April/May 2006
From Mother Earth News
The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative better energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion, or up to $5 billion with overruns. That money could be spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install superefficient light bulbs and clothes dryers. Such an investment would lead to seven times less carbon consumption than if that money were spent on a nuclear power plant. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power will divert money away from cheaper and faster responses to global warming, thus slowing the worlds withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential.
...
Read the full article.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER
Letters against Nucelar Energy / Uranium Mining
The following 2 letters are "letters to the editor". The source of the first was not indicated.
Letter One
There are numerous reasons why common sense dictates that we cannot
have uranium mining in Australia, the driest continent in the world. All uranium
mining operations require vast volumes of water in the process of extracting the
uranium from the uranium ore. The liquid waste comprising more than 97 percent
of the ore, and containing radioactive particles, heavy metals and acid would
either be dumped into the ground water, (as at the Beverly mine) or will be
stored recklessly in crudely built tailings dams, (as at the Olympic Uranium
Mining Dam) in the open air.(Olympic Uranium Dam uses/contaminates 42 million
litres of water per day).
The radionuclides and heavy metals which were previously inert and immobile in
the ore body, are after processing, bioavailable and mobile in the aquifier if
put into the ground water, or readily able to leak out of the tailings dams and
into our environment.
With 32 sites in Queensland alone where uranium has been found, such
dangerous tailings dams could well be positioned on Australia’s natural
cyclical flood plains, where no safeguards would ever be adequate for a period
of hundreds of thousands of years for which the tailings remain dangerously
radioactive, bioavailable and mobile. As well as leaking out and contaminating
other water, evaporation of leaked tailings can also occur which can then become
dust, or it may again precipitate as rainfall.
Such remote tailings dams could also become the targets of terrorist
attacks, or they could even become the source of easily available
contaminated radioactive water, for use by terrorists in a terrorist act,
whereby they use it to contaminate town water supplies. If a government is so
concerned about the possibility of terrorism, then it would not ever consider
uranium mining in a country with a nation wide water shortage problem.
(As an example of the relationship between Australia’s water and mining, it has
just been announced that more than 40 mines along the Murray-Darling River Basin
are going to be banned from using water from July 1st. So why should uranium
mines be any different? There are more reasons to prevent the use of water by
uranium mines than any other type of mine).
Not discussed for the sake of brevity are the issues of encouraging nuclear
proliferation, other forms of nuclear waste, the use of waste to produce
depleted uranium weapons, and their deadly contamination of the landscape in other
countries, as Australia’s negative contribution to a world which doesn’t need
nuclear power, when renewable energy sources can indeed provide adequate
baseload power.
Letter Two
Read More......
No2. letter sent by Keith Jaffray, of Byfield to the Courier Mail.
Dear Sir,
Flat earthers,climate change sceptics,coconut heads and mercenary ghouls are
singing the praises of expanding the uranium industry..........It's time for us
to wake up and raise our individual and collective conscience.
Cetainly there are some beneficial uses of radiation such as for xrays and anti
cancer therapy.However,expanding the uranium industry to cater to a world greedy
for electricity is fraught with great danger. Most people are not aware that
"enriched uranium" creams off only 3% of the uranium from uranium ore for power
generation....the rest (97%) is radioactive waste and is called "depleted
uranium" or "d.u.".This is a misnoma.Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.5
billion years and any form of life exposed to this waste is facing a catostropic
future.Human beings develop the most horrific illnesses,tumours,chromosome
damage,birth deformaties and ultimately death. D.U. happens to be twice the
weight of lead and in a novel approach the producers of "enriched uranium"have
found a convenient way of disposing of the "waste"(depleted uranium) by giving
it to armaments manufacturers! It is now being used for armour plating in tanks
and as a replacement for lead in bullets,missiles and war heads.
U.S.A. military forces have been using D.U.weapons extensively in Iraq since the
1st Gulf War.Over 300,000 U.S.A. service personnel are on permanent dissability
pensions having developed "Gulf War Syndrome" after being exposed to their own
uranium dust on the battlefield. 11,000 of those service personnel have since
died from this "syndrome", not to mention the thousands of innocent Iraqis who
have been contaminated by this weapon of mass destruction declared illegal by
the United Nations.
Take a look at the photographic exhibition "Children of the Gulf War" when it is
displayed at a venue near you. Show some sympathy to our own Australian service
personnel who have been exposed to this evil poison (see"The Courier Mail" March
28th,2007).
The Australian Defence Forces purchased and used 43,000 rounds of D.U.amunition
over a period of 10 years in training exercises.How many Ausralian defence
personnel and civilians have been exposed to this radioactve poison?Is this
"Agent Orange" all over again? These are serious questions only capable of being
answered by a Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry.
Greedy, short sighted armaments manufacturers cannot be trusted to deal with
D.U..
Say "NO" to uranium mining - leave it in the ground.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
CSIRO contradicts PM over emission cuts
25 April 2007
From Blaney (Aust) - AAP article
Prime Minister John Howard says "I think it is crazy and irresponsible of any political party in this country to commit to a target when you don't know." He cited the Greens and Labor's cuts they would want to see.
But this article hightlights that a CSIRO report sent a month ago to Howard told him what the cuts would need to be and that they would not affect the economy greatly (if done now). (CSIRO are an Australian Government Research and Development group.) The Stern report also gave the same message and came from Nicholas Stern (from the UK Treasury):
- hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change,
- Guardian (UK) discussion of the Stern Report,
- 'Mustelid' blog on the Stern Report.
So I'm still not understanding why John Howard doesn't have enough evidence to convince him to change the way he looks at the problem of climate change.
Read the article.
Read More......
Tim Flannery considered handing award back
Tuesday Apr 24
From NineMSN (Aust)
Mr Flannery said he was struggling to reconcile being Australian of the Year with the government's refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol and the prime minister's belief that climate change is an economic issue — not a moral one.
Read the article.
Also see
Read More......
Risk ahead: overheating planet or nuclear disaster?
April 2007
From The Age (Aust)
This post links to an interesting debate about Nuclear Energy in Australia. Climate Action Brisbane does not support Nuclear Energy for Australia. It may be relevant in other places in the world where they lack the alternatives, though in Australia we have many alternatives. Specifically, why we don't agree with Nuclear Energy for Australia for these reasons:
- we have enormous amounts of sunshine and wind (all across the country - this distribution helps with baseload requirements),
- we don't have much spare water which is required for Nuclear Energy
- it would take a long time to have a nuclear reactor up and running in Australia - time we don't have with the Climate Crisis hanging over our heads
- the cost to build a reactor is enourmous
- the cost to decomission a reactor is many times bigger though we don't fully know because this has not been done anywhere in the world
- Uranium mining takes enormous amounts of energy and disturbs the carbon locked up in the ground, releasing it into the atmosphere
- Transporting the ore takes considerable energy
- Processing Uranium takes enormous amounts of energy, and as the amount of high-grade Uranium reduces, the cost to process less-pure forms requires more and more energy
- Nuclear proliferation is a real posssibility when Nuclear Energy and reactors are considered the norm along with all the radioactive wastes they produce
- A de-centralised model of energy generation is much more efficient and will produce far more jobs over a wide area rather than concentrated in one area. By spreading out our energy production we lessen the damage caused by a malfunction at any big centralised energy production centers (think terrorists here). Decentralised energy means that people are more in touch with where their energy comes from and will assist them to understand conservation and being more lean. (See "There is no shortage of energy" in ZMag: Global Warming: Limits of Solar and Wind Power)
- the world is moving away from Nuclear Energy - Germany is switching away from nuclear to solar for example
- did I mention that Australia has abundant solar and wind energy available to be tapped.
- because Nuclear and Clean Coal is what big business wants and is just wrong. These people don't get it. We have to change how we view the world. But no this statement does not mean we will be travelling around by horse and cart (for starters this is a very inefficient form of transport). It means that we will be leading leaner lives. It means that we will grow and eat more food locally. It means that we will have a greater use of decentralised water gathering (rainwater tanks, gray water systems) and more decentralised energy producing centers. It means that we must learn to accept other people. It means that there will be less need for agression, war and the military in general.
Read the article.
Read More......
Blair welcomes collective approach to climate change
23 Apr 2007
From Politics.co.uk
Tony Blair joined with big business leaders in London today as part of a new campaign to encourage individuals to reduce their carbon footprint.
Under the slogan We're in this together, the Climate Group brought together eight major firms, including Tesco, British Gas and B&Q, to promote practical ways businesses, communities and the government can reduce carbon emissions.
...
Read the full article.
Urgent climate action is required
April 23, 2007
From Freepress.org
We don’t have the luxury of time on this issue. Scientists like James Hansen have said we have less than 10 years to fundamentally alter our energy policies, and that was a year and a half ago. A small number of scientists think we may have already reached the point of no return. Other scientists think that we are fast approaching it.
What is that “point of no return?” Climate scientists say that it’s when there is so much carbon and heat in the atmosphere that the world’s forests, oceans and soil—currently carbon “sinks,” absorbers and storers of carbon—are so saturated with it that they cannot absorb any more and become actual sources of carbon. There is a chance that this point will be reached when we get to 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We’re currently at 382, and each year brings an additional two and a half parts per million (ppm).
According to the Potsdam Institute, as reported in George Monbiot’s Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, with the “equivalent of 440 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there is a 67% chance of holding the temperature rise” to a point which will avoid catastrophic climate change. And as Monbiot explains, when you add in the other greenhouse gases—methane, nitrous oxide, several fluorocarbons—we are right around that “equivalent of 440 ppm” right now.
...
Read the full article.
Monday, April 23, 2007
John Howard has absolutely no idea
John Howard visited Brisbane in Queensland (Australia) and demonstrated what a dinosaur he really is. He has no touch with reality. Economics is what is most important he has said many times in relation to Environmental matters. It is true that there is more to running a country than dealing with Climate Change, though it has to be accepted as a top priority and I don't believe Howard understands this. Some Environmentalists are argueing for a 90% reduction in GHG. The level of effort required for that would be significant and so our governments must not underestimate the task.
In the linked to article John Howard also singles out the USA and China as towering over us in terms of greenhouse gas emmisions. It reminds me of the poster of people sitting in a sinking rowboat. One end is high in the sky, the other is filling with water and being frantically bailed by the occupants at that end. The high and dry guy says "Not my problem". I'm trying to find that on the net somewhere now.
The fullpost below also contains a recent email conversation I had with some family members regarding our conservative Federal Liberal Government.
April 23, 2007
From Courier Mail
PRIME Minister John Howard today rejected Labor leader Kevin Rudd's claim that climate change was the overwhelming moral challenge facing Australians.
Mr Howard said Australia was a minor emitter of greenhouse gases and could not influence the global climate by acting alone.
The Prime Minister said he rejected the Labor Party's zealotry about the issue.
``Do we need to lower carbon emissions over time? Of course we do,'' he told the Queensland Media Club in Brisbane. ``But to say that climate change is the overwhelming moral challenge for this generation of Australians is misguided at best and misleading at worst.
``It de-legitimises other challenges over which we do have significant and immediate control.''
Mr Howard said such an approach also obscured the need for balanced government decision-making and fed ideological demands with kneejerk policy reactions.
Climate change was a serious policy challenge and a major priority of his government, he said.
``At the same time we know that independent action by Australia will not materially affect our climate,'' he said. ``Australia emits fewer greenhouse gases in a year than the United States and China emit in a month.''
Read the article.
It all started from a Greenpeace game of guess how many times the Federal Treasurer will say Climate Change in the coming Federal Budget
From: "Greenpeace Australia Pacific"
Date: 20 April 2007 13:49:24 GMT+10:00
To:
Subject: Take a punt on Peter Costello
In the past 11 Federal Budgets, Treasurer Peter Costello hasnt even
mentioned the words climate change. Not once. And this year may be his
last chance.
Tell us how many times Costello will say climate change in his Budget
speech. If youre right, you go into the draw for a great solar backpack.
Vote Here: https://secure.greenpeace.org.au/budget2007/index1.html
Climate Change and the 2007 Budget
We have all been hearing plenty of talk about climate change lately and
the Government is starting to feel the heat after ignoring the issue for
so long.
The 2007 Federal Budget will be released on 8 May and this is a big
opportunity to take real action. Its where the Government actually puts
our money where their mouth is.
Climate change is Australias greatest threat. But every year, the
governments Budget actually helps fuel climate change by handing out over
a billion dollars of taxpayers money to the coal and fossil fuel industry.
Its hard to believe that our taxes are given to Australias richest
companies for them to pollute our future with greenhouse gas emissions.
Meanwhile, the solutions to global warming - Australias renewable energy
industries are overlooked every year.
Peter Costellos 2007 Budget speech on 8 May will show if the government
is serious about solutions to global warming. Take a punt on Peter now:
https://secure.greenpeace.org.au/budget2007/index1.html
If Costello wants to be PM, this could be his last chance. With an
election around the corner, his Budget needs to deliver what the voters
want a Big Switch that puts an end to fuelling climate change and
initiates renewable energy solutions.
Maybe Costello has been saving his best Budget for last.
How many times will he say climate change? Take a punt on Peter and
watch how he reacts:
https://secure.greenpeace.org.au/budget2007/index1.html
If you have trouble with any links in this email, you can take a punt on
Peter at the Greenpeace Australia Pacific website:
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/
I’d rather Costello spending sensibly on climate change than Rudd wasting it on unnecessarily rolling back an excellent track record of economic management and workplace reform.
Pity many voters don’t know what it is like to pay 17 percent on their home loan interest rate, under Rudd they will soon learn. Lets not forget the tragedy of labor administration and poor economic management.
Thanks for letting us know how you vote ML.
This is the problem as I see it. It's not all about the economy. Or economic management.
And though I am not holding my breath I'd like to see any government with a focus on quality of life, which might happily mean less pay, less work hours, higher tax and a concentration on government spending where it will have long term benefits for future populations (ie. infrastructure, health education, hospitals, universities....).
So call me a leftie greenie intelligentsia, small l- liberal soft socialist dreamer and I'll thank you for the compliment !!!
Let me reiterate I know I'm dreaming, so you and those who vote with you are as safe as your (and my) mortgage !
I don't reckon Costello will mention climate change. He might say 'water crisis' or 'drought' or something else that implies the situation is temporary.
LD
Thanks LD. Always happy to share the way I vote, I am a loud proud blue ribbon capitalist liberal.
The irony is never lost on me...Brooke working for this big quasi military company making squillions and ruining our earth, you running your own business, your family mostly farmers and me, the hard nosed capitalist working for the charity sector trying to make ends meet for the betterment of a sub-culture not ordinarily associated with capitalism, with an organisation that recycles, reuses and reduces everything it uses!!
You gotta love it!
:)
ML
Gidday ML, LD and all,
Wow, I love a healthy discussion. BAL are big, and a small part of their business is involved in the military. It's unfortunate but true. The position of the military in our world has only been made more intense by Bush and the Coalition of the willing creating and supporting an unjust war. Prior to this, and when I joined BAL, the military was being used mainly for peaceful purposes (think Kosovo). Most of their business was in commercial aircraft.
You know my focus is not on Labor or any particular politics, except Green politics. Green politics includes social and environmental aspects, both of which the coalition government have such a poor record in. It's great that they have improved the economy, but at the cost of everything else. We are facing an enormous crisis at the moment, and it is the climate change deniers (John Howard was one until just before the Walk Against Warming held last November) that have been dragging this out for so long. Professor Ian Lowe (President of the ACF) co-wrote a papers in late the late 80's saying CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere and that it is causing climate change. Why has it taken so long to get momentum enough to have the world start to realise it needs to change - because deniers wouldn't take it seriously. The economy was king. Now Howard and similar parties are sproating tripe about fixing up the Environment would cost the economy (See Malcolm Turnbull on Lateline 29/3/2007 - http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1885183.htm). That has been proved to be so wrong (see the Stern Report - http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm, http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1935211,00.html, http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2006/02/stern-report.html). So why would they continue to claim this? Because they are dinosaurs, they just don't get it. How can you have a growing economy when so much money will have to go into repairing our environment? Did you know that when the Kyoto Agreement was drawn up in 1995 that the level of CO2 reductions we had to meet was 12% on 1990 levels? And that today the level of reductions we have to meet are now atleast 60% (if not more with some like Monbiot saying 90% is the real target). The deniers dragging their feet have caused the bad economy we are about to see. You cannot convince me otherwise.
On the subject of people telling us ages ago that things have to change is the topic of Trees - Old Growth Forests, rainforests, remnant bushland and other forests. We have to stop tearing these down, we were told. But economy is king and we kept our destructive behaviours up. Its jobs after all, and we need to fuel the worlds appetite for paper and timber. How correct those 'greenies' / 'hippies' / 'environmentalists' were. We know that today. We know what an important position existing stands of trees play in a world loaded with too much carbon pollution. Yet our stupid economy-is-king based society STILL continues the crazy behaviour.
At BAL I am the chairman of the Environment Committee and have been in the group since it started back in 2003. We have implemented a number of initiatives including full recycling throughout, the removal of foam mugs (encouraging the use of normal mugs), water use reduction, educational sessions and external activities such as tree planting and clean up australia day. I don't know how much has been a result of our efforts, but Boeing Australia is employing an Environment Manager who will ensure that it reduces its environmental footprint (the B Company I believe is going this way also). We have a measure of 25% reduction in Greenhouse gas emisions year after year. The committee will discuss how we are going to achieve this. With BAL being a big consumer of resources, i think it is fantastic to work there and help make the changes. 2000 people or so work in Boeing Australia, and the changes we make will have a direct influence on how everybody there views the world. I am quite proud to be a part of this. BAL also pays me quite well and this gives me time to do volunteer work at Friends of the Earth and to lead Climate Action Brisbane who have organised the Brisbane Walks Against Warming in past years and will continue to do this plus persue other educational and action-based plans.
In conclusion, the economy-as-king attitude has helped ruin this planet. It is time for alternate environmentally-focused parties to lead us out of this mess and into better times. Does this mean our lives need to change? Once upon a time, not much though a bit more effort is required now. If we leave it any longer then it will mean more drastic changes will need to be made. You choose.
Regards,
Brooke
Read More......
From Courier Mail
PRIME Minister John Howard today rejected Labor leader Kevin Rudd's claim that climate change was the overwhelming moral challenge facing Australians.
Mr Howard said Australia was a minor emitter of greenhouse gases and could not influence the global climate by acting alone.
The Prime Minister said he rejected the Labor Party's zealotry about the issue.
``Do we need to lower carbon emissions over time? Of course we do,'' he told the Queensland Media Club in Brisbane. ``But to say that climate change is the overwhelming moral challenge for this generation of Australians is misguided at best and misleading at worst.
``It de-legitimises other challenges over which we do have significant and immediate control.''
Mr Howard said such an approach also obscured the need for balanced government decision-making and fed ideological demands with kneejerk policy reactions.
Climate change was a serious policy challenge and a major priority of his government, he said.
``At the same time we know that independent action by Australia will not materially affect our climate,'' he said. ``Australia emits fewer greenhouse gases in a year than the United States and China emit in a month.''
Read the article.
Family email conversation
Greenpeace email
It all started from a Greenpeace game of guess how many times the Federal Treasurer will say Climate Change in the coming Federal Budget
From: "Greenpeace Australia Pacific"
Date: 20 April 2007 13:49:24 GMT+10:00
To:
Subject: Take a punt on Peter Costello
In the past 11 Federal Budgets, Treasurer Peter Costello hasnt even
mentioned the words climate change. Not once. And this year may be his
last chance.
Tell us how many times Costello will say climate change in his Budget
speech. If youre right, you go into the draw for a great solar backpack.
Vote Here: https://secure.greenpeace.org.au/budget2007/index1.html
Climate Change and the 2007 Budget
We have all been hearing plenty of talk about climate change lately and
the Government is starting to feel the heat after ignoring the issue for
so long.
The 2007 Federal Budget will be released on 8 May and this is a big
opportunity to take real action. Its where the Government actually puts
our money where their mouth is.
Climate change is Australias greatest threat. But every year, the
governments Budget actually helps fuel climate change by handing out over
a billion dollars of taxpayers money to the coal and fossil fuel industry.
Its hard to believe that our taxes are given to Australias richest
companies for them to pollute our future with greenhouse gas emissions.
Meanwhile, the solutions to global warming - Australias renewable energy
industries are overlooked every year.
Peter Costellos 2007 Budget speech on 8 May will show if the government
is serious about solutions to global warming. Take a punt on Peter now:
https://secure.greenpeace.org.au/budget2007/index1.html
If Costello wants to be PM, this could be his last chance. With an
election around the corner, his Budget needs to deliver what the voters
want a Big Switch that puts an end to fuelling climate change and
initiates renewable energy solutions.
Maybe Costello has been saving his best Budget for last.
How many times will he say climate change? Take a punt on Peter and
watch how he reacts:
https://secure.greenpeace.org.au/budget2007/index1.html
If you have trouble with any links in this email, you can take a punt on
Peter at the Greenpeace Australia Pacific website:
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/
ML's email
I’d rather Costello spending sensibly on climate change than Rudd wasting it on unnecessarily rolling back an excellent track record of economic management and workplace reform.
Pity many voters don’t know what it is like to pay 17 percent on their home loan interest rate, under Rudd they will soon learn. Lets not forget the tragedy of labor administration and poor economic management.
LD's email
Thanks for letting us know how you vote ML.
This is the problem as I see it. It's not all about the economy. Or economic management.
And though I am not holding my breath I'd like to see any government with a focus on quality of life, which might happily mean less pay, less work hours, higher tax and a concentration on government spending where it will have long term benefits for future populations (ie. infrastructure, health education, hospitals, universities....).
So call me a leftie greenie intelligentsia, small l- liberal soft socialist dreamer and I'll thank you for the compliment !!!
Let me reiterate I know I'm dreaming, so you and those who vote with you are as safe as your (and my) mortgage !
I don't reckon Costello will mention climate change. He might say 'water crisis' or 'drought' or something else that implies the situation is temporary.
LD
ML's email
Thanks LD. Always happy to share the way I vote, I am a loud proud blue ribbon capitalist liberal.
The irony is never lost on me...Brooke working for this big quasi military company making squillions and ruining our earth, you running your own business, your family mostly farmers and me, the hard nosed capitalist working for the charity sector trying to make ends meet for the betterment of a sub-culture not ordinarily associated with capitalism, with an organisation that recycles, reuses and reduces everything it uses!!
You gotta love it!
:)
ML
Brooke's email
Gidday ML, LD and all,
Wow, I love a healthy discussion. BAL are big, and a small part of their business is involved in the military. It's unfortunate but true. The position of the military in our world has only been made more intense by Bush and the Coalition of the willing creating and supporting an unjust war. Prior to this, and when I joined BAL, the military was being used mainly for peaceful purposes (think Kosovo). Most of their business was in commercial aircraft.
You know my focus is not on Labor or any particular politics, except Green politics. Green politics includes social and environmental aspects, both of which the coalition government have such a poor record in. It's great that they have improved the economy, but at the cost of everything else. We are facing an enormous crisis at the moment, and it is the climate change deniers (John Howard was one until just before the Walk Against Warming held last November) that have been dragging this out for so long. Professor Ian Lowe (President of the ACF) co-wrote a papers in late the late 80's saying CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere and that it is causing climate change. Why has it taken so long to get momentum enough to have the world start to realise it needs to change - because deniers wouldn't take it seriously. The economy was king. Now Howard and similar parties are sproating tripe about fixing up the Environment would cost the economy (See Malcolm Turnbull on Lateline 29/3/2007 - http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1885183.htm). That has been proved to be so wrong (see the Stern Report - http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm, http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1935211,00.html, http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2006/02/stern-report.html). So why would they continue to claim this? Because they are dinosaurs, they just don't get it. How can you have a growing economy when so much money will have to go into repairing our environment? Did you know that when the Kyoto Agreement was drawn up in 1995 that the level of CO2 reductions we had to meet was 12% on 1990 levels? And that today the level of reductions we have to meet are now atleast 60% (if not more with some like Monbiot saying 90% is the real target). The deniers dragging their feet have caused the bad economy we are about to see. You cannot convince me otherwise.
On the subject of people telling us ages ago that things have to change is the topic of Trees - Old Growth Forests, rainforests, remnant bushland and other forests. We have to stop tearing these down, we were told. But economy is king and we kept our destructive behaviours up. Its jobs after all, and we need to fuel the worlds appetite for paper and timber. How correct those 'greenies' / 'hippies' / 'environmentalists' were. We know that today. We know what an important position existing stands of trees play in a world loaded with too much carbon pollution. Yet our stupid economy-is-king based society STILL continues the crazy behaviour.
At BAL I am the chairman of the Environment Committee and have been in the group since it started back in 2003. We have implemented a number of initiatives including full recycling throughout, the removal of foam mugs (encouraging the use of normal mugs), water use reduction, educational sessions and external activities such as tree planting and clean up australia day. I don't know how much has been a result of our efforts, but Boeing Australia is employing an Environment Manager who will ensure that it reduces its environmental footprint (the B Company I believe is going this way also). We have a measure of 25% reduction in Greenhouse gas emisions year after year. The committee will discuss how we are going to achieve this. With BAL being a big consumer of resources, i think it is fantastic to work there and help make the changes. 2000 people or so work in Boeing Australia, and the changes we make will have a direct influence on how everybody there views the world. I am quite proud to be a part of this. BAL also pays me quite well and this gives me time to do volunteer work at Friends of the Earth and to lead Climate Action Brisbane who have organised the Brisbane Walks Against Warming in past years and will continue to do this plus persue other educational and action-based plans.
In conclusion, the economy-as-king attitude has helped ruin this planet. It is time for alternate environmentally-focused parties to lead us out of this mess and into better times. Does this mean our lives need to change? Once upon a time, not much though a bit more effort is required now. If we leave it any longer then it will mean more drastic changes will need to be made. You choose.
Regards,
Brooke
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Prof Ian Lowe: Rainwater tanks better than dams
From ABC News (Aust)
A new study commissioned by three environment groups has found that rainwater tanks are a more cost effective alternative to other water saving measures.
Rainwater tanks better than dams, desalination: report
By Sarah Clarke
A new study commissioned by three environment groups has found that rainwater tanks are a more cost effective alternative to other water saving measures.
The study conducted by economists, Marsden Jacob Associates, found that rainwater tanks are more than five times as energy efficient as a desalination plant per kilolitre of water produced.
It also revealed that if governments rolled them out to 5 per cent of households in Sydney and south-east Queensland, big water projects like dams could be delayed for up to a decade.
The independent report commissioned by three environment groups found tanks are more cost effective and energy efficient than a desalination plant or a dam.
Nearly 40 per cent of Adelaide households have installed them, but only 5 per cent of households in Perth, Melbourne and Sydney have them.
Professor Ian Lowe from the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) says governments should seriously consider rainwater tanks as an alternative source of water.
"There's a very big saving in putting in rainwater tanks instead of infrastructure," he said.
"Just to give a classic example - for what the Queensland Government is proposing to spend on Traveston dam you could give every house in south-east Queensland a rainwater tank and have money left over.
"We should be developing innovative financial solutions to ensure the take up rainwater tanks".
Ms Noble says the findings provide a clear message to state governments.
"If we install rainwater tanks to 5 per cent of households what we are doing is creating a virtual dam from the rooftops across our suburbs and we need to invest in that in the same way as we invest in infrastructure," she said.
Currently 17 per cent of Australian households have installed them.
...
Read the article.
Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
