?
Anyway, we are getting distracted. If you accept the science, Mr Howard, then it is clearly a moral imperative to do everything possible to pass on to your children and grandchildren a similar or better environmental heritage than the one you inherited. It's immoral to do otherwise.
If only because no economy can exist outside it's natural environment.
UPDATE:
Chuckled over this comment from a Road to Surfdom reader:
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science Australia Kyoto Energy
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Rupert backs Rudd: St Kevin's Kyoto coronation
In early 1066, an ambitious bloke called Guillaume le Bâtard (William the Bastard) left his dukedom to flick off to Rome and clear his regal ambitions with the pope of the day, Alexander II. Later that year, having being blessed in battle where he had flown the papal banner, Bâtard changed his name. History now knows of him as William the Conqueror, King of England.
I'm pretty sure nobody called him "bastard" again.
Guillaume was a tough and resilient man, smart and wily, but so too was his adversary, King Harold II. No worthy historian should underestimate the value of papal blessings when realms revise.
Yesterday an ambitious bloke called Saint Kevin (Aussie irony that approximates to 'bastard') left his dominion to flick off to New York and clear his prime ministerial ambitions with the patriarch of today's Anglosphere, Murdoch II.
'Tis a well beaten path that Kevvie le Heavy troddeth; the carbon footprints of Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and George W. Bush can't be too hard to miss. As a punter our fellow has form; so did Rupert give Rudd his papal banner? :::[SMH]
When I was in sales I would always try to schedule my most important meeting for 11 am, just on the off-chance that my prospect enjoyed food. With this life lesson satisfactorilyunder above my belt I can confidently asset the following -- whomever Pope Murdoch breaketh bread with can consider themselves anointeth:
I would love to see how the bookmakers odds changed after His three words. So-- Roopy is sure of Kevvie? Why is this good news for those concerned about global warming?
The Kyoto Protocol runs to 2012, but we two countries have been the hold-outs to date-- joining at this late stage can achieve less in terms of practice, but it is still very symbolic and very important that Australia, and hopefully the US, signs up. It's like playing cards with a full deck. Certainly, in the coal-coked context of Australian (and US) politics, Rudd has taken a bloody courageous stance, but the Murdoch imprimatur helps heaps. Good on you.
I'm pretty sure no one will call him 'Saint Kevin' again, definitely after December.
Global Warning Climate Change Australia Kyoto Energy
I'm pretty sure nobody called him "bastard" again.
Guillaume was a tough and resilient man, smart and wily, but so too was his adversary, King Harold II. No worthy historian should underestimate the value of papal blessings when realms revise.
Yesterday an ambitious bloke called Saint Kevin (Aussie irony that approximates to 'bastard') left his dominion to flick off to New York and clear his prime ministerial ambitions with the patriarch of today's Anglosphere, Murdoch II.
'Tis a well beaten path that Kevvie le Heavy troddeth; the carbon footprints of Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and George W. Bush can't be too hard to miss. As a punter our fellow has form; so did Rupert give Rudd his papal banner? :::[SMH]
Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch has endorsed Labor leader Kevin Rudd, saying he would make a good Australian prime minister.
Mr Rudd met for a one-hour private meeting with Mr Murdoch at the News Corporation's New York headquarters today, but the meeting was extended when the pair decided to have dinner together at a local restaurant.
When I was in sales I would always try to schedule my most important meeting for 11 am, just on the off-chance that my prospect enjoyed food. With this life lesson satisfactorily
Channel Seven reported that when asked if Mr Rudd would make a good prime minister, Mr Murdoch replied "Oh, I'm sure."
I would love to see how the bookmakers odds changed after His three words. So
Mr Rudd has met with US government officials and business leaders and yesterday addressed the prestigious left-wing thinktank, The Brookings Institution.In his wide-ranging speech on the Australia-US alliance, Mr Rudd urged the United States to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and said the economic potential of the relationship with China for both Australia and the US was great.
The Kyoto Protocol runs to 2012, but we two countries have been the hold-outs to date
I'm pretty sure no one will call him 'Saint Kevin' again, definitely after December.
Global Warning Climate Change Australia Kyoto EnergyThursday, April 19, 2007
PM voices dustbowl fears for Australia's breadbasket
To my mind it is the biggest news in Australia this century, if fair dinkum. Maybe even since Federation in 1901.
Prime Minister John Howard appeared on television today and threatened to cut off water supplies to the farmers of the Murray-Darling basin, if there are isn't heavy rainfall in the coming months. :::[Video: SMH]
If you are not familiar with the geography - the Murray Darling Basin is the food basket of Australia, and many other parts of the world that we export to. The immediate upshot of denying these farmers their water allocations is that this would radically increase prices for many food products. The longer term effect is that the many types of crops, citrus, stone fruit and the like, that take up to five years to become established, will die. So will a lot of farming enterprises.
I am completely taken by surprise. Gob-smacked. Yes I know there is a tough drought happening, and that it had been exacerbated up until last month by the El Niño Southern Oscillation. Yes I know global warming is very gradually taking its toll, slowly changing the climate in southern Australia to a drier one.
But this announcement has me disturbed.
It still seems so out of the blue. It's also not one that you would imagine a Prime Minister would be happy to make in an election year - why wouldn't a canny man like Howard leave it to his Minister for Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull, to take to the podium alone? As I write I am almost starting to hope that this just might be typical Howardian politics, rather than drastic reality. Howard is desperately trying to get the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks to be part of his $10 billion water initiative; Could he be trying to scare Bracks into signing over his state's water powers to the Federal Government?
Interestingly, the biggest farmers are not panicking. They say they need Mr Howard to clarify what he means before they worry. :::[SMH: Water ban threat questioned]
Here is what Howard said:
And what Corboy said in response when asked:
I think I'll go with the man on the land this time. The manner in which the announcement was made seemed a touch incongruent for the gravitas of the situation - if it was for real. In addition, when one journalist queried whether the drought was linked to climate change, Howard was completely emphatic in saying that it was not.
How can anyone be so sure?
Global Warning Climate Change Drought Australia
Prime Minister John Howard appeared on television today and threatened to cut off water supplies to the farmers of the Murray-Darling basin, if there are isn't heavy rainfall in the coming months. :::[Video: SMH]
If you are not familiar with the geography - the Murray Darling Basin is the food basket of Australia, and many other parts of the world that we export to. The immediate upshot of denying these farmers their water allocations is that this would radically increase prices for many food products. The longer term effect is that the many types of crops, citrus, stone fruit and the like, that take up to five years to become established, will die. So will a lot of farming enterprises.
I am completely taken by surprise. Gob-smacked. Yes I know there is a tough drought happening, and that it had been exacerbated up until last month by the El Niño Southern Oscillation. Yes I know global warming is very gradually taking its toll, slowly changing the climate in southern Australia to a drier one.
But this announcement has me disturbed.
It still seems so out of the blue. It's also not one that you would imagine a Prime Minister would be happy to make in an election year - why wouldn't a canny man like Howard leave it to his Minister for Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull, to take to the podium alone? As I write I am almost starting to hope that this just might be typical Howardian politics, rather than drastic reality. Howard is desperately trying to get the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks to be part of his $10 billion water initiative; Could he be trying to scare Bracks into signing over his state's water powers to the Federal Government?
Interestingly, the biggest farmers are not panicking. They say they need Mr Howard to clarify what he means before they worry. :::[SMH: Water ban threat questioned]
The owner of one of Australia's 10 largest stone fruit farms is nonplussed by Prime Minister John Howard's declaration that no water will be allocated to irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin for the coming year unless there is substantial rain in the next six weeks.
John Corboy, of Corboy Fresh Fruits, which operates 400 hectares near Shepparton in Victoria, said he would need more information on what Mr Howard means by "very substantial" inflows into the Murray-Darling Basin before he paid attention to it.
Mr Howard did not specify how much rain would be needed by the end of May to make irrigation allocations a possibility.
Here is what Howard said:
"Unless there are very substantial inflows - and for that read heavy rain leading to run-off into the catchment areas - prior to mid-May 2007, there will be insufficient water available to allow any allocation at the commencement of the 2007-08 water year for irrigation, the environment or for any purposes other than critical urban supplies."
And what Corboy said in response when asked:
"It's not enough to really comment on, other than, 'Hang on mate, you're flying off the handle here and you're being fairly emphatic when there's so many unknowns.' "
"Realistically we're out of the el nino effect and the indicators are showing us that clearly, the oceans temperatures have come back to normal. The pundits are telling us within our area that we have 50 per cent chance of having higher than average rainfall [this season]."
"People tend to be getting into the view that it's just never going to rain again, well that's not the case, it will, we just don't when. And there's only one bloke who knows when it will, and he's not giving interviews."
I think I'll go with the man on the land this time. The manner in which the announcement was made seemed a touch incongruent for the gravitas of the situation - if it was for real. In addition, when one journalist queried whether the drought was linked to climate change, Howard was completely emphatic in saying that it was not.
How can anyone be so sure?
Global Warning Climate Change Drought Australia
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
AGL joins the Chicago Climate Exchange
Yes that is our AGL - Australian Gas and Light - and what are they doing in Chicago is looking for a mechanism whereby they can market their energy efficiencies and emissions savings to less efficient companies around the world. That's the beauty of global warming - abatement is an instantly globalised industry. :::[SMH: Energy giant embraces carbon trading]
This leave the Federal Liberal party, (the party of big business?) decidedly flat-footed.
The good news is that there is an election coming up as soon as Howard announces. Then we can get on with our future.
Global Warning Climate Change
THE energy giant AGL has said it will become the first big Australian company to join the Chicago Climate Exchange, a move that may embarrass the Federal Government as it wrangles over climate change.
The move will allow AGL to do something it cannot do at home: profit from cutting its greenhouse gas pollution in Australia.
It will help the company expand its renewable energy operations, including plans to build the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere at Macarthur in Victoria. This will power about 190,000 homes.
AGL's managing director, Paul Anthony, told the Herald the company had invested almost $2 billion in renewable energy in the past 12 months. Mr Anthony said he hoped the board would soon agree to the big investment needed for the Macarthur wind farm. It has also just bought three "bio-mass" power stations in Queensland fired by, among other things, macadamia nuts.
This leave the Federal Liberal party, (the party of big business?) decidedly flat-footed.
For the past 10 years, the Howard Government has stalled on setting up a carbon trading scheme in Australia or ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, which would allow companies to trade in the European carbon market.
Now Australian companies have no real way to measure the cost of greenhouse gas pollution caused by carbon-intensive energy sources such as coal, oil and gas, except for the Chicago Climate Exchange, which puts the price at $US5 a tonne.
So if Australian companies cut their emissions and invest in renewable energy they can find it difficult to reap an immediate reward for their efforts, while polluting competitors who stick to coal-fired power are not penalised.
The good news is that there is an election coming up as soon as Howard announces. Then we can get on with our future.
Global Warning Climate Change
Garrett: Put economy first by addressing climate change
Federal Parliament ALP member, Peter Garrett, places global warming in an economic context, looking at the positive and negative implications: :::[SMH: Economy put at risk by climate inertia]
And how do we get our hands on some of it? Well, something has to change.
Peter's solutions are to create jobs developing and manufacturing the technologies for clean coal, biomass, solar and wind. And that we set up a carbon trading system as soon as possible.
He concludes with an indication of how Labor will be positioning itself on climate change in the yet-to-be-announced-but-already- campaigning election.
How refreshing to hear, after all Howard's initial global warming denial, then his denial of the anthropogenic component, then his complete abandonment of the question to concentrate on some yet-to-be-developed saviour technology, and his dodgy Switkowsky report on nuclear.
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Australia Kyoto Energy
Last week Michael Molitor, the principal of CarbonShift (a wholesale supplier of voluntary carbon units) and a former director of climate change services at PricewaterhouseCoopers, described the opportunity in this way: globally, we will need to prevent 600 billion tonnes of carbon emissions that will otherwise accumulate in the atmosphere over the next 43 years in order to stabilise atmospheric concentrations at or below 500 parts per million.
Using a low average abatement cost of $25 a tonne creates a capital-market opportunity of $15 trillion. This would be the largest global financial market opportunity in history. The question Australia needs to answer is: how much of that $15 trillion is coming our way?
And how do we get our hands on some of it? Well, something has to change.
Unfortunately, after a decade of inaction on climate change, the Howard Government has been left standing at the docks waving goodbye to Australian jobs, investment and technology. Last week the Australian company Global Renewables announced a $5 billion deal with Britain's Lancashire County Council and Blackpool Council. The Lancashire project aims to cut greenhouse pollution by more than 4 million tonnes.
Global Renewable has had to go to Britain to realise its ambitions.
Four weeks ago another Australian company, Pacific Hydro - which has 1800 megawatts of clean energy assets around the world - announced its move into Brazil. Why?
Because according to its general manager, Rob Grant, the growth in Australian clean energy assets has been held back by Australia's decision to not sign the Kyoto Protocol. The company is looking internationally for investment opportunities in countries that are enacting positive policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address global warming.
Zhengrong Shi, an academic from the University of NSW who was unable to realise his ambitions to develop solar technology in Australia, moved his business to China, where he is now that nation's third-richest man. His technology is helping reduce China's emissions. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that in a few years we might have to import these technologies, which were developed in Australia, from China. We should not be in the business of exporting jobs, technology or our brightest and best minds.
Peter's solutions are to create jobs developing and manufacturing the technologies for clean coal, biomass, solar and wind. And that we set up a carbon trading system as soon as possible.
We need climate change policies that will make Australia a regional hub for emissions trading and clean energy. Federal Labor has a suite of policies that will not only drive down our emissions but also create jobs in regional and rural Australia and open up the market potential of carbon trading.
He concludes with an indication of how Labor will be positioning itself on climate change in the yet-to-be-announced-but-already- campaigning election.
The Prime Minister insists that dealing with climate change is an either/or proposition: either we cut emissions or we grow the economy. The fact is we can and must do both.
How refreshing to hear, after all Howard's initial global warming denial, then his denial of the anthropogenic component, then his complete abandonment of the question to concentrate on some yet-to-be-developed saviour technology, and his dodgy Switkowsky report on nuclear.
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Australia Kyoto Energy
Friday, March 16, 2007
Climate change front & Centre in Queensland politics.
In September 2006, the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, promised Queenslanders a headquarters from which to fight climate change, if they re-elected him: :::[ABC News]
They did, and today he started delivering on this promise. :::[SMH]
Climate change is greening politics, like a spreading algal bloom, across the world. Recent examples are the Climate Change Bill passed in the UK giving the British the lead in constructing a framework for enforceable emissions reductions, and the Chinese Premier announcing that they Chinese will forsake 2% of projected economic growth in order to align their economies with the emerging carbon economy.
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science CO2 Australia Kyoto Energy
Mr Beattie says a re-elected Labor government would offer $10 million over four years to water safety initiatives and would bring together a panel of experts to set up a climate change centre of excellence.
They did, and today he started delivering on this promise. :::[SMH]
A new centre which hopes to put Queensland at the forefront of climate change technology has opened.
Premier Peter Beattie, who opened the Queensland Climate Change Centre, said its scientists would tap into the latest knowledge from around the world to help plan for and adapt to the state's changing environment.
One of its first projects will be to investigate the effectiveness of cloud seeding in Queensland.
Another will be pinpointing which parts of the state would be more affected by climate change, and how they would be affected, Mr Beattie said.
Natural Resources and Water Minister Craig Wallace said Queensland's annual average temperature was projected to rise by up to two degrees Celsius by 2030, and rainfall to drop by around 13 per cent.
But other parts of the state could experience more storms and increased rainfall, he said.
"With more intense droughts and heat waves and less frequent but more intense rainfall the centre is an important step in the right direction to help plan for and adapt to our changing climate," he said.
The centre has an annual budget of $7.5 million and was an election promise.
Climate change is greening politics, like a spreading algal bloom, across the world. Recent examples are the Climate Change Bill passed in the UK giving the British the lead in constructing a framework for enforceable emissions reductions, and the Chinese Premier announcing that they Chinese will forsake 2% of projected economic growth in order to align their economies with the emerging carbon economy.
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science CO2 Australia Kyoto Energy
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Climate change heavyweights duke it out
Here is one contest I am going to enjoy big-time: Garrett vs. Turnbull.
Malcolm Turnbull, to the right, is a self-made millionaire, seemingly an independent thinker, ex-journalist, and until I moved he was my local federal member of parliament. The amount of money he spent to get the gig was exciting and instructive. He is the type of guy you naturally like, however it's early days for him in politics - he has plenty of time to be disliked. One way that is going to be hastened is by his unblinking support for nuclear energy and Howard's 'clean-coal' energy. Prime Minister Howard first whetted him on the water ministry, and then quickly combined this portfolio with climate change. He did this to neutralise Labour's obvious strength in Peter Garrett as federal opposition minister for the environment.
Peter Garret. If you need an introduction there is not much help for you. In the '80's he was the lead singer for Midnight Oil, one of Australia's biggest rock bands. Social justice never rocked like it did with "The Oils"; they even made some my Jesuit-inculcated values seem cool to a late teen. He was a committed environmentalist in the 90's and early noughties, becoming the president of WWF Australia. Now he is a star Labor recruit, front and center on the issue of climate change.
Parliament resumed yesterday and Labor came out attacking the government on their ten years of neglect facing up to the reality of climate change. They scored an early hit when Howard, despite a claimed recent 'conversion', could not push past the legacy idee fixe that has always dominated his thinking on global warming - "the jury is still out" on the link between fossil-fuel emission and global warming. He later recanted, saying he thought the opposition was talking about the link between the drought and climate change. As a particular Jesuit used to sing out when he saw it... "Bullshit!". But this did not happen until way after Turnbull had come out of the gates fast, determined to take it to the opposition. Unfortunately, he came across as too try-hard, painting the opposition as global warming "fundamentalists", and "purists". The big, scary bald ex-rocker was made to seem eminently reasonable, without trying. That is not to say that there wasn't something to admire in Turnbull's effort and eloquence.
The battle continued today: :::[SMH]
Garrett vs. Turnbull. Round Two
The way I am scoring this is 1 point for a blow landed, 3 points for a heavy blow, and minus 2 points for spin (I'm really sick of it). And or course I will also give 1 point if a contestant is realy clever or funny regardless of content. I'll also give a point for good use of pathos.
1 point to Garrett
I know that Turnbull can do much better. I want him to. I like him. I find him refreshing compared to our other pollies, especially the Libs. I want him to put up a contest, but based on the facts. Based on real solutions and not spin and cheap point-scoring.
Garrett: 19 points. Turnbull: -7 points. Not a good start for Mal. C'on baby - make it interesting.
Technorati: Global Warning Climate Change Politics Australia Kyoto Energy
Photo SMH
Peter Garret. If you need an introduction there is not much help for you. In the '80's he was the lead singer for Midnight Oil, one of Australia's biggest rock bands. Social justice never rocked like it did with "The Oils"; they even made some my Jesuit-inculcated values seem cool to a late teen. He was a committed environmentalist in the 90's and early noughties, becoming the president of WWF Australia. Now he is a star Labor recruit, front and center on the issue of climate change.
Parliament resumed yesterday and Labor came out attacking the government on their ten years of neglect facing up to the reality of climate change. They scored an early hit when Howard, despite a claimed recent 'conversion', could not push past the legacy idee fixe that has always dominated his thinking on global warming - "the jury is still out" on the link between fossil-fuel emission and global warming. He later recanted, saying he thought the opposition was talking about the link between the drought and climate change. As a particular Jesuit used to sing out when he saw it... "Bullshit!". But this did not happen until way after Turnbull had come out of the gates fast, determined to take it to the opposition. Unfortunately, he came across as too try-hard, painting the opposition as global warming "fundamentalists", and "purists". The big, scary bald ex-rocker was made to seem eminently reasonable, without trying. That is not to say that there wasn't something to admire in Turnbull's effort and eloquence.
The battle continued today: :::[SMH]
Garrett vs. Turnbull. Round Two
The way I am scoring this is 1 point for a blow landed, 3 points for a heavy blow, and minus 2 points for spin (I'm really sick of it). And or course I will also give 1 point if a contestant is realy clever or funny regardless of content. I'll also give a point for good use of pathos.
1 point to Garrett
Mr Garrett, Labor's climate change and environment spokesman, said the government's scepticism and inaction on climate change was risking Australia's environment.3 points to Garrett
He said China was doing more than Australia to cut greenhouse gas emissions.3 points to Garrett
Lack of government support had forced Australia's top solar energy scientists to go overseas.3 points to Garrett, plus 1 more for the laugh
The government's report on emissions trading, which was released today, was a mere nine pages.1 point to Garrett for wry humour and 3 points for the combination jab and uppercut.
Mr Garrett said the government was uneasy and confused when dealing with the issue.1 point to Garrett for the laugh and 3 points for the combination jab and uppercut.
The problem was Prime Minister John Howard's own misconceptions about climate change, which were highlighted by his remark that a four to six degree temperature rise would leave some people less comfortable.
The prime minister called Labor climate change purists and fanatics, Mr Garrett said.I can't bring myself to score Turnbull's dissappointing reply blow-by-blow. I am picking an arbitary -7 points for spin, opaque logic and common-garden mendacity unworthy of the man's intellect. Here are some samples:
He should include the Australian Medical Association, big business, the National Farmers' Federation and security experts.
"The jury is in and the science is clear," Mr Garrett said.
"The planet is heating. The time for action is now. Our children and grandchildren deserve no less."
Mr Turnbull said Labor had promised to impose a 60 per cent cut in emissions by 2050, but wouldn't say what the economic costs and consequences of the policy would be.Care to tell us what the consequences are of not achieving those cuts, you cheeky old silver-tongued silvertail? According to the ex-World Bank economist and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Nicholas Stern, the economic cost of not achieving the emissions reductions will be a fifth of total global economic GDP by 2050. Turnbull should know this. He must.
Mr Turnbull said Labor's solution was for Australia to impose on itself a target that would have massive economic consequences, but would have no effect on global warming unless it was matched overseas.That hoary old chestnut is why Australia has not already made the change to its economy that it should have 10 years ago. The logic is pathetic and mean... we are going to keep littering because everyone else is - how grown-up? That's why I scored him minus seven.
Solutions had to involve China, India and the United States.
I know that Turnbull can do much better. I want him to. I like him. I find him refreshing compared to our other pollies, especially the Libs. I want him to put up a contest, but based on the facts. Based on real solutions and not spin and cheap point-scoring.
Garrett: 19 points. Turnbull: -7 points. Not a good start for Mal. C'on baby - make it interesting.
Technorati: Global Warning Climate Change Politics Australia Kyoto Energy
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Still the Lucky Country
Somewhere along the way over these last ten years, I lost that feeling that comes with buying into to the sentiment that Australia is the Lucky Country. I felt we had surrendered the title in Kyoto. But c'mon ozzy, how spoilt rotten am I? It's not like we're the really unlucky country.
I looked up how much we had worth in energy resources:
Coal
We have 73 billion tonnes of identified in situ black coal resources, enough to last over 200 years at current rates of export, according to the Australian Coal Association. That is $A4.9 trillion worth. A tidy nest-egg.
In 2005 we exported 30% of the world's coal. And 30% of the global resultant carbon dioxide emissions. Not so cool. It's a bit like crapping in your nest.
Anyway...
Before returning to upbeat, I do want to point out that it is this externalised cost that we have to factor in - the coal we export today that comes back to us in debilitated climate in our 50th annual reporting cycle. The Stern Report reckons that unchecked rates of carbon dioxide emissions will set our global economy back by 25% by then.
Using this measure our coal nest-egg is really only worth $3.6 trillion.
Still. That's good. Maybe not quite up there with the big swinging dicks, but certainly "relaxed and comfortable". Mission accomplished down under.
Uranium
Call me old fashioned... I think we should be keeping all our uranium reserves our own bloody secret, not telling India and China how much we have! Indian army: 890,000 active troops, ranking at #3. Chinese army: 1.7 million active troops, ranking at #1. Australian army: 54,000 active troops, ranking #68. Think I am chicken, punk? No. of countries in this picture that posess nuclear weapons: 2. Do you think one of those two is us?
Shhhhh.Walk around quietly, hide the size of your stick. Don't sell sticks.
Not a fair treatment of the subject of uranium? Ok, here are more serious estimates:
Coal will last us 200 years. Australia has enough uranium to last... well, one global newclear war, really. In economics this is known as a trade externality, and in the military, as blowback.
Solar energy
All I can find on Google is this quote, which I believe to be accurate since Dr Davis Mills told it to Kerry O'Brien on the 7:30 Report tonight:
In 2004 the worldwide energy consumption of the human race was estimated as 15 TW by the United States Energy Information Administration.[1](TW=1012 Watts). We export 30% of the the world's coal at $24.5 billion per annum. Coal provides 3.5 TW annual energy globally. Extrapolating out, the world's coal market is worth $81.7 billion p.a., and the world's total energy bill (minus externalities) is worth four times that at $326.8 billion in coal terms.
My rock-climbing logic gets me to this heady summit -- the amount of solar energy hitting Australia is worth about $163.4 billion, with no externalities, in one summer day!
Ah, that lucky country feeling is starting to come back again. As if we couldn't harness the solar energy if we set our minds to it? We are so bloody ingenious a nation that we give away our best civilising innovations and innovators, mainly to California. Like the blackbox flight recorder, the car-radio, and the refrigerator.
And, Dr David Mills.
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science CO2 Carbon Sink Earth Australia Kyoto Energy
I looked up how much we had worth in energy resources:
Coal
We have 73 billion tonnes of identified in situ black coal resources, enough to last over 200 years at current rates of export, according to the Australian Coal Association. That is $A4.9 trillion worth. A tidy nest-egg.
In 2005 we exported 30% of the world's coal. And 30% of the global resultant carbon dioxide emissions. Not so cool. It's a bit like crapping in your nest.
Anyway...
Before returning to upbeat, I do want to point out that it is this externalised cost that we have to factor in - the coal we export today that comes back to us in debilitated climate in our 50th annual reporting cycle. The Stern Report reckons that unchecked rates of carbon dioxide emissions will set our global economy back by 25% by then.
Using this measure our coal nest-egg is really only worth $3.6 trillion.
Still. That's good. Maybe not quite up there with the big swinging dicks, but certainly "relaxed and comfortable". Mission accomplished down under.
Uranium
Call me old fashioned... I think we should be keeping all our uranium reserves our own bloody secret, not telling India and China how much we have! Indian army: 890,000 active troops, ranking at #3. Chinese army: 1.7 million active troops, ranking at #1. Australian army: 54,000 active troops, ranking #68. Think I am chicken, punk? No. of countries in this picture that posess nuclear weapons: 2. Do you think one of those two is us?
Shhhhh.Walk around quietly, hide the size of your stick. Don't sell sticks.
Not a fair treatment of the subject of uranium? Ok, here are more serious estimates:
Australia boasts something like 40% of the world's uranium, or 28% of recoverable reserves depending whose statistics you read.
Coal will last us 200 years. Australia has enough uranium to last... well, one global newclear war, really. In economics this is known as a trade externality, and in the military, as blowback.
Solar energy
All I can find on Google is this quote, which I believe to be accurate since Dr Davis Mills told it to Kerry O'Brien on the 7:30 Report tonight:
The amount of solar energy hitting Australia in one summer day is about half the total annual global energy use! Prof. Martin Green
In 2004 the worldwide energy consumption of the human race was estimated as 15 TW by the United States Energy Information Administration.[1](TW=1012 Watts). We export 30% of the the world's coal at $24.5 billion per annum. Coal provides 3.5 TW annual energy globally. Extrapolating out, the world's coal market is worth $81.7 billion p.a., and the world's total energy bill (minus externalities) is worth four times that at $326.8 billion in coal terms.
My rock-climbing logic gets me to this heady summit -- the amount of solar energy hitting Australia is worth about $163.4 billion, with no externalities, in one summer day!
Ah, that lucky country feeling is starting to come back again. As if we couldn't harness the solar energy if we set our minds to it? We are so bloody ingenious a nation that we give away our best civilising innovations and innovators, mainly to California. Like the blackbox flight recorder, the car-radio, and the refrigerator.
And, Dr David Mills.
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science CO2 Carbon Sink Earth Australia Kyoto Energy
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Howard's vapourware or Al Gore's hard truth?
John Howard is in China. He's looking to sell Australia's non-expertise in yet-to-be-developed clean-coal messiah technology. It's only expected to potentially bear fruit under favourable conditions at some abstract time in the 20's. In software development this is called vapourware, but the irony of Howard's hawkings gives the term a new context. When considering the value of Howard's offer, the most mercantile Chinese need to understand Howard's view on "core" and "non-core" promises. Especially since he is flogging them nuclear energy as well. Surprising, this ladling uranium in India and China when the PM is not touting the "War on Terror" -- yet another new context for "vapourware".
Meanwhile Al Gore is across the Japan Sea running hard in the other direction. He's explaining to the Kyoto Protocol hosts how short the window is in which to get it right and seriously reduce emissions. Most climate scientists say ten years, so I guess Gore does not have five to waste: :::[Reuters]
So... who gets your vote in this different kind of campaign? Gore may be passing up the chance to run in the US Presidential Elections, but he will be running in a different kind of way in the upcoming Australian Federal Elections. And in the next Japanese elections. And in the elections every country he promotes his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth".
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Australia Kyoto Energy
Meanwhile Al Gore is across the Japan Sea running hard in the other direction. He's explaining to the Kyoto Protocol hosts how short the window is in which to get it right and seriously reduce emissions. Most climate scientists say ten years, so I guess Gore does not have five to waste: :::[Reuters]
Jan. 15 -Al Gore says that he will not run in the 2008 election, saying he was involved in "a different kind of campaign."
Al Gore, who is currently in Japan promoting his award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth", spoke with journalists in Tokyo, saying, "The U.S. should be leading the world toward a solution for this climate crisis instead of leading in the other direction."
So... who gets your vote in this different kind of campaign? Gore may be passing up the chance to run in the US Presidential Elections, but he will be running in a different kind of way in the upcoming Australian Federal Elections. And in the next Japanese elections. And in the elections every country he promotes his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth".
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Australia Kyoto Energy
Friday, December 08, 2006
Trend maps of Australia warming for 95 years
If you go to the trend maps at the BoM website you get a series of maps showing the trends of rainfall, temperature, sea surface, and pan evaporation across Australia over the 20th century.
By selecting Mean Temperature from the drop down menus, and Australia, Annual season, and the period 1910-present (2005), and you can display an at-a-a-glance graphic representation of effects of global warming for those criteria.
The trend clearly is to warming, and we know that is currently at 2°C per decade. By playing around with the seasons you can see that summer, winter and autumn all show warming and cooling in what seems to the untrained eye to be a relative equilibrium, but spring is different. Spring is clearly when the warming is happening.
How much of that is due to land clearing over the 95 years? If carbon dioxide is not being transformed into furious spurts of spring growth by plants and trees, because they have been cleared, then it becomes apparent that there is a build up of heat-retaining atmospheric carbon dioxide carrying over into the next seasonal cycle, causing the warming trend from year to year. How much of a contribution comes from emitting into the atmosphere, and how much of it is because carbon-dioxide is not being taken out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis?
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science CO2 Carbon Sink Earth Australia Energy
By selecting Mean Temperature from the drop down menus, and Australia, Annual season, and the period 1910-present (2005), and you can display an at-a-a-glance graphic representation of effects of global warming for those criteria.
The trend clearly is to warming, and we know that is currently at 2°C per decade. By playing around with the seasons you can see that summer, winter and autumn all show warming and cooling in what seems to the untrained eye to be a relative equilibrium, but spring is different. Spring is clearly when the warming is happening.
How much of that is due to land clearing over the 95 years? If carbon dioxide is not being transformed into furious spurts of spring growth by plants and trees, because they have been cleared, then it becomes apparent that there is a build up of heat-retaining atmospheric carbon dioxide carrying over into the next seasonal cycle, causing the warming trend from year to year. How much of a contribution comes from emitting into the atmosphere, and how much of it is because carbon-dioxide is not being taken out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis?
Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science CO2 Carbon Sink Earth Australia Energy
Monday, November 27, 2006
9/11's Friday the 13th is here
What is your worst nighmare? If it is a commercial jetliner flying into one of Howard's 25 new nuclear facilities, then don't click the following link. :::[Greenpeace: Friday the 13th is here]
But if you are the type to be reassured by Andrew Bolt, who was on the ABC Insiders panel yesterday when the Greenpeace UK ad was aired for discussion, then fine. Click it. He rightly uses a peer-reviewed study (at last!) from 2002 to underline his point that America's nuclear power stations can withstand the 9,500 pound (4,309 kgs) impact of a Boeing 767-400 jetliner flying in at an assumed speed of 350 miles (550 kms) per hour and it "Would Not Breach Structures Housing Reactor Fuel".
The reason? They present a much smaller target than the WTC and the Pentagon so the combined force of the impacts of fueselage and engines is not fully transfered to the power station structure, which remains intact, protecting against radiation release.
If you ask me - well, they said that about the WTC, didn't they? That they would withstand a commercial jetliner impact. And still be standing. I trust that the scenarios modeled were accurate, but what if something outside those assumptions happened? The biggest Aussie back-yard bbq you'll ever see, that's what. I'm certainly not reassured by the capabilities of our government and allies to put the jihad djinni back in the bottle. Quite the opposite, in fact. While they are seemingly doing everything to train the next generation of al qaeda in the Baghad University of Blowback, and doing everthing else to roll-out their terror franchise globally, I just don't think this government should be trusted with building terrorist targets in 25 Australian cities.
Anyway, whether a 4,309 kg engine gets to penetrate the shell structure of a power plant or not, the terrorists achieve their aims by flying into them.
“Clearly an impact of this magnitude would do great damage to a plant’s ability to generate electricity. But the findings show, far more importantly, that public health and safety would be protected.”
Joe F. Colvin, NEI’s president and chief executive officer. :::[NEI]
Apart from the psychological king-hit we will suffer, will every life support system linked into that electric grid have long-term back-up generators? Will anything much at all?
I ask because it makes my point - if we are dependant on centralised non-renewable energy, we make ourselves targets. But I don't see terrorists seeking to take out your solar roof panels one-by-one to disrupt society.
Decentralised, renewable energy, whether off-the-grid, or selling excess capacity back into the grid, is the only way to go for a resilient, secure and safe energy source to take us into the future, for generations.
Other blogs on: Global Warning Climate Change Environment Science Nuclear+Energy Friday the 13th Nuclear Australia Greenpeace Energy
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
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:
Tags: Climate+Change, Global+Warming, Government, Greenhouse+Policy, Greenhouse, News, Media, Australia, Oil, Coal, Industry
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.
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. 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.
It seems that the fossil fuel industry has organised itself a nice little pincer movement in impacting government policy.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.
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.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.
Tags: Climate+Change, Global+Warming, Government, Greenhouse+Policy, Greenhouse, News, Media, Australia, Oil, Coal, Industry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
