Climate Action Brisbane

Text of Copenhagen Accord 18 December 2009

2009-12-21T09:49:00.003+10:00

From the UNFCCC in Copenhagen from 7-18 December 2009
this is the text of the Accord -

The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads of delegation
present at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen,
In pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as stated in its Article 2,
Being guided by the principles and provisions of the Convention,
Noting the results of work done by the two Ad hoc Working Groups,
Endorsing decision x/CP.15 on the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action
and decision x/CMP.5 that requests the Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments of Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to continue its work,
Have agreed on this Copenhagen Accord which is operational immediately.

1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We
emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change. We recognize the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support.

2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as
documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development.

3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response
measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on
adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and
supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building
resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economywide
emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including
those to be submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January 2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Least developed countries and small island developing States may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support. Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through national communications consistent with Article 12.1(b) every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Those mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix II. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex I
Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National
Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support. Those actions supported will be added to the list in appendix II.
These supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest
degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.

7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to
enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.

8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved
access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 - 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. New
multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.

9. To this end, a High Level Panel will be established under the guidance of and accountable to the Conference of the Parties to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue,
including alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal.

10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating
entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacitybuilding, technology development and transfer.

11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to
establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.

12. We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by
2015, including in light of the Convention.s ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

...

Read the article.

Community Dialogues on Coal

2009-05-19T09:13:00.003+10:00

Six Degrees - the coal campaign of Friends of the Earth in Brisbane - formally launched the report Community Dialogues on Coal earlier this month.

The report is an overview of the findings from a coal communities listening tour conducted by the campaign in last November.

In November 2008 Six Degrees undertook a listening tour of coal affected communities in Queensland. The purpose of the tour was for Six Degrees to improve our understand of the impacts of the coal industry in Queensland, and to gauge the attitudes of affected communities to climate change and the expansion of the coal industry.

Following the formal launch of the report at the Griffith University Ecocentre today, the findings from the listening tour are now publically available.

This report provides a snapshot of regional attitudes to the coal industry. It is intended to serve as a point of reference for those with an interest in future of Queensland's industry, and an interest in the prospects of a just transition for Queensland to a sustainable future.

As quoted from the introduction to the report:

The coal industry in Queensland is entering a period of enormous uncertainty and risk, with continuing job losses, shrinking global demand, and massive sector-wide restructures due to climate change policy responses. In all this, it is the people of Queensland's coal communities who will have to deal with the very real impacts of this period of transition. It is time for a serious and sober dialogue in this state about the role that coal plays in our future prosperity and in the way we respond to climate change. We hope that this report can begin to inform that dialogue.

You can download a copy of the report from the Six Degrees website here.

Get Up's - Spot the difference Ad

2008-12-20T11:03:00.002+10:00

Queensland Climate Movement Summit

2008-12-07T09:55:00.003+10:00

Summit Update

Exactly one month ago, the Queensland Climate Movement Summit was attended by more than 60 activists, thinkers and citizens, with some 30 organisations represented and 26 workshops conducted on building and strengthening the climate movement in Queensland.

To those of you who participated, the event was a success only due to your input and contribution. Many most humble thank-yous for your involvement.

But, of course, the Summit was just the beginning.

As promised, the proceedings from the Summit have been edited, and the Proceedings of the Inaugural Queensland Climate Movement Summit are now available online at:

http://www.enoughhotair.com
The proceedings can be downloaded from: http://www.enoughhotair.com/resources/

You'll notice that the summit proceedings are available in both a PDF and in a webpage format. We hope that through the website's comment and forum capabilities, the summit proceedings can become a living document of our evolving strategies and campaigns addressing the climate crisis in Queensland.

One of the desired action steps from the summit was the request for Six Degrees to establish a collaborative web-space, where we can share information, resources and news.

We hope that www.enoughhotair.com will provide us with that webspace - but it needs your input to make it so. Some of the ways that you can contribute are below:

Read the workshop proceedings from some of the 26 workshops, discussions, forums and skillshares conducted on the day.

Featured workshops include a history of direct action on coal, the St John's Wood Sustainability group's outreach strategy, a web-based collaboration review and the proposal for the Queensland Climate Safe Coalition. If you attended the workshop, and have further discussion points to add, don't hesitate to leave a comment at the bottom of the page.

Download the summit proceedings from the resources section of the website. Other resources will be added here as they are recommended.

Continue the summit discussions at the online forum on the summit webpage. We are trialling this feature of the site, subject to its popularity. The more you post, the more useful the online forum will be.

Upload your materials from the discussion. Send your workshop notes, photos, recordings or musings from the summit by replying to this email address.

Make further suggestions. If there's anything else you would like to see on the website, let us know by posting a message here.

Thanks once again for your participation in the Queensland Climate Movement Summit - it was a rich and powerful event. Looking forward to working with you in the coming months to build a resilient and effective climate movement across the state.

In solidarity and hope,
Clare, John, Brad and Shani

on behalf of
Six Degrees

- taking climate change personally -

Act Now - Global Day of Climate Action December 6

2008-12-07T09:19:00.002+10:00

December 2008
Friends of the Earth Europe's video asking the "Men in suits" to start making positive decisions that address the problem of climate change.

Global Day of Action on Climate Change

2008-12-06T12:51:00.004+10:00

This is an amazing and very powerful video - watch, embed, link, tag and comment!

Carbon crash hits Europe's emission trading scheme

2008-11-16T09:37:00.003+10:00

November 06, 2008
From The Australian

This is why we should have a straight carbon tax or carbon rationing instead of relying on the ETS Market system which is just capitalism which has caused the problems in the first place.

A Carbon Tax is where a GST / VAT / .. type tax at some percent is applied calculated on the cost it will take to repair that Carbon that has been emmitted in manufacturing, transporting etc... the product in question. It would be calculated and not a plucked figure.

Carbon rationing is even better where we work out how much carbon per person we're allowed to emit to remain sustainable. It will involve some credit card type arrangement. If you use more than your allocation you can buy from someone who didn't use as much.

Both are politically difficult to implement in our current capitalist societies.

WHILE you were distracted by crashing banks and clashing US senators, you may have missed a small environmental earthquake.

The price of carbon has collapsed.

In only three months, life has become a lot cheaper for polluters. The financial cost of warming the planet has plummeted in Europe's emissions trading system (ETS) and the effectiveness of such a volatile market mechanism in curbing carbon is being questioned.

You may recall that the ETS is a mechanism to encourage businesses to reduce their carbon output. Europe's larger companies are allocated permits to emit CO2, and these allowances, called EUAs, can be traded on exchanges.

Companies that emit less CO2 than their allocation can sell EUAs for cash, but inefficient polluters must buy EUAs or face financial penalties.

The idea is that a shortfall in EUAs allocated by governments will cause the carbon price to rise, stimulating investment in carbon reduction.

It's a market solution to pollution, but this carbon market is showing a distressing tendency to behave like most financial markets -- hysterically. In July, the right to spew out one tonne of CO2 from a chimney would have cost a power generator E29.33, but yesterday it could be bought for only E18.25 ($34.14).

...

Read the article.

Walk Against Warming 2008 - 15th Nov

2008-11-09T10:30:00.000+10:00

This event is happen around Australia on November 15 (except for Canberra's walk which is on Dec 6th). In Brisbane it will start at 12:30 in Queens Park (Corner of George and Elizabeth Streets) and we'll walk to Roma Street Parklands.

Find more information or for promotional posters or flyers see http://www.walkagainstwarming.org/ for all locations in Australia.

The below information is not so relevant now though we could still do with some Marshalls.

If you'd like to be part of the organising committee then please shoot over to the CAB_Team group at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/CAB_Team/ and click on Join.

We are meeting every Monday up until the day at:

Monday 6th October and every Monday till 15/11, 6:00pm - 7:30pm
QCC, Level 3 166 Ann Street, Brisbane City (Queensland, Australia).

Enter by the door on the right side of building. If it is locked, please call us on 3221 0188 and one of us will pop down.

Or take this as an invitation to join in the fun as we walk to highlight that climate change is a real problem and we need to change business as usual - keep coal in the ground and invest in renewables, efficiency measures and education.

Find photos of past WAWs in Brisbane at Tintuna's Environment photos collection.

Community-led Tarong coal action & media

2008-11-09T09:52:00.003+10:00

Hi all,

Loads of media from yesterday - just a glimpse (I love how the media
keeps calling us "Power Protesters").

We made ABC, 10 and 9 evening news :-) I think we made it into local and regional print media (Kingaroy, Nanoonga, etc) - we're visiting the State Library today to find out.

Check out www.enoughhotair.com for photos, videos and more links (coming soon).

Australia:

Two Charged Over Power Station Protest - Channel 9 News (with photo)
http://news.www22.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=661871&rss=yes

Tarong Power Plant Protesters Arrested - Courier Mail
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,24615621-952,00.html...

Protesters Arrested at Tarong - Brisbane Times
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/protesters-arrested-a...

Police Arrest Tarong Power Protesters - ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/07/2413600.htm

'Peaceful' activists chained at power plant - News.com.au
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24615589-1248,00.html?from=publi...

International:

...an excellent article from the BengaliTimes - compliments of Reuters.
http://www.banglalive.com/news/NonLeadNewsDetail137_11_2008.asp

Climate Activists Disrupt Australian Power Plant - The Standard, Hong
Kong (Reuters Feed!)
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=9228&icid=4...

3 Climate Protesters Chain themselves to Coal Equipment - News.uk.msn
http://news.uk.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=10751237

Syndicated at:

Sydney Morning Herald
http://news.smh.com.au/national/two-charged-over-power-station-protes...

The Mercury (Tasmania)
http://tools.themercury.com.au/stories/10008681-breaking-news.php

The West Australian
http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=528523

The Age
http://news.theage.com.au/national/two-charged-over-power-station-pro...

Climate Ark
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=110000
Sunshine Coast Daily
http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/nov/07/aap-protesters-chained-at...

--
Clare Towler
m: 0412 055 600
skp: clare_t
http://stepitupaustralia.wordpress.com

"If not now, when? If not here, where? If not us, who?"
www.enoughhotair.com
www.climatemovement.org.au

World's monetry system and how it leads to social and environmental collapse

2008-11-07T08:52:00.004+10:00

These sites, the first being a video description, are about how the world's monetary system works and how it will inevitably lead to societal and environmental collapse, although we see that happening already. The Environmental impact isn't till about 1/2 hr (it goes for 47 minutes). The video spends a quarter of the time discussing solutions.

The Earth plus 5% is a text version that is a simpler explanation of the same concepts of money as debt.

Money As Debt dot net

Thanks To Kim Bax for sending me the video link and to Helen Scutts for sending me the text version.

Gary the Global Warming Goat

2008-11-05T08:08:00.002+10:00

Its good to see someone can have some x-rated, tongue-in-cheek fun with global warming. Don't watch if you are offended by rude language!

Step in to Step it Up on Climate Change!

2008-11-04T18:54:00.002+10:00

In the first days of December, the Rudd Government will release the White Paper, outlining the Emissions Trading Scheme and emissions reduction targets for 2020 - the most important policy in contemporary Australia. I’m calling on you to do a similar action in your MP’s office in the first week of December – step in to your MP’s office and be part of stepping it up on climate change.

At our 'step in', five people went into Kevin Rudd’s office and asked to make an appointment with Rudd. I felt a bit nervous walking in, but having a group of us together made it a lot easier. After some discussion with a staff member and the office manager, we established that we weren’t going to get a meeting straight away. So we said, “That’s ok, we’ll wait” – and we sat down on the floor and pulled out our signs that we had prepared beforehand. With perfect timing, our other friends came around the corner with a banner that read ‘Great Barrier Reef – not negotiable’.

Soon, television crew from three different stations arrived. Our media spokesperson conducted a number of interviews while we continued to sit on the floor in the office. After two hours, the police hadn’t turned up. We felt we had succeeded in getting the media we wanted and decided to call it quits for the day… perhaps to return for a much longer sit-in in December!

I think the action was successful because we were really organised in advance. We’d had a couple of meetings before the day of the sit-in. On the day, we met up near Rudd’s office about an hour beforehand to go over what we wanted to do.

Another key part to the success of our action was having two excellent media people (one a media spokesperson and the other a media liaison) who sent our media release and made follow-up calls to key media outlets once we were in the office. They had practiced by roleplaying interviews and were feeling well-prepared before the action. Sending out a media release with high resolution photos was also important so media outlets that didn’t make it were still able to do stories with photos on the action.

You can see some of the media on our action here:
http://climateemergencyqueensland.blogspot.com/2008/09/climate-emergency-launch.html

It was great having supporters chanting and with colourful banners outside. They kept us entertained with chants of “Save our Reef, Mr Rudd, Garnaut’s targets are a dud!’ Their presence provided us with moral support for what we were doing.

I think the only problem we had on the day was when trains were suddenly cancelled – just before our train was due to head to Kevin Rudd’s office! We had to go and find a bus and we were running about half an hour late. Leaving plenty of time before the event was due to start definitely paid off for us!

I encourage you to do a similar action in your MP’s office in the first week of December. Now is the time to step in and step up community action on climate change!

To get you started, download the great information kit on how to do a Step In http://stepitupaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/step-in-to-step-it-up-on-climate-change.pdf

Next, get together with your climate action group or your friends and talk about what you would like your ‘Step In’ to be like. What will you do when you are there? What are the core messages you want to convey to your MP, to the public, and to media? What do people in your group need to feel prepared? Email hollycreenaune@gmail.com with any questions or for an experienced activist to visit your group to help you plan.

Then, a short time after the Federal Government releases their White Paper, step in to your MP’s office with a group of people from your community, and be part of stepping it up on climate change!

See the website for more information, tips and stories from a whole range of climate change groups who have ‘stepped in’ to their MP’s office already: http://stepitupaustralia.wordpress.com/ Get informed, inspired, and ready to STEP IN this December.

All the best in stepping in,
Emma Brindal

http://stepitupaustralia.wordpress.com/

Chemical released by trees can help cool planet

2008-11-01T07:56:00.004+10:00

October 31, 2008
From Climate Ark

Trees could be more important to the Earth's climate than previously thought, according to a new study that reveals forests help to block out the sun.

Scientists in the UK and Germany have discovered that trees release a chemical that thickens clouds above them, which reflects more sunlight and so cools the Earth. The research suggests that chopping down forests could accelerate global warming more than was thought, and that protecting existing trees could be one of the best ways to tackle the problem.

Dominick Spracklen, of the Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science at Leeds University, said: "We think this could have quite a significant effect. You can think of forests as climate air conditioners."

The scientists looked at chemicals called terpenes that are released from boreal forests across northern regions such as Canada, Scandinavia and Russia. The chemicals give pine forests their distinctive smell, but their function has puzzled experts for years. Some believe the trees release them to communicate, while others say they could offer protection from air pollution.

The team found the terpenes react in the air to form tiny particles called aerosols. The particles help turn water vapour in the atmosphere into clouds.

Spracklen said the team's computer models showed that the pine particles doubled the thickness of clouds some 1,000m above the forests, and would reflect an extra 5% sunlight back into space.

...

Read the article.

Electric car infrastructure just four years off

2008-10-26T08:41:00.003+10:00

23/10/2008
From

WITHIN four years, most Australians will be able to drive an electric car and recharge it at special plug-in points at home, the office or shopping centres.

The mass use of electric cars moved a giant step closer to reality today, with power company AGL and finance group Macquarie Capital signing an agreement with international group Better Place to provide infrastructure to support the environmentally friendly vehicles.

Under the agreement, Macquarie will raise $1 billion to build an electric-vehicle network in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, and AGL will power it with renewable energy.

...

Well I hope this is true. Let me see if I can find other references:

Yep, looks pretty convincing. I guess that isn't a hard one. Now that they spoke of "using renewable energy for fueling stations" (what does this mean) lets see if Coal fired power stations get closed. When that starts happening (and Coal exports reduce) then we're really cooking with gas (excuse the pun!).

There's no mention of the big energy companies. I wonder if they are somehow involved, will fight to the end to keep petroleum as a major source of road vehicles or will roll-over and let the change happen around them. I'm guessing its the first though it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Note that I haven't dug too deeply on this and leave it as a reader exercise. Wanna add in references as a comment (don't forget to wrap in an HTML Anchor tag so we can just click on it!.

Read the article.

Imagine paying someone to be a prick

2008-10-23T20:50:00.002+10:00

Greenpeace anti-coal industry song / video. What a cack!

Frookin' Bloody Dongheads - Carbon Sense Coalition

2008-10-21T07:49:00.004+10:00

Monday, October 13, 2008
From Blogs News.com.au

Oh my god. I'm glad I saw this post (thanks to Emma Rose from the Fossil Fools Brisbane group I belong to).

Carbon Sense Coalition - What a fucking bunch of dickheads. Excuse the swearing and notice that I spared the world from it in the title :) But some things make me fucking mad and complete fucknuckles like these people take the cake. The lord teaches us to forgive those who sin and trespass against us. And I will. WHEN THEY ARE BURRIED UNDER A TONNE OF COAL I will! Wankers.

Read the blog article.

Hey, I'm back the next morning.

I launched into the blog post with many four letter words (that happens when the words Anna Bligh(t) and coal industry appear in the same sentance) and without spending more time assessing the information presented. Perhaps I was being unfair on the Carbon Sense Coalition.

From their manifest they say:

(members include) taxpayers concerned at the spiraling costs of subsidies for fixing non-problems in the carbon cycle or propping up inefficient alternatives to
carbon fuels.

Don't give me that shit. It is the fossil fuel industry that is being subsidised to the tune of 9 billion dollars in Australia alone.

(members include) farmers who know about the important role of plants, soil and carbon dioxide in naturally recycling carbon from the atmosphere to plants and back to our food chain.

What the frig has that got to do with it? That is a form of Greenwashing.

(members include) people with knowledge and understanding of the dominant influence of the sun, oceans, clouds, volcanoes and cycles in the solar system in affecting climate and weather on earth.

Aren't these the people that support renewable energy????. Greenwash / distraction comment.

(members include) people alarmed at the politicization of science and who want our young people to grow up in a world in which truth and science are valued.

That's not true since the science is quite solid. And what about the POLITICS THAT has been DISTORTED and Corrupted by the fossil fuel industry. Goverments don't wipe their bum unless the fossil fuel industry says so.

(members include) people concerned at the way this issue is being used to fill our children with fear and loathing and our adults with guilt and anger.

Again not true - complete absolute bullshit, and what about the children who are being poisoned by the pollution, runoff and waste from fossil fuel mining, production and consumption?.

I'm not going any further. It will just make me more frickin' angry.

These people are real wankers. They are wrong, deceitful and society should see them as the criminals they are and banish them to the salt mines.

Queensland Climate Movement Summit

2008-10-11T14:04:00.002+10:00

Queensland Climate Movement Summit

Saturday October 25th from 9am

Dutton Park State School Hall, Annerley Rd

About the Summit

Climateers, activists, thinkers and citizens from across the country are invited to participate in the inaugural Queensland Climate Movement Summit - one of the most exciting grassroots community convergences in Queensland of recent years. The Summit is hosted by Six Degrees, a campaign initiative of Friends of the Earth in Queensland.

The Summit is an opportunity for activists, thinkers and citizens to meet to discuss ideas, issues, opportunities, campaigns and strategies in response to the impacts of climate change. The overall aim is to encourage discussion and co-operation between groups and individuals who are working on (or interested in) climate change in order to strengthen and build a movement for change.

The summit will be open-space discussions and workshops.

Date: Saturday, October 25th, 9 am to 5 pm

Venue: Dutton Park State School Hall, Annerley Rd

RSVP to bradley.r.smith@gmail.com ph 0413280006 by 20th October.

For more information check out: www.climatemovement.org.au/groups/six-degrees

...

Read the article.

Earth Spirit Action

2008-08-22T18:51:00.002+10:00

Video below.

Dear Friends, We met last year when I was up your way and gave a climate change presentation.

Thought you might enjoy this short video that I recently completed, Earth Spirit Action, that you can view on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6jCpChUxOw.

The film features Starhawk, Vandana Shiva, Ruth Rosenhek, John Seed and Matthew Fox speaking on Deep Ecology, Living Democracy and Revolution in Consciousness in a fast moving discussion of the type of change that needs to take place for a Sustainable Future. An inspirational and stimulating film including beautiful nature footage and a colourful array of global action shots. (16mins21secs).

Enjoy. :-)

for the Earth
Ruth

Environmental Cost of Shipping Groceries Around the World

2008-08-13T10:17:00.005+10:00

April 26, 2008
From New York Times

...

Box Fresh Organics, a popular British brand, advertises that 85 percent of its vegetables come from the British Midlands. But in winter, in its standard basket, only the potatoes and carrots are from Britain. The grapes are South African, the fennel is from Spain and the squash is Italian.

Today’s retailers could not survive if they failed to offer such variety, Mr. Moorehouse, the British food consultant, said.

“Unfortunately,” he said, “we’ve educated our customers to expect cheap food, that they can go to the market to get whatever they want, whenever they want it. All year. 24/7.”

...

Read the article.

Breaking Queensland's Coal Addiction

2008-08-07T19:48:00.002+10:00

I attended a fantastic talk given by Dr John MacKenzie of Friends Of the Earth. It outlined how criminal the Australian Queensland Labor Government is in their approach to climate change. They are tripling the state's coal production - mostly for exports. At the same time they have increased the royalties paid to them by 40%.

The CO2 Emissions from the burning of this coal will increase from 378 million tonnes to 848 million tonnes.

How can Australia (or the world) justify this when many climate scientists say we need to reduce our emisions by 90% - even the conservative 60% figure is unreachable given these growths.

Check out the presentation.

Forget carbon trading - we must go straight to renewable energy

2008-07-22T21:58:00.004+10:00

July 22, 2008
From Sydney Morning Herald letters

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Reprinted in full in-case the letter disappears (due to age).

The confusion around emissions trading has served to disguise for too long that Australia needs a crash program to replace its national energy system and exchange coal and oil for renewable power. The longer this is postponed, the more difficult the ultimate effort will be, yet it is necessary for our survival and to help other countries make this revolutionary change.

Three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions that are produced by human activities result from burning fossil fuels for power generation and transport, one-quarter from industrial agricultural practices, and another significant portion from cement production.

Yet instead of focusing on these practices and finding ways to replace and change them, the emissions trading scheme distributes the onus for fixing the problem across the entire economy - from large companies to, ultimately, every owner, operator and consumer.

The stated aim is to drive efficiency and reduce demand, and to make alternative energy production more competitive. Yet primary polluters are granted relief and exemptions from this scheme, and motorists are buffered from price rises.

Equally paradoxical is the reliance on a national and global system of fossil fuel and agricultural subsidies. None of this will help in stabilising the global climate, nor shield Australia's economy from the terminal oil shock that is upon us.

Instead, this myopic fixation on an incomprehensible carbon trading regime will mean the old combustion systems stay in place, and efficiency measures are slow to commence.

By focusing all the attention on pollution trading, the core emitters - coal and oil producers, refiners, electricity generators from coal, diesel and gas - shift the focus onto the consumers of dirty energy, which is all of us. The entire economy is hence held hostage: do something about climate change and everyone will suffer.

Let's call this bluff. Instead of wasting time with an impossibly complex and ultimately hopeless carbon trade regime, let us swiftly implement a 100 per cent renewable energy system, replace coal and oil with the country's abundant solar, bio-energy, wind and geothermal sources.

We can do this by using feed-in tariffs, production tariffs, structural adjustment support to retrain and re-employ workers in the outmoded high-carbon energy industries, direct investment in intelligent grids, efficiency standards and regulation - and negative-carbon soil and land cover management methods. We would make enormous savings and we just may have a chance to turn the corner in time.

Peter Droege Faculty of Engineering, University of Newcastle

Read the letter.

Al Gore: A Generational Challenge to Repower America (the world?)

2008-07-19T16:04:00.003+10:00

July 2008
From WeCanSolveIt.org, USA Climate Action site.

This is Al Gore's speech intended to invigorate the current political climate in North America. A great quote is:

"We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.".

See the transcript of the speech and show support for Al Gore's challenge to move USA to 100% renewable enery within 10 years by signing the campaign. It can be found at WeCanSolveIt.org.

Newcastle Coal Protest (Reuters Coverage)

2008-07-15T11:16:00.003+10:00

...

Read the article...

Newcastle Coal Protest (SBS Coverage)

2008-07-15T11:08:00.003+10:00

Protest Halts Coal Train for Six Hours

2008-07-15T10:43:00.004+10:00

Sydney Morning Herald

Ben Cubby, Environment Reporter

July 14, 2008

THIRTY-SEVEN demonstrators were arrested after about 1000 people halted trains in Newcastle yesterday in a protest against the coal industry's role in climate change. Police invoked some special powers, not used in a public protest since the Cronulla riots of 2005, enabling them to search vehicles, although organisers maintained the protest was peaceful.

Three coal trains bound for Carrington Coal Terminal - one of the ports which make Newcastle the world's biggest export point - were halted for about six hours after about a dozen protesters chained themselves to carriages. Hundreds of others lined the fence as mounted police held them back from the rail line from 11am until about 2.30pm.

The delivery of about 20,000 tonnes of Hunter Valley coal destined for export was delayed, although the coal loaders did not stop filling ships.

"All rail movements were stopped because many protesters breached the perimeters and got on the trains," said Port Waratah spokesman, Matthew Watson.

The demonstration marked the third time in less than a fortnight that coal industry operations near Newcastle had been disrupted by protests against the industry's role in climate change.

The demonstration was part of an international movement of "camps for climate action", which are designed to give people concerned about global warming a role in national debate about cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

"We have a really slim window of opportunity to act on climate change, so we need to take action," said a spokeswoman for the protesters, George Woods. "The status quo is fuelling a climate disaster, and today was about highlighting the role Australian coal plays in that. It's affecting all of the world, not just here."

The 37 people arrested yesterday were charged with a variety of offences, including hindering police, resisting arrest and trespass. They are due to appear at Newcastle Local Court.

Demonstrators claimed some police were not displaying badges when they made arrests - which would contradict a pledge made by police during the APEC Summit in Sydney last year. This was denied by police.

"There is no comment, other than that all police were in uniform," a spokeswoman said.

The full Fairfax story is here...

Newcastle Herald Slide Show here...

Engage Media Videos of climate action here...

Globally syndicated Reuters story here...

Covered by Reuters (

) MedIndia (

India)

SteelGuru (

India),

Times of

India

(

India),

Bloomberg (US), Reuters (

India),

Scotsman (

United Kingdom),

Gulf Times,

Qatar

, The Post,

Pakistan,

Al Watan Daily,

Kuwait,

GulfNews,

United Arab Emirates

, Sunday Star Times,

New Zealand

, EcoDiario.es,

Spain,

International Herald Tribune,

France,

AsiaOne,

Singapore,

Straits Times,

Singapore

, Reuters

South Africa

South Africa,

stv.tv,

UK,

guardian.co.uk,

Climate Indymedia coverage here...

Garnaut's interim report on climate emission reduction mechanisms

2008-07-14T18:02:00.003+10:00

Wed Jul 2, 2008
By David Spratt
From ABC News Australia

Ross Garnaut, the Rudd government's climate advisor, will this week deliver his interim report on climate emission reduction mechanisms, but the bigger policy questions will remain unanswered.

The report will outline proposals for a carbon emissions trading scheme, perhaps better described as a cap-and-auction scheme, in which the government sets a declining cap on carbon emissions, with permits to pollute allocated by way of auction.

...

Garnaut knows that climate science is demanding emissions reduction much faster than the government appears willing to contemplate, noting "the diabolical nature of the policy challenge", and the "widespread view, based on the science, that the risks of 'dangerous' climate change and the risk of abrupt climate change, are already at unacceptably high levels at this point".

In contrast to Garnaut's acute observations that the issue may be "too hard for rational policy-making in Australia" because "the vested interests surrounding it [are] too numerous and intense, the relevant time-frames too long", the government is caught in a policy fog, unable to find its way out of a bureaucratic framework that is now out of date. The Rudd government's current policy target of a 3-degree rise would destroy the Barrier Reef, the tropical rainforests, cause widespread desertification, a mass extinction, and a sea-level rise of perhaps 25 metres, amongst many impacts. Most worrying, the government seems unaware that this would be the consequence of a 3-degree target.

...

Read the article.

Jim Hansen - 20 Years of Climate Concerns

2008-06-27T08:10:00.000+10:00

Free public transport

2008-06-22T19:52:00.003+10:00

Free Public transport campaign from the Scottish Socialist Party

Its time has come. I will dig around one day for figures to support that it will be cheaper for the community to have free public transport than not to due to the expense of congestion, pollution, road deaths, road works, property buy-outs for new roads etc..

Environment is secondary to private profits

2008-06-14T13:54:00.000+10:00

May 22, 2008
From The AGE

Investing in renewable energy is being ignored to keep fossil fuels burning.

THE idea that coal-fired electricity generation can continue to be the major contributor to global electricity generation and the world can still restrict carbon dioxide emissions to a level constant with holding climate warming below 2 degrees is a fairytale, according to letter in the premier science journal Nature (published online, May 7, 2008).

Vaclav Smil, of the University of Manitoba, in Canada, makes a new point that is critical to the debate as it is being run by state and federal governments in Australia: "Carbon geosequestration is irresponsibly portrayed as an imminently useful large-scale option for solving the challenge. But to sequester just 25% of carbon dioxide emitted in 2005 by large stationary sources of the gas we would have to create a system whose annual throughput by volume would be slightly more than twice that of the world's crude-oil industry, an undertaking that would take many decades to accomplish."

And yet the Brumby and Rudd Governments persist in pouring money into geosequestration research at the expense of developing solar energy, among other renewable alternatives. Last month Premier John Brumby announced a $127 million package to develop "clean coal" including a $110 million fund to establish new large scale, pre-commercial carbon capture storage demonstration projects. These latest commitments will take Victoria's total clean coal investment to more than $244 million since 2002.

...

Read the article.

Australia Stuck in the coal age, when the solar century has already begun

2008-06-14T13:35:00.003+10:00

Wed May 21, 2008
From

Martin Ferguson let the cat out of the bag shortly after the Budget, when he said that carbon capture and storage would be "essential for the long-term sustainability of coal-fired power generation." With those words, he betrayed the fact that his Government prioritises the coal sector's profits over climate protection.

If that seems like a long bow to draw, look at the evidence that the Budget presents.

In the vital area of commercialisation of technologies, the myriad of renewable energy options that are ready to roll out now were allocated precisely zero for the coming year, with only $125 million in this term of Government. Next to that, the pipedream that is 'clean coal' received $35 million this year and $250 million this term.

When immediately called to task by the geothermal industry, which was, like many other renewable technology developers, calling for urgent commercialisation funding, the Government chose to make that sector an ad hoc $40 million grant, instead of shifting funding priorities. What's worse, instead of taking the $40 million from the coal sector's windfall, the Government took it out of the Energy Innovation Fund, money that had been earmarked for research into storage of solar energy.
...

Renewable energy has the potential to power our whole country with zero emissions within the near future, something coal cannot dream of. However, in terms of fast, cheap emissions reductions, nothing can beat energy efficiency. The Greens' proposal for a systemic infrastructure upgrade across Australia, to increase efficiency by 30 per cent or more across the economy, stands in stark contrast to the Government's piecemeal, tokenistic approach. A few tens of millions in rebates, grants and loans will cover a tiny percentage of homes, businesses and industry, while the cash-only offer fails to address the other well-known barriers to energy efficiency, such as lack of information and priority. Tackling energy efficiency provides a tremendous economic and social opportunity, let alone the climate benefits. Yet it was largely ignored by the Rudd Government.
....

Read the article.

Civilization's last chance

2008-06-14T13:23:00.002+10:00

From LA Times

A few weeks ago, NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several coauthors. The abstract attached to it argued -- and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper -- that "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

Hansen cites six irreversible tipping points -- massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, among them -- that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon; and the first of them, judging by last summer's insane melt of Arctic ice, may already be behind us.

So it's a tough diagnosis. It's like the doctor telling you that your cholesterol is way too high and, if you don't bring it down right away, you're going to have a stroke. So you take the pill, you swear off the cheese, and, if you're lucky, you get back into the safety zone before the coronary. It's like watching the tachometer edge into the red zone and knowing that you need to take your foot off the gas before you hear that clunk up front.
...
Hansen's words were well-chosen: "a planet similar to that on which civilization developed." People will doubtless survive on a non-350 planet, but those who do will be so preoccupied, coping with the endless unintended consequences of an overheated planet, that civilization may not.

Civilization is what grows up in the margins of leisure and security provided by a workable relationship with the natural world. That margin won't exist, at least not for long, as long as we remain on the wrong side of 350. That's the limit we face.
...

Read the article.

World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years

2008-06-14T13:14:00.002+10:00

From The Guardian (UK)

The figures, published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on its website, also confirm that carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than expected. The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14ppm - the fourth year in the last six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm. From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.

Scientists say the shift could indicate that the Earth is losing its natural ability to soak up billions of tonnes of CO2 each year. Climate models assume that about half our future emissions will be reabsorbed by forests and oceans, but the new figures confirm this may be too optimistic. If more of our carbon pollution stays in the atmosphere, it means emissions will have to be cut by more than is currently projected to prevent dangerous levels of global warming.

...

Read the article.

Carbon capture and storage useless at preventing CO2 from Coal

2008-04-28T19:30:00.003+10:00

19 April 2008
From New Scientist

Most coal today comes from opencast workings. Emissions, primarily of methane, CO2 and carbon monoxide, start as soon as the overburden above the coal seams is stripped away. Conservative estimates suggest that these gases alone account for about twice the emissions of the burning of the coal mined.

...

Read the article.

Fossil Fools Day 2008 photos

2008-04-10T08:53:00.003+10:00

Leading climate scientists warn that dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions must begin immediately to avoid catastrophic climatic shifts, yet most policy proposals consist primarily of goals that are decades off. Fossil Fools Day brought about creative, and often confrontational, actions reflecting this urgency. Activists demanded a rapid transition away from fossil fuels and toward the localization of energy, food, and economic systems for a just, sustainable future.

www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org

In Brisbane, Australia, 40 people took to the streets marching from one Coal "Climate Criminal" Company to the next where speakers read a manifest of the crimes the company has committed. The companies were:
* Rio Tinto
* BHP
* XStrata
* BMA
* Peabody
* and the Queesland State Government for continueing to set policies encouraging these crimes.

More photos from our day at Flickr.

Some Pictures from Fossil Fools Day Brisbane

2008-04-03T16:52:00.003+10:00

Not so much an April Fools joke...
Anna Bligh and the Clean Coal Cheer Squad.
The Clean Coal Cheer Squad with some CFMEU reps from the Coal Mining Division.

In the Brisbane Times here...

Govt won't extend emissions cuts: Wong

2008-02-21T22:09:00.007+10:00

From ABC News Australia

No this is right, despite the Federal Labor Party's commissioned report on how Australia should set its policies to tackle climate change, Penny Wong, the minister of Climate Change, has said that the party will NOT adopt one of the key recommendations. That is that Australia needs to play a lead role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by going beyond its stated target of a 60 per cent cut by 2050.

Labor expected an economists report from the Economist Garnaut, and instead they got the truth and it doesn't fit in with their economic policies. So they've decided to take less interest in what he says. The prior Australian Federal Government, the Liberals, were heavily criticised for their role in ignoring climate change. The Labor party got elected partly on the basis that they are going to do something about the problem. Labor didn't want to read in the report that to make the best of a bad situation, Australia needs to drastically change the way it operates. Garnaut's recommendations are supported.

Read on for more information.

Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Council Don Henry, says it accepts the need for deep carbon emission cuts.

"Here's a leading economist saying that we need strong targets, that we've got to get cracking and he's saying it's bad for our economy if we don't act and good for our economy if we do," he said.

"I mean this a really important call for the whole of the Australian community, business, government and all of us at home, that we've got to get cracking on climate change.

Greens leader Bob Brown says the Government had previously put a lot of emphasis on Professor Garnaut's research, but now appears to be backing away.

"Penny Wong has reduced Ross Garnaut to input," he said.

"There are huge vested interests at play here - the coal industry, the aluminium industry, the forest logging industry - and it's up to the Rudd Government to put this country ahead of those vested interests."

Read the story.

Read the story on Garnaut's report (Aust 'most vulnerable' to climate change: Garnaut).

Read the Climate Code Red Report on the state of global warming from David Spratt of Carbon Equity and Philip Sutton from Greenleap Strategic Institute. Very sobor reading. Here's the overview:

The extensive melting of Arctic sea-ice in the northern summer of 2007 starkly demonstrated that serious climate-change impacts are already happening, both more rapidly and at lower global temperature increases than projected. Human activity has already pushed the planet’s climate past several critical “tipping points”, including the initiation of major ice sheet loss.

The loss in summer of all eight million square kilometres of Arctic sea-ice now seems inevitable, and may occur as early as 2010, a century ahead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections. There is already enough carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere to initiate ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica and Greenland and to ensure that sea levels will rise metres in coming decades.

The projected speed of change, with temperature increases greater than 0.3°C per decade and the consequent rapid shifting of climatic zones will, if maintained, likely result in most ecosystems failing to adapt, causing the extinction of many animal and plant species. The oceans will become more acidic, endangering much marine life.

The Earth’s passage into an era of dangerous climate change accelerates as each of these tipping points is passed. If this acceleration becomes too great, humanity will no longer have the power to reverse the processes we have set in motion.

We stand at a time where we still have the power to make a choice. Only by dealing with the full scale and urgency of the problem can we create a realistic path back to a safe-climate world. Targets should be chosen and actions taken that can actually solve the problem in a timely manner. A temperature cap of 2–2.4°C, as proposed within the United Nations framework, would take the planet’s climate beyond the temperature range of the last million years and into catastrophe.

The loss of the Arctic sea-ice unambiguously represents dangerous climate change. As the tipping point for this event was around two decades ago when temperatures were about 0.3°C lower than at present, we propose a long-term precautionary warming cap of 0.5°C and equilibrium atmospheric greenhouse gas level of not more than 320 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide.

The USA’s leading climate scientist, James Hansen, stated recently that we should set an atmospheric carbon dioxide target that is low enough to avoid “the point of no return”. To achieve this, he says, we must not only eliminate current greenhouse gas emissions but also remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and take urgent steps to “cool the planet”.

These scientific imperatives are incompatible with the “realities” of “politics as usual” and “business as usual”. Our conventional mode of politics is short-term, adversarial and incremental, fearful of deep, quick change and simply incapable of managing the transition at the necessary speed. The climate crisis will not respond to incremental modification of the business-as-usual model.

There is an urgent need to reconceive the issue we face as a sustainability emergency, that takes us beyond the politics of failure-inducing compromise. The feasibility of rapid transitions is well established historically. We now need to “think the unthinkable”, because the sustainability emergency is now not so much a radical idea as simply an indispensable course of action if we are to return to a safe-climate planet.

Environmental actions - water use and air conditioning

2008-01-03T12:48:00.000+10:00

From a discussion on our mailing list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Climate_Action_Brisbane/).

I would like to address all such concerns and raise them at a community, council, state, federal or international level politically. I always thought Climate Action Brisbane would become this inbetween organising Walk Against Warming. Here are some things I'd like to see addressed:

Air Conditioning our cities - places like Queens Plaza in the Brisbane CBD have MASSIVE openings that release air conditioned air thus forcing the machinery to work harder and thus consume more energy. I would like to see petitioning done at such shopping centers and presented to Building Managers and Brisbane City Council. We'd need to get statistics for this to be effective.
Mens toilets in public buildings, RSLs and Clubs etc... still set to auto-flush every couple minutes (for perhaps 24 hours a day). These should be changed to waterless urinals or at least have sensors installed.
Air conditioners in the city that are more than a couple years old (on top of multi-story buildings) use megalitres of water a day. WHY does the QLD government want to build an unwanted, unnecessary, corrupt and expensive (financially, environmentally and with climate change) dam given that they haven't even tackled these easier to solve problems?

Climate change is a war that we must fight

2007-11-30T07:54:00.000+10:00

From The Age

We now face nothing less than a global emergency. We must rapidly reduce carbon emissions and encourage alternative energy sources, far faster than either government or opposition are prepared to acknowledge, and begin preparations for a global oil shortage.

This is not an extreme view; the extremists are those in government and business who have been in denial for the past decade, and in the process have frittered away our ability to plan a timely response. Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, than anyone else on the planet.

They continually regurgitate the mantra that technology is the answer. It is undoubtedly critical, particularly the renewable energy technologies that have been deliberately suppressed, but technology alone is not enough. There must be a major change in our values.

...

Read the article.

Dr Guy Pearse on Howard the denier and destructor

2007-11-04T10:48:00.000+10:00

27th Oct 07

From Kim Bax - Mum and Environment compaigner.

Dr Guy Pearce, author of HIGH & DRY speaks at the I2th annual Sunshine Coast Environment Awards

27th Oct 07

Howard tells us:

We’re told we will meet our Kyoto target, but not that it is an emissions increase target which, thanks mainly to land clearing cuts, enables us to increase emissions 27%;
We’re told there’s $3.5 billion being spent on climate change but not that, on an annual basis, twice as much is being spent on government advertising; more than a million dollars a day. And, on day one of this election campaign he spent ten times as much as his entire climate change budget in just one round of tax cuts.
We’re told banning incandescent light bulbs leads the world but just how world-leading is it given we need over 800 measures on that scale to cut our projected emissions in half by mid century?;
We’re told Australia is being prepared for the impacts of climate change but not that eleven times as much is being spent on the war in Iraq as on Howard’s entire greenhouse adaptation program?;
The Prime Minister says we’re on track to be an energy superpower but on his watch Australia actually started paying more for energy imports than we make from energy exports;
We’re told uranium and LNG are saving the global climate but this looks decidedly shaky when you factor in the far greater emissions caused by our coal exports which are projected to double by 2030;
We hear the Asia Pacific Partnership is a superior alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, but it rings hollow when you consider the AP6 requires no emission cuts of any country this century;
We’re told clean coal is just around the corner but not that coal-fired electricity providers reckon they don’t expect it to be commercially viable on any meaningful scale until at least 2020?
We’re told nuclear is the clean green saviour but not that John Howard’s own inquiry into its potential, found that even with a dozen nuclear power stations our emissions would still be 90% above I990 levels by 2050?

I joined the Liberal Party in I989, I remain a member and I never imagined campaigning for the defeat of my own party. But a continuation of John Howard’s response to climate change is also unimaginable and it’s something I can’t support. My politics haven’t changed a great deal since I989 but the Liberal Party’s greenhouse policy sure has.

In I990, the Liberal Party led by Andrew Peacock had a policy to reduce Australia’s greenhouse pollution by at least 20% by the year 2000. It was promising bigger cuts sooner than the Labor Party and was proud of the fact that it embraced national emission reduction targets first. That 20% emission reduction target was a commitment John Hewson retained as leader of the party in the early I990s. John Howard has taken a very different and dangerous direction. But before I get into that, a bit about my background.

I spent most of my career either working in or around the Liberal Party. Since about I994, I’ve also been immersed in environment policy, especially climate change; writing speeches for the first Howard government Environment minister, consulting to the Australian Greenhouse Office, lobbying for various industries, and as a PhD researcher.

With a political career in mind I hoped these were good career steps; environment policy specialists are thin on the ground in Liberal ranks. Instead, I found myself unable to ignore my party’s shifting response to climate change, the industry lobbying behind that push and the way we were deceiving the public about the consequences.

Much of this was revealed through my PhD research the conclusions of which were very unwelcome to me as a Liberal Party member. I raised my concerns with various senior Howard government people but to no avail and ultimately I made the fateful decision that it was unethical to self-sensor my research for political reasons.

Plan A, right up until mid 2005, had been to move my young family back to Queensland and more specifically to the Sunshine Coast hinterland, where I had the strong support of senior Queensland Liberals to run for federal parliament. But Plan A was finished as soon as I decided against self-censoring my PhD. In early 2006, some of my findings were aired on the Greenhouse Mafia episode of Four Corners. From then on, it was clear my party was complicit rather than oblivious. As expected, the shutters came down on me and any prospect of a political career.

So I decided to write High & Dry. If the party didn’t want to know that our greenhouse policy was being high-jacked, let alone the implications, then the whole story of how John Howard came to confuse the national interest with polluter interests needed telling.

Of course, if you believe John Howard, it’s a story that needs no telling because Australia ‘leads the world on climate change.’ But behind the smokescreen, the reality is very different:

We’re told we will meet our Kyoto target, but not that it is an emissions increase target which, thanks mainly to land clearing cuts, enables us to increase emissions 27%;
We’re told there’s $3.5 billion being spent on climate change but not that, on an annual basis, twice as much is being spent on government advertising; more than a million dollars a day. And, on day one of this election campaign he spent ten times as much as his entire climate change budget in just one round of tax cuts.
We’re told banning incandescent light bulbs leads the world but just how world-leading is it given we need over 800 measures on that scale to cut our projected emissions in half by mid century?;
We’re told Australia is being prepared for the impacts of climate change but not that eleven times as much is being spent on the war in Iraq as on Howard’s entire greenhouse adaptation program?;
The Prime Minister says we’re on track to be an energy superpower but on his watch Australia actually started paying more for energy imports than we make from energy exports;
We’re told uranium and LNG are saving the global climate but this looks decidedly shaky when you factor in the far greater emissions caused by our coal exports which are projected to double by 2030;
We hear the Asia Pacific Partnership is a superior alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, but it rings hollow when you consider the AP6 requires no emission cuts of any country this century;
We’re told clean coal is just around the corner but not that coal-fired electricity providers reckon they don’t expect it to be commercially viable on any meaningful scale until at least 2020?
We’re told nuclear is the clean green saviour but not that John Howard’s own inquiry into its potential, found that even with a dozen nuclear power stations our emissions would still be 90% above I990 levels by 2050?

And we’re told renewable energy can’t replace baseload power when it is already doing that elsewhere in the world.

Once you strip away the spin, the truth emerges; the cumulative impact of Howard’s policies after eleven years is that our emissions are on track to rise 70% by mid century. While he loudly claims that by slowing emissions growth he is doing the equivalent of taking fourteen million cars off our roads, the emissions growth he is allowing have us on track to add the equivalent of at least seventy million cars by 2050.

It’s been all about moving money and people between the carbon lobby and Howard’s circle of trust. When you look at who funds the economic advice produced by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) you find our worst polluting industries bought their way onto committees overseeing some of this as recently as last year. Some of the same industries pay hundreds of thousands to hire ABARE (not based on independent assumptions but on the paying client’s own assumptions), some even donate money to ABARE’s overall research program, all of which helps ABARE meet an external funding requirement.

Look behind the scientific advice produced by sections of the CSIRO, and the CRSs who have been in John Howard’s ear on clean coal and you find polluter funding.

Look at who funds the think tanks and front groups denying the science and warning of doomsday, were we to cut emissions, and you find the carbon lobby writing more big checks. And it’s the same with the hired guns; the economists, lobbyists and other policy gurus who have had the ear of the Prime Minister.

Look at who funds he Liberal Party itself and you find millions of dollars from the same polluter interests, being channeled from our worst greenhouse polluters, much of it through the back and side doors to avoid public scrutiny. And the career paths follow a similar trail as the money. A constant rotation of personnel between carbon intensive industry, federal bureaucracy and the Liberal Party builds careers for quarry visionaries and ensures they have the inside running. And it has thoroughly corrupted my party’s response to climate change.

Taking care of much of this day to day is a small group of Canberra based lobbyists working together under the banner of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network- otherwise known as the ’greenhouse mafia’.

We’re in this position because John Howard was sold what I call a ‘quarry vision’ of Australia’s future. A flawed belief that cheap fossil fuel and the mining, metals and fossil energy sectors are not just the key to our current prosperity but the key to our economic future and protecting them at all costs is the underlying goal of our greenhouse policy.

Meanwhile as is so apparent in a place like the Sunshine Coast, 90% of GDP, and 95% of jobs in our economy are not generated by these ‘quarry industries’. John Howard might talk up carbon capture as the way to clean up coal but it is he who has been captured by the carbon lobby and their quarry vision for Australia.

So how did they sell that vision to John Howard? To find out, we need to go inside John Howard’s Greenhouse policy ’circle of trust’, a concept many of you will be familiar with from the movie Meet the Fockers. It is only a shame Robert De Niro was not there with the polygraph in this case too.
When you look closely at the Howard government’s greenhouse policy - how it evolved, where the arguments originate - you find that he has consistently listened to relatively few sources. They are key political allies inside the Liberal Party; the Bush administration; a few government departments and a few agencies like ABARE; Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation(ANSTO), the chief scientist, and sections of CSIRO focused on clean coal technology.

He’s listened to; a small group of conservative commentators; a few conservative think’ tanks; the work of a small group of innocuous sounding lobbyists and economists; firms like ACIL Tasman, CRA International, and ITS Global. He’s heard the top end of town mainly through an equally innocuous sounding lobby group called the AustralianIndustry Greenhouse Network.

When you listen closely to these sources, you hear a complementary mix of denial and delay. Deny the scientific basis for action and/or delay emission cuts by Australia. What I found over a decade of work was that denial and delay were two sides of the same coin and the coin was coming from the same source as most of the pollution.

The AIGN represents about a dozen industry associations and a similar number of multinationals, mostly foreign owned. They account for Australia’s most carbon intensive industries: Coal, oil, aluminium, steel, cement, carmakers, and a few others.

In my PhD research I interviewed over a dozen senior past and present AIGN executives. They referred to themselves as the ‘greenhouse mafia’ and it was soon clear why. They run the country’s greenhouse policy remotely on behalf of the few industries they represent. They explained, in great detail, how they fixed the game time and again.

They said they’reverse-managed’the greenhouse ministerial committee; to stop emissions trading, to prevent Australia ratifying Kyoto, to avoid greenhouse emissions triggering federal environmental approval processes and to water down the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target.

They told how they reverse managed the broader business community into towing the line of the biggest polluters and how they got included in Australia’s official delegation to international greenhouse negotiations. They even told, on tape, how they were able to get inside the bureaucracy and help write cabinet submissions and ministerial briefings and costings on greenhouse policy.

Before they joined the greenhouse mafia, most of the lobbyists were once Branch Heads, Assistant Secretaries or Ministerial Advisers in the industry portfolio. Their former underlings now ran the relevant sections of the bureaucracy. So, if the public servant looked forward to a well paid industry job later on, it made good sense to go along with the greenhouse mafia bosses.

This dynamic operates right across Howard’s trusted circle; a blurred line between public, private and partisan; a shared belief that the interests of the nation are the same as the interests of carbon intensive industries.

It’s tempting perhaps to think that the PM is a victim in all of this, that he has been unwittingly captured by nefarious vested interests. That was my hope for quite a while. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. John Howard’s greenhouse scepticism goes way back. He said of the UN climate change convention: "We should never have got on this particular truck in Rio in the first place."

Since about I999 Howard started to take control of greenhouse policy because polluters felt his environment ministers were too green. He took over as chairman of the Cabinet committee overseeing greenhouse policy, unilaterally announced Australia would not ratify Kyoto, blocked emissions trading in cabinet twice - once effectively rolling half a dozen of his ministers after consulting a group of high polluting industry executives hand-picked by him. And his 2004 Energy White Paper ticked off the carbon lobby’s entire list.

He let a greenhouse sceptic run his backbench environment committee. He intervened in preselections to keep greenhouse sceptics in parliament. He appointed a coal industry executive as chief scientist, even allowing him to keep working three days a week at Rio Tinto. He hired the same consultants as the carbon lobby to advise him on greenhouse without any open tender and, when he decided emissions trading was unavoidable, he let our Australia’s worst polluting industries design one to their liking, even seconding the head of the AIGN to his department.

Time and again, he goes out of his way to give Australia’s ‘carbon club’ their way.

And one of the real problems has been the people around John Howard.

His Finance minister is an avowed sceptic and has publicly defended mining industry executives who have denied the science.
His Industry minister is another sceptic. When AI Gore visited Australia in 2006, this minister dismissed Gore’s documentary as incorrect and as nothing more than entertainment.
His Forestry minister is on record saying weeds are much more serious than the problem climate change may or may not be.
The Foreign minister hired as his speechwriter a conservative columnist who still denies humans have anything to do with climate change.
His Vocational Education minister, reckons the science is unproven, the warming we’re seeing mostly natural. He dismisses climate change as a trendy cause for lefties, seized since the fall of communism.
His Tourism minister who seriously suggested shade cloth as a way to save the Barrier Reef from climate change now says wind power is a fraud that belongs in the northern hemisphere, not here.

The Chair of Howard’s environment policy Committee launched a document at Parliament House saying climate change is a ‘scam’ and even suggesting those in charge of the (Intergovernmental Panel on climets Change (IPCC) should be jailed, presumably along with the Nobel Peace Prizes they now share with AI Gore.

So, many of Howard’s closest colleagues don’t believe climate change is a real problem caused mainly by humanity and this response has gone totally unchallenged.

The challenge for John Howard of late has been what to do now that the public has switched on to climate change. He’s had to feign a conversion on climate change while still planning to delay emission cuts in Australia. Let’s run through what’s being hatched right now:

First, he’s trying to appear to embrace the idea of emissions reduction targets when in fact he’s backing three types of target that are distant cousins at best:

emission increase targets like Australia’s Kyoto target which is non-binding because Australia hasn’t ratified;
regional or global reduction targets that are non-binding; and
targets which will be met anyway, as with the ‘business as usual’ improvements in energy intensity and forest cover which were dressed up as targets in the APEC Sydney Declaration.

Next, Howard is shifting the focus onto individuals with the’Climate Clever’campaign- which really ought to be called ‘Climate Conned.’ The more people can be coaxed into obsessing with their own emissions, the less likely they are to realise that emissions would rise 60% by mid century even if Australians cut residential emissions to zero; or that one million of us could take our cars off the road tomorrow and just one new aluminium smelter would wipe out the emissions saved.

Third, Howard’s giving the appearance of backing renewable energy without doing so. He’s merely bundled up the existing renewable energy mandates; the federal one he refused to increase and the state ones he opposed. Then he’s lumped in existing renewable capacity and broadened the eligibility to make clean coal and nuclear qualify. This is now dressed up as a grand I5% renewable energy target when in fact it’s basically business as usual.

Fourth, he’s giving the appearance of embracing emissions trading but saying nothing about the strength of the scheme. Four years before it starts, he’s calling his ETS the ‘best in the world’ but won’t provide any of the crucial details which will determine whether the scheme will actually result in deep cuts in Australia’s emissions.

He’ll say now that pensioners will be compensated for the impact of a carbon price on energy bills but he’s hiding the reason why pensioners will need compensation and that is that he has allowed our worst polluting industries to carve themselves from the scheme’s impact, which according to ABARE roughly doubles the burden of a carbon price on the rest of the community.

So we have an audacious plan to dress up business as usual as ‘leading the world’ and so keen are many in the media to write the ‘Howard back flip on climate change’ story that most of them have bought it.

So, what about Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party? Are they going to be any better than John Howard and the Coalition? Well, Labor has committed to some of the key steps Australia needs to take to have an effective response to climate change.

They have committed to long term emissions reduction target; a 60% reduction in Australia’s emissions by 2050; Immediate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol; and a substantial increase in the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target.

They’ll establish an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and crucially, one which will be consistent with deep cuts in Australia’s emissions by mid-century (this is important because Howard has not tied his scheme to any emissions reduction target). Labor has also committed to phasing out new electric hot water systems from 20I0.

And they have also commissioned Ross Garnaut to conduct the first ever full investigation of the economics of climate change; finally costing the impacts of climate change, and incorporating the benefits of emissions reduction, not just the costs. So there are some good signs from Labor.

But there are also some areas of concern: The lack of detail about the strength of the ETS and the loopholes it may allow big polluters; the lack of a medium term emissions target; the lack of detail on how much they plan to increase the renewable energy mandate; and no major attention yet to adaptation. As well the ALP has its own sceptics and some of its state governments have been vulnerable to the same sort of carbon capture we have seen with John Howard.

With all that in mind, I’m cautiously optimistic about a Rudd government when it comes to climate change but I’ll be even more optimistic if the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate to keep them on track. Whatever happens, this issue won’t be fixed on election day no matter what the result.

So what has to be done to get us back on track? Well, the first thing is to embrace the idea that Australia has to do to its own emissions what it expects of the rest of the world. We have to lead by example.

So we need to abandon the idea that there is some way around binding emissions reduction targets and timetables. We need a long term emissions reduction target consistent with what is required globally and we need a short-medium term target or target range, knowing that once we ratify Kyoto we will negotiate a new binding target covering the next commitment period.

Then we need to establish an emissions trading scheme that sets a price on emissions sufficient to stay on track with these targets and doesn’t carve out our worst polluting industries.

This needs to be complemented with additional measures for the simple reason that emissions trading is not a fix-all. To ensure that emission cuts are not merely outsourced to other parts of the world, we need a much stronger Renewable Energy mandate and energy efficiency regulation in various sectors, especially transport.

Unless we do this we may find we are merely a donor to the global clean energy transition, rather than part of it. While we’re at it, we need a moratorium on new coal fired power stations and we need to start rethinking our involvement in coal mining because this is an industry which could end up losing the race to become a commercially viable low emissions technology in time and we need to be ready for that possibility as a country.

This all needs to be complemented with a nationally led adaptation policy so that the nation can start preparing for the huge impacts of climate change-some of which are inevitable.

And we shouldn’t fall for the myth that doing the right thing will wreck the economy. Few people understand that when John Howard tells us that if we cut our emissions in half it would cut GDP by I0%, what he actually means is that, according to ABARE’s own projections, in 2050 it would be 246% higher than today rather than 28I % higher. Similarly when Howard says that real wages would be cut bys 20%, what he means is that they would only be 8I % higher.

We should also keep in mind that the path we are on, 70% higher emissions by mid century, is simply not a long term viable option so it’s not a very useful point of comparison.

So where does this leave Australians? What can they do. Well here are three suggestions on how you can be Climate Clever without being Climate Conned into ignoring the big picture.

Focus on cutting emissions in ways that save money: I don’t buy the idea that we need to cut back on our quality of life to cut emissions. There is too much evidence to the contrary. If you take up just some of the easy options then spend a few dollars a week on I00% renewable energy, you can easily do at the household level what is required globally and be financially better off. If you go to the long version of this presentation on my website you’ll see lots of specific suggestions;
Start your own adaptation planning: Just because government is abrogating its responsibility doesn’t mean we should too and we need to realize that the impacts of climate change affect all sorts of equations in our own lives from where we live to what careers we choose. Once again, on my website and in the book you’ll find more suggestions on what we can do as individuals.
Use your political clout: Our own efforts are wasted unless we also force change at the political and corporate levels. We have to vote on this issue and judge political parties on whether the cumulative effect of their policy is to cut Australia’s emissions in line with the deep cuts required globally; and whether they are preparing Australia for the inevitable impacts of climate change.
And don’t think your political clout is confined to the ballot box or to this election. We need to keep pushing by joining and supporting environmental organizations at all levels, writing to politicians at all levels and to business leaders too, raising awareness in the workplace, with community groups, and among family and friends.

If enough of us are truly’climate clever’ in these ways and not merely ‘climate conned into ignoring the big picture, we will move the bounds of acceptability for governments and industry and make delay less and less viable for the few interests it serves.

And not wasting one’s political clout seems an appropriate place for me to end.

They say you are supposed to get more and more conservative as you get older and I was not a very radical young man. In fact when I was introduced at a Liberal Party meeting by a Townsville City Alderman in 1989 I was described as ’2I going on 40’.

Well in a couple of weeks I turn 40, and if you’d said to me at the age of 2I that, in 2007, I would be working hand in hand with Greenpeace or giving such a politically seditious speech during an election campaign at an event like this, I would have given you pretty amazing odds.

But such is life and such is the gravity of the challenge presented by climate change to this generation and those who follow us. It is forcing many people already, to challenge conventional or partisan assumptions, and, inevitably, it means doing things we never imagined possible to prevent equally unimaginable harm.

Hopefully my own actions of late will help others to seize that challenge and to confront the many other threats to our environment.

Howard: I won't sacrifice economic growth to cut greenhouse gas emissions

2007-11-03T18:12:00.000+10:00

October 15, 2007
From TheAge (Aust)

Howard still refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol citing that we'd be at an unfair disadvantage as China and other developing nations aren't included as part of it.
That is true but short-sighted and an excuse for inaction. Specifically:

Kyoto Protocol is the legal basis for any international co-operation on climate change
Developed countries should face their historical responsibility and their high per-capita emissions
Australia has an 8% INCREASE over 1990 levels included in the Kyoto protocol. It is shameful we haven't even been able to stick to this
These Developing countries were almost nothing (no disrepect!) back in 1996 when the Kyoto Protocol was drawn up. What was the argument back then?
China and India have backed Kyoto and they are already meeting targets anyway!
Bush didn't sign Kyoto and thus a real reason for Howard not to
Howard is a luddite and lives in the past when polluting industries and coal in particular were king. The future is about efficiency and lean processes (minimal waste).

Prime Minister John Howard has dashed any hopes that he might end the government's Kyoto Protocol boycott, insisting he won't sacrifice economic growth to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Howard's first election campaign appearance on internet video site YouTube suggested the coalition would not be veering far from its existing climate change policy.

"The government will very shortly announce detailed plans on many issues including a climate change policy that balances our obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the need to keep our economy growing," he said.

The prime minister later reiterated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol on economic grounds, but not necessarily its post-2012 successor.

"The reason I won't ratify the Kyoto treaty is: the existing Kyoto treaty doesn't cover countries like China, and we could be at a competitive disadvantage," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

"We'd be interested in ratifying a new international agreement that includes all of the major emitters because that would not put us at a competitive disadvantage."

Mr Howard's comment came after federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull last week moved closer to accepting the Kyoto position by saying the government might sign an amended version for post-2012.

The independent Climate Institute argues that the necessary greenhouse gas cuts and a switch to clean energy can be made while sustaining economic growth.

"Government and independent groups such as ABARE and CSIRO show that strong economic growth is set to continue even if we substantially reduce emissions," chief executive John Connor said.

Federal Labor Leader Kevin Rudd says that ratifying the greenhouse blueprint would give Australia a greater say in climate change talks and help persuade China to commit on emissions cuts.

Mr Rudd said while the Kyoto treaty expires within five years, endorsing it would give the government a greater role in international climate change policy, starting at a Bali conference in December.

"If you haven't ratified Kyoto, you don't get to vote, that's the problem," he told Southern Cross.

"I want to be an international voice for Australia which is carving out the future arrangements."

Mr Rudd said China's argument for not accepting greenhouse targets had been because developed nations like Australia and the United States had refused to do so.

"Unless we in this country fix the China emissions problem with an international set of rules which bind both economies as well, then frankly our future is deeply compromised."

The Australian Greens have urged more federal investment in public transport as a way of tackling climate change.

Senator Kerry Nettle called on the commonwealth to ensure the states had the funding they needed to improve transport systems.

An environmental network gave both of the major parties low marks for their climate change policies, but put Labor ahead of the government.

Using nine criteria, The Big Switch gave the coalition a grade of 0.8 out of five and Labor 1.8.

National coordinator Tricia Phelan said Labor fell down by supporting the continued use of coal, while the coalition's response so far is "completely inadequate".

Read the article.

UN: Now or never to save the planet

2007-11-03T09:02:00.000+10:00

25th October 2007
From United Nations Environment Program

The Global Environment Outlook (GEO) is UNEP's flagship assessment process and report series. The fourth report in the series, GEO- provides an overview of the global and regional environmental, social and economic state-and-trends over the past two decades. It highlights the interlinkages, challenges and opportunities which the environment provides for development and human well-being. The report also presents an outlook, using four scenarios to explore plausible futures to the year 2050, as well as policy options to address present and emerging environmental issues.

GEO-4 is produced and published by the Division of Early Warning and Assessment of the United Nations Environment Programme. It is available from www.unep.org/geo/geo/.

Novorivus: This report from the United Nations speaks to me in uncertain terms that the world needs to become one, with all nations united to tackle the environmental problems we are faced with. We need to stop the selfish country-centric thinking that we have become so accustomed to (the one that Howard falls under when he says that we will not sign Kyoto as it would disadvantage us - other countries would take our place in the market).

Its all about peace, love and the desire to live together in harmony. As for the argument that "it is in our nature to fight wars", It is not true - we can either be peacemakers or warmongers. Bonobos and Common Chimpanzees are our nearest ancestors. Chimps fight, Bonobos fornicate (wikipedia/Bonobo Psychological Characteristics. Everything and anyone! They believe in and practice friendship and bonding not possession and fighting.

From: Bonobo Sex and Society under the heading "Female Alliance")

Male chimpanzees fight their own battles, often relying on the support of other males. Furthermore, adult male chimpanzees travel together in same-sex parties, grooming each other frequently. Males form a distinct social hierarchy with high levels of both competition and association. Given the need to stick together against males of neighboring communities, their bonding is not surprising: failure to form a united front might result in the loss of lives and territory. The danger of being male is reflected in the adult sex ratio of chimpanzee populations, with considerably fewer males than females.

Serious conflict between bonobo groups has been witnessed in the field, but it seems quite rare. On the contrary, reports exist of peaceable mingling, including mutual sex and grooming, between what appear to be different communities. If intergroup combat is indeed unusual, it may explain the lower rate of all-male associations. Rather than being male- bonded, bonobo society gives the impression of being female- bonded, with even adult males relying on their mothers instead of on other males. No wonder Kano calls mothers the "core" of bonobo society.

So what should we try and be - a Bonobo or a Chimp?

See this New Scientist article on the topic of Bonobos, Chimps and humans.

Sorry, I diverged from the original UNEP GEO-4 report which I'll return back to.

This part of the conclusion in the report is quite striking:

For some of the persistent problems the damage may already be irreversible. GEO-4 warns that tackling the underlying causes of environmental pressures often affects the vested interests of powerful groups able to influence policy decisions. The only way to address these harder problems requires moving the environment from the periphery to the core of decision-making: environment for development, not development to the detriment of environment.

Its now or never kids. Elect governments that are serious and want to make changes by bringing the environment to the core of our policies and immediate concerns.

Planet's Tougher Problems Persist, UN Report Warns

GEO-4 recalls the Brundtland Commission's statement that the world does not face separate crises - the "environmental crisis", "development crisis", and "energy crisis" are all one. This crisis includes not just climate change, extinction rates and hunger, but other problems driven by growing human numbers, the rising consumption of the rich and the desperation of the poor.

Examples are:

decline of fish stocks;
loss of fertile land through degradation;
unsustainable pressure on resources;
dwindling amount of fresh water available for humans and other creatures to share; and
risk that environmental damage could pass unknown points of no return.

GEO-4 says climate change is a "global priority", demanding political will and leadership. Yet it finds "a remarkable lack of urgency", and a "woefully inadequate" global response.

Several highly-polluting countries have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. GEO-4 says: "... some industrial sectors that were unfavourable to the... Protocol managed successfully to undermine the political will to ratify it." It says: "Fundamental changes in social and economic structures, including lifestyle changes, are crucial if rapid progress is to be achieved."

Among the other critical points it identifies are:

Water: Irrigation already takes about 70 per cent of available water, yet meeting the Millennium Development Goal on hunger will mean doubling food production by 2050. Fresh water is declining: by 2025, water use is predicted to have risen by 50 per cent in developing countries and by 18 per cent in the developed world. GEO-4 says: "The escalating burden of water demand will become intolerable in water-scarce countries."

Water quality is declining too, polluted by microbial pathogens and excessive nutrients. Globally, contaminated water remains the greatest single cause of human disease and death.
Fish: Consumption more than tripled from 1961 to 2001. Catches have stagnated or slowly declined since the 1980s. Subsidies have created excess fishing capacity, estimated at 250 per cent more than is needed to catch the oceans' sustainable production.
Biodiversity: Current biodiversity changes are the fastest in human history. Species are becoming extinct a hundred times faster than the rate shown in the fossil record. The Congo Basin's bushmeat trade is thought to be six times the sustainable rate. Of the major vertebrate groups that have been assessed comprehensively, over 30 per cent of amphibians, 23 per cent of mammals and 12 per cent of birds are threatened.

...

Read the report.

QLD Conservation Council win appeal

2007-10-12T21:51:00.000+10:00

12th October 2007

In a unanimous decision today, the QLD Supreme Court set aside a judgement made in the Land and Resources Tribunal (LRT). QCC had sought to have conditions imposed on a mine operated by xstrata Coal, to avoid, reduce or offset a proportion of its greenhouse gas emissions.

‘The Supreme Court has agreed with QCC that this was an unfair judgement by the LRT,’ said Toby Hutcheon, Coordinator of Queensland Conservation (QCC)

‘The decision led to xstrata Coal being given a licence to expand its coal mine without any conditions to avoid, reduce or offset greenhouse emissions,’ said Hutcheon

‘The Supreme Court decision now paves the way for the case to be re-heard. QCC will be pushing for this matter to be progressed as soon as possible’ said Hutcheon

‘We have lost 7 valuable months in the campaign towards stabilising QLD greenhouse gas emissions,’ said Hutcheon

This case illustrates the flaws in government greenhouse gas reduction policy. Whilst ordinary Queenslanders are being asked (quite rightly) to reduce their carbon footprint, big emitters are free from regulation.

‘Its time for the QLD EPA to impose conditions on all major polluters to regulate their greenhouse gas emissions,’said Hutcheon

For more Information: Toby Hutcheon 3221 0188/0419 664 503

Note: QCC took xstrata Coal to the Land and Resources Tribunal in January 2007, seeking to have conditions imposed on its operating licence. According to assessments, the mine and its coal would produce 84MT of CO2 over a 15 year period.

In handing down its decision the LRT President questioned the IPCC 4th Assessment Report and the views of some of Australia’s leading climate experts, including Prof Ian Lowe

Subsequent to this decision, the EPA approved xstrata’s licence without any of the sought conditions on greenhouse reductions. The QLD Government has a climate strategy aimed at reducing emissions by 60% by 2050.

Scientists developing giant 'green energy' battery

2007-09-30T10:22:00.000+10:00

September 13, 2007
From The Guardian (UK)

Eon UK is developing a giant battery designed to store electricity generated by wind farms and solar panels.

Scientists at the energy group's technology centre in Nottingham aim to build a large-scale prototype that would be able to store one megawatt of electricity for four hours - the equivalent to 10m AA batteries and the same size as four articulated lorry containers.

"Green power is only generated from wind farms when the wind blows and that might not be when the power's needed by customers," said Bob Taylor, managing director of energy wholesale and technology. "By researching and developing this battery we can store the power generated by wind farms any time and then use it when our customers need it the most.

"The storage system will also help the development of localised generation. For example, a school with solar panels can store the power generated at weekends and use it when the kids are back in school."

Eon is already working with small-scale prototypes; it expects the large prototype to be operational by autumn 2009. The project is being supported by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

"We believe energy storage is a key which will help us unlock a lower-carbon tomorrow and radically change the way we think about energy," Mr Taylor said.

The industry regulator, Ofgem, said the concept was increasingly attractive. "It looked a long way from being deployed but we are seeing good progress here and internationally," said a spokesman.

Read the article.

China Plans US$265 Bln Renewables Spending by 2020

2007-09-30T10:15:00.000+10:00

September 5, 2007
From Planet Ark

China is able to set targets yet have no immediate obligations under the Kyoto protocol (ofcourse they will have future targets they won't be able to meet if they don't start acting now). This is in difference to Australia and the USA who have refused to join Kyoto so they don't have to set targets but have aspirational goals.

BEIJING - China plans to invest 2 trillion yuan (US$265 billion) in renewable energy by 2020, most of it corporate cash, to wean itself off polluting coal as it aims for cleaner growth, a top energy planner said on Tuesday.

...

Read the article.

Howard's Kyoto resistance could be costing billion

2007-09-30T09:53:00.000+10:00

September 9, 2007
From

THE Howard Government's refusal to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases is costing Australian businesses about $3.8 billion a year, a study has found.

The report by respected environmental consultant Cambiar said the country was missing out on economic activity because local businesses could not fully participate in the $37.5 billion global carbon market, which last year alone tripled in value.

"This is the first time this analysis has been done and what we have found was that a significant opportunity has been forgone because we are not participating fully in the Kyoto process," Justin Sherrard, one of the report's authors, told The Sunday Age.

...

Read the article.

Record Resource Consumption Depletes a Warming World

2007-09-30T09:48:00.000+10:00

September 14, 2007
From Environmental News Service

Some statistics from the Vital Signs report

In 2006, the world used 3.9 billion tons of oil. Fossil fuel usage in 2005 produced 7.6 billion tons of carbon emissions, and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide reached 380 parts per million.
More wood was removed from forests in 2005 than ever before.
Steel production grew 10 percent to a record 1.24 billion tons in 2006, while primary aluminum output increased to a record 33 million tons. Aluminum production accounted for roughly 3 percent of global electricity use.
Meat production hit a record 276 million tons (43 kilograms per person) in 2006.
Meat consumption is one of several factors driving rising soybean demand. Rapid expansion of soybean plantations in South America could displace 22 million hectares of tropical forest and savanna in the next 20 years.
The rise in global seafood consumption comes even as many fish species become scarcer: in 2004, 156 million tons of seafood was eaten, an average of three times as much seafood per person than in 1950.
The warming climate is undermining biodiversity by accelerating habitat loss, altering the timing of animal migrations and plant flowerings, and shifting some species toward the poles and to higher altitudes.
The oceans have absorbed about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans in the last 200 years. Climate change is altering fish migration routes, pushing up sea levels, intensifying coastal erosion, raising ocean acidity, and interfering with currents that move vital nutrients upward from the deep sea.
Despite a relatively calm U.S. hurricane season in 2006, the world experienced more weather-related disasters than in any of the previous three years. Nearly 100 million people were affected.

...

Read the article.

Climate Fight Brings Mega Profits to EU Power Firms

2007-09-27T15:43:00.000+10:00

August 27, 2007
From Planet Ark

This is an article about how the Cap and Trade system to manage Greenhouse Gases fails to achieve its aims. The reason is because the amount of pollution companies can emit is given to them as these carbon credits. That is the 'cap'. They then trade this by theoretically reducing the amount of polution and selling what they don't use to other companies. So the rort is that they are paid to pollute. There are other issues, not discussed in this article, where teh amount of pollution is not set until some date in the future. So these countries cut ALL their trees down (causing pollution but that doesn't matter in this cap and trade system) and then get paid through carbon credits by planting trees.

This is the sort of crazy shit that capitalism inflicts on this world. Why can't we just live the "common good"?

LONDON - European power companies are making billions of euros in excess profits in the European Union's battle to beat global warming by cutting emissions of carbon gases, and consumers are paying for it, economists say.

The electricity generators are given, free of charge, permits to emit millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide which are currently worth around 20 euros a tonne, but are then charging consumers as if they had been made to pay for the permits.

Michael Grubb, Chief Economist at the Carbon Trust and Director of Climate Strategies, calculates that this practice which he says is economically justifiable gives the industry windfall profits of some 20 billion euros (US$27.14 billion) a year.

"It is free money," he told Reuters. "It's how you'd expect companies to behave, but politically and morally it is going to be hard to justify making so much money out of a scheme designed to reduce emissions -- with consumers footing the bill."

...

Read the article.

Howard 'fails to plan for climate security'

2007-09-25T22:45:00.000+10:00

September 25, 2007
From News.com.au

THE Federal Government has left Australia unprepared for global turmoil caused by climate change, which the nation's top police officer has called this century's greatest security risk, Labor said today.
Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty said water and food shortages caused by global warming could have disastrous implications, particularly for border security.

Mr Keelty said the world could see a "catastrophic'' decline in the availability of fresh water in populated areas.

"Crops could fail, disease could be rampant and flooding might be so frequent that people en masse would be on the move,'' he said in a speech last night.

"Even if only some, if not all, of this occurs, climate change is going to be the security issue of the 21st century.

"It's not difficult to see the policing implications that might arise in the not-too-distant future.''

Mr Keelty said people in their millions would be attempting to cross oceans and borders to escape their plight.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute in July said the military would find itself involved in more disaster and relief missions because of climate change and spend more time protecting the nation's borders.

Federal Labor said such threats posed critical questions for the nation's strategic and capability planning.

"Yet the Howard Government is still working off a Defence White Paper developed in the late 1990s and released in the year 2000, which takes no account of the implications of climate change,'' defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said.

...

Read the article.

Fished Out: European Union Closes Bluefin Tuna Fishery

2007-09-23T08:19:00.000+10:00

September 19, 2007
From

Although not directly related to climate change, this story is about mans' greed, selfishness and short term concerns causing a significant problem. Exactly the same as the cause of global warming.

The European Commission today decided to close the 2007 fishery for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. On the basis of the catch returns received from the seven European Union countries that fish for bluefin, the 2007 EU quota of 16,780 metric tons has been exhausted, the Commission said.

This closure concerns Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal and Spain. The other two member states involved, Italy and France, already closed their own fisheries earlier this summer.

European Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs Joe Borg said, "Clearly there are problems both of overfishing a stock already threatened with collapse and of equity between the member states concerned. As is its duty, the Commission will do all it can to address these issues urgently."

The Commission has noted failings in the reporting of catch data necessary to monitor the uptake of the EU quota in real time. Borg said measures against such failings will be put in place in time for the 2008 fishery to prevent the problems experienced this year.

There are two populations of Atlantic bluefin tuna, a smaller western population which spawns in the Gulf of Mexico, and a larger eastern population which returns each May from the all around the North Atlantic Ocean to spawn in the Mediterranean Sea.

Spotter planes and helicopters are waiting for the tuna as they enter the Mediterranean. In an attempt to protect the spawning tuna, the use of spotter aircraft has been illegal in the month of June since 2001. But illegal flights during June have been observed, says WWF Mediterranean, which campaigns for protection of bluefin tuna.

...

Read the article.

Exaggeration, Climate Change and the economic cost of climate change

2007-09-20T21:49:00.000+10:00

Here is a blog about an article by Clive Hamilton.

I was alerted to the article by Professor Sinclair Davidson (Economics Commentator and Collumnist), who was on Difference Of Opinion (http://abc.net.au/tv/differenceofopinion/) Thurs 20th Sept 2007. Professor Sinclair read the quote from Clive Hamilton in the newspaper article so out of context that it totally changed the meaning. Clive's statement went from meaning that there is a lot of exaggeration about Environmental and social matters and often times exaggeration is done for the sake of a strong emotional response. Clive went on to say that with Climate Change, the exaggeration has been by the Australian Federal government about the cost of tackling Climate Change. Sinclair Davidson used the quote "Environmentalists have often overstated the effects of environmental decline." without presenting the rest of Clive's argument.

This of course is typical of a climate change denier. The issue Clive presents about the Howard government is that not only have they failed to address climate change, but that they have purposely encouraged climate change through denial, policy setting and direct action such as "New Kyoto Protocol" (an excuse to try and distract the rest of the world from the true Kyoto Protocol). Guy Pearce discusses this in his book "High and Dry, John Howard, Climate Change and the Selling of Australia's Future" (see http://www.abc.net.au/ rn/latenightlive/ stories/2007/1967488.htm). And by Clive Hamilton in his book "Scorcher" (http://www.theage.com.au/ news/book-reviews/ scorcher-the-dirty-politics-of-climate-change /2007/05/25/1179601645988.html).

This information highlights that if you care about the environment and climate change, then do not believe any of the lies and green washing that the Howard Government is putting forward in their election campaign. They have some positive actions, but they are too little too late.

BTW, the Difference of Opinion program discussed what the Federal Government (post the election) should do with our large 20 billion surplus. Not is all as it seems! (http://www.abc.net.au/ reslib/200709/ r185236_688864.asx).

September 09, 2007
From Courier Mail

Article by Clive Hamilton.

In the climate change debate, while the dangers of global warming have been deliberately understated, those opposed to taking action have engaged in absurd exaggeration of the economic costs of cutting emissions.

The Prime Minister, various ministers and the fossil fuel lobby have for years claimed that cutting emissions would be economically ruinous, cause massive job losses and destroy our international competitiveness. None of these claims is backed by credible evidence and can easily be shown to be false.

...

Read the article.

Carbon Rationing - becoming reality

2007-09-18T07:19:00.000+10:00

Monday September 10 2007
From Guardian (UK)

Rationing project tests government plans to make pollution personal

Plans for the world's first personal carbon trading scheme, in which people buy and sell their rights to produce pollution, are unveiled today.

The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (RSA) is piloting a project later this year to test whether personal carbon trading could work on a large scale.

The idea, also called carbon rationing, is being considered by the government as a radical way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from households and consumers. Matt Prescott, who runs the RSA project, said: "Personal carbon trading is a way to bridge the gap between individual and collective action. It would be a way for the government to give people a sense of purpose in their efforts to reduce their emissions."

Under the initiative, due to start in November, participants will enter details of their energy use into a computer system, which already tracks the emissions of 5,000 RSA volunteers. Each person will be allocated a cap on their carbon dioxide use, and will be forced to buy credits from others if they exceed it.

Within a year, the RSA hopes to link their computer system to the billing procedures of gas and electricity companies, so the energy use of volunteers can be tracked automatically. They are also talking to oil companies about obtaining details of fuel purchases. The society hopes to have tens of thousands of people trading carbon credits for cash within three years.

Officials in the environment department, Defra, are giving carbon rationing serious thought. The RSA project was launched last year by the former environment secretary, David Miliband, who talked of people carrying carbon credit cards to be swiped when they bought fuel or flights. Today's report says the government could introduce compulsory carbon trading by 2013, using the climate change bill to change the law.

Read the article.

Faster Climate Change Means Bigger Problems

2007-09-11T08:17:00.000+10:00

September 2, 2007
From Science Daily

Science Daily — The debate about what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate” has almost exclusively focused on how much the temperature can be allowed to increase. But we have perhaps just as much reason to be concerned about how quickly these changes take place.

...

Read the article.

Federal election: Parties Climate Change policies

2007-09-09T13:43:00.000+10:00

Here are videos from the various parties discussing their solutions to climate change (or perhaps if they are even doing anything at all).

Greens

Democrats

Labor

A little lacking on real detail to enable a proper assessment of what they are going to do.

These vids are really nice and fluffy. Makes you want to <sigh/>.

Liberals (conservatives)

Too little, too late and in areas that won't make the impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that need to happen. They do not understand the problem. Theoretically maybe, but it isn't in their hearts. Greenwashing essentially.

More Walk Against Warming 2007

2007-09-09T08:10:00.000+10:00

Walk Against Warming: Brisbane

Walk Against Warming: Brisbane - Waters headed the march at Brisbane's Walk Against Warming....green greens global warming walk against bob brown larissa waters march protest climate change activist brisbane.

Walk Against Warming - Bob Brown Speaks

About Global Warming, the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and what The Greens will do about it....Bob Brown senator walk against warming Brisbane.

Bob Brown Addresses WAW Brisbane

Senator Bob Brown of the Australian Greens addressing the demonstrators of Walk Against Warming in Brisbane on Saturday 25th of August 07.

Pope Urges, Save The Planet Before It's Too Late

2007-09-03T12:46:00.000+10:00

From Environmental News Network

Pope Urges, Save The Planet Before It's Too Late - I wonder if this extends to accepting that the over population of our planet is a serious issue. So much so that some contraception is ok.

The Vatican also recently launched their own airline to fly Catholics around the world to visit holy lands.

It is great though that such a significant organisation has come to the realisation that we are ruining this planet and that changes must be made sooner rather than later.

LORETO, Italy (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, leading the Catholic Church's first 'eco-friendly' youth rally, on Sunday told up to half a million people that world leaders must make courageous decisions to save the planet "before it is too late".

"A decisive 'yes' is needed in decisions to safeguard creation as well as a strong commitment to reverse tendencies that risk leading to irreversible situations of degradation," the 80-year-old Pope said.

Wearing green vestments, he spoke to a crowd of mostly young people sprawled over a hillside near the Adriatic city of Loreto on the day Italy's Catholic Church marks it annual Save Creation Day.

More than 300,000 people had slept on blankets and in tents or prayed during the night. Organizers said they were joined by some 200,000 more who arrived from throughout Italy on Sunday.

"New generations will be entrusted with the future of the planet, which bears clear signs of a type of development that has not always protected nature's delicate equilibriums," the Pope said, speaking from a white stage.

In one of his strongest environmental appeals, Benedict said: "Courageous choices that can re-create a strong alliance between man and earth must be made before it is too late."

The Pope closed the rally with a Sunday morning mass.

It was the first environmentally friendly youth rally, a break from gatherings that have left tonnes of garbage.

Participants had backpacks made of recyclable material, flashlights operated by a crank instead of batteries, and color-coded trash bags so personal garbage could be easily recycled. Meals were served on biodegradable plates.

Tens of thousands of prayer books for Sunday's mass were printed on recycled paper and an adequate number of trees will be planted to compensate for the carbon produced at the event, many in areas of southern Italy devastated by recent brushfires.

Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become progressively "green", installing photovoltaic cells on buildings to produce electricity and hosting a scientific conference to discuss global warming and climate change.

Benedict voiced concern about a breakdown of the traditional family and in his Sunday homily told young people to "go against the current" and challenge "seductive" media messages promoting materialism, consumerism and fleeting pleasures.

Loreto is famous in the Catholic world for the "holy house of the Madonna", a small stone structure purported to be where Mary grew up in the Holy Land and where she was told by an angel she would give birth to Jesus although a virgin.

Â© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

Read the article.

Arctic sea ice free by 2030, say scientists

2007-09-01T16:48:00.000+10:00

20/08/2007
From The Ecologist

Arctic sea ice is melting faster than climate models predicted and there is less sea ice in the Arctic now than at any time since records began, scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) have discovered.

With one month of the summer melt season remaining, the area covered by Arctic sea ice is already only 2.02 million square miles, less than at any time since records began in the 1970s.

‘This is very strong evidence that we are starting to see an effect of greenhouse warming,’ Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the NSIDC, told Associated Press.

At current rates, the Arctic will be sea ice free in summer by 2030. This is faster than some computer climate models predict – they expect that it will be 2070 before Arctic sea ice melts completely during the summer.

Dr Joy Singarayer, a sea ice expert at Bristol University, told the Ecologist:
‘Loss of Arctic sea ice could have consequences for climate and climate variability that are more widespread than the Arctic, as well as for the ecosystems and communities that inhabit the Arctic itself.’

As the sea ice disappears, polar bears face starvation since they depend on sea ice to reach and hunt seals. The Gulf Stream, the current that brings warm water to the west of Europe, could also be affected. It is driven by dense, salty water sinking to the bottom of the ocean near Greenland and, as Arctic sea ice melts and reforms throughout the year, it affects the saltiness of the underlying ocean.

Scientists also believe that declining Arctic sea ice cover could cause decreased rain and snowfall in the American west, and torrential winter rainfall over parts of Europe.

Read the article.

Climate Action Network Meetings

2007-08-28T09:45:00.000+10:00

Climate action network meetings
6pm, alternate Wednesdays (15/8, 29/8, etc)

School of Arts Building, level 2, 166 Ann St Brisbane

An opportunity for climate action groups to get together, network, share resources and ideas and plan joint activities.

Next meeting is the 29th August.

For further details, contact James 0431 150 928

Rally Calls For Climate Change

2007-08-28T08:45:00.000+10:00

From Brisbane Times

Scott Casey

More than 1000 people braved the rain in Brisbane today to join politicians and community campaigners in the annual Walk Against Warming rally.

The march was a loud and colourful affair with African drums rumbling along the length of the protest and chants decrying nuclear power and fossil fuels echoing through the city.

Leading the march was Greens Leader Bob Brown and Democrats Queensland Senator Andrew Bartlett, Brisbane City Council's Cr Helen Abrahams along with a host of candidates for the next election from the Greens and Democrats.

The turnout was down on predictions of 5000 people with organisers blaming the weather, while commenting that rain usually is associated with the Walk Against Warming.

"It's a walk that people listen to and it's a walk that gets that message across about more climate action."

The walk aims to increase public awareness of climate change and to encourage people to place pressure on government to undertake more action on a range of climate change related initiatives.

...
Read the article.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/08/25/1187462575532.html

Walk Against Warming 2007

2007-08-27T23:18:00.000+10:00

This was the third annual Walk Against Warming, although today was the unofficial Brisbane (Queensland, Australia) event. The official WAW 2007, which will be held in all major Australian centers is 2 weeks before the Federal Election. This hasn't been called yet so the date has not yet been determined.

There was approximately 3000 people participating in the walk. Most of them made it to the River Stage to listen to speakers and entertainment though didn't seem to stick around till the end.

It was a good day. The guest speakers included:

Bob Brown - Greens Senator
Andrew Bartlett - Democrats Senator
Don Henry - Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) Executive Director
Claire Moore - Federal Labor Senator
Helen Abrahams - Brisbane City Council (Labor)

As expected, the Liberal / National parties (the Coalition) didn't turn up as they know they would have been heckled over the lies they'd have to tell to cover up that they don't have any policies to address climate change in any realistic way.

See the photos on National Enquirer's Flickr site.

Gorillas slaughtered

2007-08-27T12:26:00.000+10:00

July 27, 2007
From UNESCO

This is not directly about climate change but about the same attitudes that have gone into causing climate change. This is a story about the slaughter of the a dwindling population of Mountain Gorillas. Seven have been killed this year. This is about pure human selfishness

From New Scientist:

The animals were not killed for their meat. Conservationists describe the killings as "executions - bullets to the head". One theory is that the gorillas are victims of a conflict between those locals who see them as the basis for a tourist trade, and others who want them gone so they can use the forests to fuel a booming trade in charcoal.

Sound familiar?

Read the first article.
Read the second article.

Media Lens: On corporate journalism on Heathrow's Climate Camp

2007-08-24T08:01:00.000+10:00

August 23, 2007
From Media Lens

This is a Media Lens discussion of the Heathrow Climate Camp and Corporate Media. The Heathrow Climate Camp is a group of concerned people camped outside Heathrow to raise awareness of the damage that the expansion of the airport (and corresponding significant increase in aircraft) will cause to the people in surrounding suburbs and to the atmosphere through emissions.

The mainstream media is attacking this as an exclusive club who just cause people to turn away from this message. The Media Lens article attacks mainstream media for their double standards and support of corporations who do this and more including encouraging and causing damage to our planet.

The corporation is one of the most totalitarian organisations imaginable: control is strictly top-down with zero public input and minimal staff input flowing back up the chain of command. As the Canadian lawyer Joel Bakan has noted, the corporate motivation is essentially “psychopathic”: all concerns, values, motivations are subordinated to the bottom line of maximised profits as a matter of legal obligation. That’s what you are part of.

As for being taken seriously, your diatribe against the climate camp tells its own story. When has a corporate journalist ever railed in this manner against the restrictions imposed by the US/UK military in Iraq, against the control freaks of New Labour, against the taboo on discussing their advertisers‘ products and services?

Your piece is a good example of how respect is reserved for the powerful, while the powerless are considered fair game to be patronised and in effect told off with impunity. It’s all part of the great myth of balanced professional journalism. It turns out that ‘balanced’ is that which does not offend powerful interests. You are very much part of the corporate media problem, John. The sooner we all wake up to this, the better.

...

Read the article.

130 jobs lost at wind turbine factory - Federal Govt to blame

2007-08-22T15:44:00.000+10:00

August 22, 2007
From News.com.au

"The reason why Vestas has been unable to continue its operations in Portland is very squarely and directly as a result of the federal government's refusal to extend its renewable energy scheme to allow the industry to expand," he said on the ABC.

MORE than 130 manufacturing jobs will be lost in southwestern Victoria with a wind turbine blade factory set to close.

Vestas Wind Energy will close its Portland blade factory by the end of the year, saying it is not profitable enough.

"Vestas is regrettably compelled to close down its blade factory in Portland, Australia, effective from the year end," the Danish-based company's website said.

"The factory is not of a sufficient size to ensure satisfactory profitability, and the market outlook for Australia makes it impossible to expand the facility."

Opposition spokesman for regional development Denis Napthine said the factory closure was a bitter blow for the 136 workers and made a mockery of the state Government's promise of wind-energy jobs for country Victoria.

"It's absolutely imperative that the Brumby Government gets off its backside, gets down to Portland, talks to Vestas about keeping the factory open and keeping those jobs in Portland," he said on ABC radio.

"If they need assistance to grow the factory, to make it more efficient, the Government should assist."

Victorian Industry Minister Theo Theophanous has blamed the Commonwealth for failing to invest in renewable energy.

"The reason why Vestas has been unable to continue its operations in Portland is very squarely and directly as a result of the federal government's refusal to extend its renewable energy scheme to allow the industry to expand," he said on the ABC.

AWU state secretary Cesar Melhem also took aim at the Federal Government, citing its lack of vision and support for renewable energy.

"(Prime Minister) John Howard likes to say he is a good friend of the worker, but his Government fails time and time again to actually support the retention of good Aussie jobs," Mr Melhem said.

"Australians would much prefer to have their governments investing in local industries that provide good jobs and products, rather than having jobs sent offshore and poor quality goods imported."

Read the article.

Bob Brown's Brilliance

2007-08-21T07:42:00.000+10:00

On the recent "scandle" where the Australian Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd (and likely next Prime Minister), got drunk in New York and went to a strip club, Bob Brown, the Australian Green's leader said:

"Four years ago Kevin Rudd got drunk and took himself into a strip club," Senator Brown said.
"Four years ago John Howard, sober, took Australia into the Iraq war.

See News article.

The Big Switch

2007-08-18T10:57:00.000+10:00

The Big Switch

Turn your thoughts into action with The Big Switch.

The Queensland Conservation Council, along with Australia's other peak non-government environmental organisations, supports the Big Switch.

Our Big Switch team is available to speak with community groups in the Brisbane electorates of Brisbane, Bonner, Bowman, Moreton and Griffith.

We can provide support including print materials and help you communicate with candidates and the media.

We will be actively involved in coordinating the Walk Against Warming (two weeks before the election) and other community events in these five electorates. And we're actively recruiting to our campaign team.

Contact James 0431 150 928

Walk Against Warming

2007-08-13T11:06:00.000+10:00

Walk Against Warming
12.30pm, Saturday August 25th

Meet at Queens Park (cnr George and Elizabeth Sts). Procession to Riverstage, Botanic Gardens

Walk Against Warming brings together Australians for a community day of action on climate change. It’s been held annually since 2005 when 20,000 people walked in 17 locations nationwide. This quintupled last year with almost 100,000 people taking to the streets in 28 locations across Australia!

This year, this momentum will continue. We’re hoping Brisbane citizens turn out to send a clear message to our political leaders – that the community wants bolder and more effective government action on climate change… and we want it now!

The national Walk Against Warming will be held 2 weeks before the election. Brisbane is having its own Walk Against Warming on Saturday August 25th from 12.30pm at Queens Park. From there, we’ll walk to Riverstage at the Botanic Gardens for entertainment and speakers. We’re inviting people to bring a picnic and message on an umbrella or windmill and stay to hear more about this important issue and learn what you you can do to make a difference.

You can get more information and/or volunteer to help on the day by emailing Dom at info@qccqld.org.au or phoning 07 3221 0188.

Discussion: Deforestation and Climate Change

2007-08-04T12:34:00.000+10:00

This post comes from a recent email discussion with friends and family about Gunns - Old Growth Forest destroyers and ExxonMobil - the climate change deniers and denier funder.

It started when I forwarded a Wilderness Society email asking us to support the discontinuation of land clearing. Michael my brother in law replied and I replied back. Michael seemed to think that the fans at Live Earth who left all their rubbish were far more destructive than Gunns or ExxonMobil. These companies are two of the biggest offenders in environmental damage and this post is a hope that people will see them for what they are and make moves to bring them down. Gunns rule Tasmania (Australia) and all the people and businesses on that island. They are destroying everything and the politicians are letting them.

Michael Linke wrote:
Ahh Brooke....are you going to have kids? Are your friends, colleagues etc etc, so where are all these extra people going to live, get jobs, wear clothes etc etc. consumerism is here to stay because populations will continue to grow.

The worlds pop will be 9 BILLION by 2020. That’s 9 Billion poos a day! 9 Billion pairs of underpants, 9 Billion people who need to eat, it has to come from somewhere.

The only real solution is ZPG, which the catholic church opposes, so where does the real problem lie!!! Ahh an interesting debate at Christmas time I should think!

We cant continue to blame the “conglomerates”, they are simply meeting demand. A kid today has no idea where a carrot comes from, so he wont grow it, he will buy it!

I agree we all need to do something to reduce our footprint, but that is all we can really do, the blame game needs to stop and we as individuals need to change our lives, and not add to it.

Did you see the rubbish let after the live earth concerts, land fill, human garbage, not the Microsoft's and exxon’s, not the Gunns’, but people like you and me, zero respect, zero real understanding of the issue. That who we need to change.

M

Hi Michael,

Thankyou for this opportunity to talk about two of the destructive companies in the world. This is also an opportunity to provide you with perspective.

I'm casting this discussion a bit wider to include the receivers of the original email. It is important not to be defeated which is what you are sounding. Or perhaps you don't see this as your problem but mine and the group of environmentalists I share the same views with. These viewpoints are not from someone, for example who wants independence for their nation - a big and important topic affecting many people but not everyone. This topic of the environmental damage being caused is everyone's problem and we collectively have to do everything we can to stop it.

You say:
The worlds pop will be 9 BILLION by 2020. That’s 9 Billion poos a day! 9 Billion pairs of underpants, 9 Billion people who need to eat, it has to come from somewhere.
...
Did you see the rubbish let after the live earth concerts, land fill, human garbage, not the Microsoft's and exxon’s, not the Gunns’, but people like you and me, zero respect, zero real understanding of the issue. That who we need to change.

The planet *can* support 9 billion + people but not at the current rates of environmental destruction, and yes the attitudes shown are pretty terrible (it happens at every large public gathering). So yes, it is important to change people's attitudes and that can come from both angles - with the companies changing the way they operate to help set a good example, and from the grass roots up. But in comparing the attendees at Live Earth and the two companies mentioned, please consider the following.

Imagine a hillside of Old Growth forest supporting a rich and varied web of life. Trees that have been there for 400 years or more, native animals everywhere, a diverse range of other trees, plants, lichens, moses ... Now see that completely decimated - loggers move in with large equipment and rip out most of the Old Growth trees. Once that is gone the hillside is burnt to the ground to clean up the leftovers, destroying any homes the animals that lived there may have been able to find. Then a monoculture plantation goes down, row after row. 8020 poison is spread by helicopter or light plane to kill any wildlife that comes into the area to feed on the new seedlings. This is what is done in Tasmania at 40 football fields a day (*). Gunns and the "Public" (Govt) Tasmanian Forestry Industry are responsible for this.

(*) - In an email discussion with Michael on 15/2/2006 I provided him with evidence of "40 football fields a day" since he didn't believe it. This came from a direct quote from John Gay (MD of Gunns). That article is now no longer available (how surprising!). I could trawl through their company reports though I'll leave this an exercise for you.

See the following:

http://www.sprol.com/?s=pulping+tasmania
http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/corporate/gunns/whatisgunn/
http://forestrytasmania.com/ - sounds of the forest dying
http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/tasmania/taxpayers_prop/ - taxpayers prop up old growth logging (IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE ANY MONEY!)

http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/ - TWS Forests campaign
http://www.discover-tasmania.com/financial_review.html - has the following quotes which should make you feel pretty sick:

I didn't mean to kill all of them. But that's what I was doing. We had been feeding the animals, mostly wallabies, wombats and possums, the good carrots for two weeks. Then, on the third week, the boss covered the carrots in 1080 and told us to make sure everything was dead when we finished. Everything was dead, all right."
...
It is the only state that has made its corporatised forestry department, Forestry Tasmania, exempt from the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the Threatened Species Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the state's own Resource Management and Planning System. And, bizarrely, Tasmania is the only state that sets out to poison its native animals.

Deforestation relates heavily to climate change, the biggest threat to our modern civilisation.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070323/kyodo/d8o23ef80.html - cost in greenhouse gases of deforestation in indonesia
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1210-fao.html - deforestation causes 25% of greenhouse gases (GHG)
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/deforestation/effect.html - National Geographic - 80% of earth's forests have been destroyed
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/deforestation.htm - why trees matter

We've put man on the moon, we can get around the need for the causes of deforestation. It just takes political will, which will be led by the people. The companies responsible have to stop immediately. We will all die if this doesn't change. This is not independance for a nation, this is what keeps us alive.

Now onto ExxonMobil, one company most people who have any knowledge about what they have done would like to put in a vat of boiling oil. One of the biggest reasons why the world has not so readily accepted the climate change science is due to the denial that went along with the science. Denial that presented junk science to try to debunk the true science of climate change (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science to understand the difference). Most, if not all denial, was funded by ExxonMobil. Each day that our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are not reduced below the sustainable level has made it that much harder to reach the target. We should have been making changes 10 years ago when the Kyoto protocol was drawn up. It is companies such as ExxonMobil and governments such as the Bush and Howard governments (I'll send information out on this soon) that may have changed life in the future more than it ever would have had to have been. Specifically looking at Exxon-Mobil:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 - The denial industry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business - Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf - Union Of Concerned Scientists report on the ExxonMobil tactics in its denial

Gunns and ExxonMobil are only two companies on this planet that should be made to cease and decist. Read around and you'll learn of many others.

To round off your list, you mentioned Microsoft. Despite their bad and possibly society damaging behaviours that we are all accustomed to hearing about, they are nowhere near on my radar compared to the practices of such companies as the ones described above.

People may want to be happy and may think I'm a bit of a downer. No doubt true though we have to face the facts and someone has to say it. Everyone has to do everything they can to change the trends that are driving the world. Things you can do:

Reduce the amount of fossil fuels you use - drive less (catch public transport, ride a bike or just walk) and reduce your energy consumption. Don't buy it if you don't need it, and turn it off if you don't need it on.
Reduce the amount of paper you use. Use recycled paper if you have to. See the http://www.summitrecycling.org/html/prere.html (precycling) message.
The number one thing is to vote for a political party who are dealing with the
environmental problems realistically. The coalition government has to date not only denied global warming but has sought to undermine any efforts world wide to make changes. I will send more information about this out soon. They do not understand the problems we face. They haven't even set a true policy - they have not provided targets that we need to meet. They won't do this "until after the federal election". Basically they want to continue doing nothing. Infact, Howard is teaming up with Bush to try to continue to deny the problem and keep doing business as usual. War was not enough for Howard (Bonsai - Little Bush). If you need to see Australia take action about climate change then do not vote for the coalition. This election issue is bigger than industrial relations, interest rates or issues that have been important in the past. No party is so wrong on these things. But the coalitions attitude to the environmental problems which faces us IS WRONG.

All feedback and comments welcome.

Cheers,

Brooke

Free public transport: Everyone benefits - Everyone pays

2007-07-22T22:34:00.000+10:00

From

Continueing my investigation of free public transport is the site "FreePublicTransport"! Its "Executive Summary" is as follows:

If public transit were free, more people would use it. Fewer auto-miles would be driven. Carbon dioxide emissions would drop. Everyone would benefit. It would be fair, then, that the cost would be paid by everyone.

Let's address the argument that autosprawl is good for the economy. The profits generated by millions of single family homes and millions of single occupancy vehicles are not real profits. The waste of resources and other societal costs are "externalized" from the calculation of these profits, passed on to the taxpayer, future generations, and other countries.

Check out the site.

Climate to put heat on fish stocks

2007-07-22T21:46:00.000+10:00

July 09, 2007
From The Australian

CLIMATE change is likely to put significant pressure on the nation's fish stocks, with new CSIRO research identifying the eastern and southeast coastlines as the most vulnerable to warming temperatures.

A new CSIRO climate change vulnerability index, to be launched today, finds coastal waters will warm by up to two degrees by 2030, encouraging fish to move south, threatening marine turtles, and potentially pushing box jellyfish down the east coast.

Scientists said yesterday fishing stocks potentially faced a "double whammy" from the consequences of fishing and climate change.

The climate change index, developed by CSIRO's Marine and Atmospheric Research Unit, considered seven large marine domains around Australia and determined their vulnerability to climate change based on five dimensions.

These were biological, regional characteristics, climate change, fishing, and other stress factors caused by human activity.

...

Read the article.

Stop Charging People to Ride the Bus

2007-07-12T22:33:00.000+10:00

July 5, 2007

From The Tyee (Canada)

This is the first part in a five part series about public transport, specifically in Canada though the principles apply the world over.

The time has come to stop making people pay to take public transit.

Why do we have any barriers to using buses, trolleys, SkyTrain? The threat of global warming is no longer in doubt. The hue and cry of the traffic jammed driver grows louder every commute. Yet since 2000, TransLink has hiked fares 50 per cent, and its board has just agreed to follow the staff’s recommendation to raise them higher still.

That kind of thinking is so last century. Just ask the mayor of San Francisco, a city similar in size to Vancouver, who ordered his staff to seriously explore the cost efficiency of no longer charging people to ride public transit.

...

Read the article.

Also in the series:

Drop the fission line

2007-06-29T11:31:00.000+10:00

Friday 29 June 2007
(URL for source to be found)
From Courier Mail, QLD, Australia

Smart State ambassador Ian Lowe warns against a nuclear future

THE Queensland ALP conference this weekend offers an important forum for the Beattie Government to steer the state away from the risks of a radioactive future and towards sustainable energy options.

Prime Minister John Howard is actively promoting nuclear power as a belated answer to global climate change. Recent media reports suggest a wider federal nuclear agenda for Queensland that includes uranium enrichment and nuclear power.

Against this background it is important Premier Peter Beattie continues to keep the door firmly shut on uranium mining and the nuclear industry.

Uranium mining in Queensland would be economically short-sighted and environmentally disastrous. If we want to be the Smart State, we must use solar energy and other forms of renewables.

We should move towards better efficiency, turning our energy more effectively into the services we want. There are many more jobs and dollars in becoming a world leader in clean energy.

We have known for more than 20 years that burning coal, oil and gas is changing the global climate. Moves by the coal industry to clean up its act and reduce its pollution are welcome, but rushed pledges of taxpayer funding to assist this are not. The same money would do much more to curb greenhouse pollution if it were allocated to efficiency improvements and clean energy.

Some claim nuclear energy could help to slow climate change, but this is not a sensible solution. Even the Switkowski report, put together by a hand-picked group of pro-nuclear technocrats, did not make a convincing case.

The summary was optimistic, but the fine print of the report shows it would take about 15 years to build one nuclear power station if we started today, and the cost of electricity would more than double.

Even the most fanciful crash program, dotting 25 nuclear power stations all over the landscape, would only slow the growth in greenhouse pollution by less than 20 per cent. The science shows we need to make serious cuts, 60-90 per cent by 2050, not allow more increases.

Would uranium exports be an economic bonanza? No. The most optimistic forecast of the possible export income is about a third of our earnings from cheese exports. Uranium accounts for only about 1 per cent of our mineral exports and there is little prospect of it becoming a big earner.

What would be the cost of mining and exporting uranium? Huge volumes of radioactive mine tailings, depleted and degraded water resources and an increased risk from nuclear weapons and waste. We are still living with the legacy of the mines at Mary Kathleen and across the Northern Territory border at Rum Jungle.

Uranium mining needs large volumes of water -- not easy to find in Queensland at the moment -- and uses vast amounts of fossil energy, actually worsening greenhouse pollution.

Finally, as the Ranger uranium report said 30 years ago, uranium exports inevitably produce high-level radioactive waste that will have to be managed for hundreds of thousands of years and equally inevitably increase the risk of nuclear weapons.

Even if we say we have the best safeguards in the world and only export to the most responsible leaders, they won't be in power forever and can't control what others will do with the fissile material we sell.

We should learn the lesson of Iran. The world is now getting nervous about its possible nuclear developments. Thirty years ago, we were being urged to export uranium to Iran, and the US was trying to sell its nuclear technology to the Shah. Had that deal gone ahead, Iran would now have all it needs to build nuclear weapons.

The report A Bright Future showed we could get 25 per cent of our power from a mix of renewables by 2020. We should use solar hot water universally. Going that way would create literally thousands of real, skilled and permanent jobs in regional Australia.

Rather than facing a future of leaking tailings dams and increased pressure for nuclear reactors and waste dumps, Queensland can lead Australia and the world in sustainable and clean energy solutions.

The smart sunshine state is a much better option than being a toxic quarry.

Before last year's state election, the Premier stood firmly against the nuclear lobby and promised that the state would not support the mining or processing of uranium.

Beattie also resisted the silly suggestion that we should allow others to inflict on Queensland other stages of uranium processing, such as enrichment or dumping waste. As a Smart State ambassador, I strongly urge the Premier to resist those who want to drag us back into the Dark Age of uranium mining.

Ian Lowe is emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University and president of the Australian Conservation Foundation

...

Read the article.

Kunstler: Ten Ways to Prepare for a Post-Oil Society

2007-06-24T10:48:00.000+10:00

February 10, 2007
From AlterNet.org

This is an excellent opinion piece from earlier this year that I've had bookmarked but have only got around to reading now.

Kunstler lists several ways of life that will change in a post-oil / post-carbon society of limited energy. There is always Cold Fusion to come along and save our bacon. He doesn't specifically mention this though the premise of the article is that we have a limited amount of vast amounts of energy left, and given that the development of the science of developing things like Fusion requires VAST amounts of energy, we might not have time.

His list is made up of:

Cars are part of the problem - we shouldn't be trying to find alternate energies to run them;
We have to produce food differently - the current model relies on large input from fossil fuels including for fertilisers;
We have to change our town infrastructure since they are currently designed for large amounts of car transport;
We need to transport people and things differently items due to the high cost (in terms of Carbon cost aswell as energy);
Retail trade will change due to the cost of transporting items;
Local production will need to increase due to the great cost of transporting items;
Entertainment will need to come from local activities rather than distribution through the internet and airwaves since these will be less reliable as energy becomes more expensive;
The educational system will change due to there being less ability for people to go vast distances to centralised education centers (eg. big Universities);
The medical system will change due to less emphasis on self-interest medicine (cosmetic surgury);
Life will become local, much like how our (grand) parents (in the 40's) used to live.

Read the article.

Monbiot: Breast Beating

2007-06-14T22:32:00.000+10:00

Posted June 5, 2007
From Monbiot.com

It is time once again for that touching annual ritual, in which the world’s most powerful people move themselves to tears. At Heiligendamm they will emote with the wretched of the earth. They will beat their breasts and say many worthy and necessary things – about climate change, Africa, poverty, trade – but one word will not leave their lips. Power. Amid the patrician goodwill, there will be no acknowledgement that the power they wield over other nations destroys everything they claim to stand for.

...

The G8 demands action on climate change; the World Bank, controlled by the G8 nations, funds coal burning power stations and deforestation projects. The G8 requests better terms of trade for Africa; Europe and the United States use the world trade talks to make sure this doesn’t happen. The G8 leaders call for the debt to be reduced; the IMF demands that poor nations remove barriers to the capital flows which leave them in hock. The G8 leaders simultaneously wring their hands and wash their hands. We have done what we can; if we have failed, it is only because of the corruption of third world elites.

The question is no longer whether the undemocratic power the G8 nations exert over the rest of the world can be used for good or ill. The question is whether it will cease to be used.

Read the article.

Liberal and Labor, make a call: how much heat can you stand?

2007-06-12T18:00:00.000+10:00

Richard Di Natale Adam Bandt
June 11, 2007
From The Age (Aust)

WHAT risk of a plane crashing do you accept before buying a ticket? If it was 85 per cent likely, you'd never fly; 10 per cent, or even 1 per cent, would be too much.

Knowing that a plane might go down isn't enough; we want to know the degree of risk. So it's odd that we are prepared to make decisions about the planet's future without knowing the risk or likelihood of catastrophic consequences if action is taken, or not taken.

It can be hard to cut through the fog of figures about global warming targets: the difference, for example, between a 60 or an 80 per cent cut in emissions, by 2020 or by 2050, is difficult to crystallise.

This confusion is being exploited by both major parties and manufactured debates are played out relentlessly. Labor presents itself as tough on climate change while the Coalition says it puts economics above abstract goals.

But more than anything else, there is one number that really counts. It is the first step on the ladder of climate-change policy — and it is the one to which neither Labor nor the Coalition is willing to give an answer.

Given the science and likely impacts, how hot are we willing to let the planet get? Two degrees, three degrees, four degrees hotter?

And what risk will we accept of exceeding this target?

Temperatures have, already, risen 0.74 degrees above pre-industrial levels and, even if human activity added no more to current greenhouse gas levels, the planet will continue to warm about 1.4 degrees due to lags in the climate system.

The CSIRO last year predicted that, if we exceed a two-degree rise, 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef will be bleached annually and an 80 per cent loss of Kakadu's freshwater wetlands is likely. At just under three degrees, there's a 99 per cent risk of Greenland irreversibly melting, with an eventual global sea level rise of five to seven metres.

In the two to three-degree range, we can conservatively pencil in about 20 per cent of the planet's species becoming extinct and a one in five chance of the oceanic currents that regulate the planet's temperature simply shutting down.

A three-degree rise is simply way outside human experience. The last time it was that hot, in the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, beech trees grew in the Transantarctic mountains and seas were 25 metres higher.

If we can limit warming to less than two degrees, knowing about 1.4 degrees is already locked in, the consequences will still be severe, but the risk of triggering runaway climate-change events (where we lose the capacity to control the consequences) lessens significantly.

This is why German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the British Conservative party — both from the right of European politics — have recently reaffirmed the importance of a two-degree limit. The Howard Government, by contrast, isn't even in the realm of reason on this question, with the Prime Minister saying a rise of four to six degrees might make life "uncomfortable" for some, but that it was difficult to predict with any certainty.

His comment shows fundamental ignorance. The planet as we know it will not survive past a five or six-degree rise: it is predicted that, at four degrees, hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost — particularly in Siberia — will enter the melt zone, releasing the greenhouse gases methane and carbon dioxide in immense quantities.

Labor might know where the ballpark is, but they haven't bought an entry ticket yet. The ALP's Peter Garrett set out his party's policy on this page recently (The Age, 5/6), relying on a CSIRO submission to the Prime Minister's emissions taskforce that says a 60 to 90 per cent cut to industrialised countries' emissions is needed to stabilise climate change.

But Australia, as one of the worst emitters among the industrialised countries, requires a cut at the higher end of this range.

The CSIRO research and other research makes it clear that the "temperature stabilisation" associated with a 60 per cent cut is considered by many as too risky, giving us a massive 80 to 85 per cent chance of overshooting a two-degree target. Labor's policy for Australia of a 60 per cent cut by 2050 is therefore more about hope than science.

There is literally a world of difference between a two and three-degree rise in the impacts of climate change on both humans and the environment.

Caught between the science and the politics, Labor's Peter Garrett talks vaguely in the two to three-degree range, never being specific, never committing Labor to putting even one foot on the first rung of the climate change policy ladder — an unambiguous target.

And Labor does not have a short-term target — in many ways much more important than targets five decades away.

The Greens policy is to achieve emissions cuts of 30 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. This would give us an 80 per cent chance of keeping the temperature rise below two degrees. To maximise the chance of staying below two degrees, we must make big cuts early. For John Howard, a climate-change sceptic, this is more about smoothing over a political problem than real action. But Labor, too, falls short of the mark — they do not even set a temperature target.

Professor Tim Flannery, the Australian of the Year environmentalist, said recently his greatest wish was that political parties would state their "temperature limits" as to how hot the planet should get. The Greens recently moved a motion in the Senate to have a two-degree limit endorsed as Australia's target. The ALP joined with the Coalition to defeat the motion.

The challenge to the major parties is: just how hot are you prepared to let the planet get?

Dr Richard Di Natale and Adam Bandt are Greens candidates in this year's federal election.

...

Read the article.

Science and Politics at the Two Degree Threshold

2007-05-20T20:48:00.000+10:00

From the Guardian, 1st May 2007

The British government, the European Union and the United Nations all claim to be trying to prevent “dangerous” climate change. Any level of climate change is dangerous for someone, but there is a broad consensus about what this word means: two degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels. It is dangerous because of its direct impacts on people and places (it could, for example, trigger the irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet(1)and the collapse of the Amazon rainforest(2)) and because it is likely to stimulate further warming, as it encourages the world’s natural systems to start releasing greenhouse gases.

The aim of preventing more than 2°C of warming has been adopted overtly by the UN(3) and the European Union(4) and implicitly by the British, German and Swedish governments. All of them say they are hoping to confine the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a level which would prevent 2°C from being reached. And all of them know that they have set the wrong targets, based on outdated science. Fearful of the political implications, they have failed to adjust to the levels the new research demands.

...

Read the article.

Designing Cities for people

2007-05-19T16:38:00.000+10:00

May 15, 2007
From Celsias.com

This story about Urban Design and our poor success in doing this is an interesting look at how we have a lot of improvements to make in how we do this. Check out the video at the bottom.

See the story.

SE Qld's transport priorities must change

2007-05-16T08:03:00.000+10:00

May 14, 2007
From

Encouragingly, the Brisbane City Council last year formed an independent taskforce of academic and private sector experts to examine the implications of climate change mitigation and peak oil for the city. The taskforce report was released in late March and sets out, in detail, the enormity of the task the city faces in responding to the climate change and energy challenge. The taskforce recommends a target of zero net household greenhouse emissions by 2020, including car use, as well as a reduction in the city's oil consumption of 50 per cent by 2026.

To achieve this goal the taskforce recommends that by 2020, 40 per cent of all travel in Brisbane should be by foot, bicycle or by public transport.

...

Read the article.

US Trying to Weaken G-8 Climate Change Declaration

2007-05-16T07:54:00.000+10:00

Monday, May 14, 2007
From Common Dreams dot org

WASHINGTON — Negotiators from the United States are trying to weaken the language of a climate change declaration set to be unveiled at next month’s G-8 summit of the world’s leading industrial powers, according to documents.

A draft proposal dated April 2007 that is being debated in Bonn by senior officials of the Group of Eight includes a pledge to limit the global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as an agreement to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 0514 01

The United States is seeking to strike that section, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post

...

Read the article.

Beattie to lift coal royalties

2007-05-15T08:03:00.000+10:00

May 09, 2007
From Courier Mail (QLD, AUST)

QUEENSLAND'S coal industry will be hit with increased royalties in next month's state budget to help curb climate change.
Premier Peter Beattie said today he was planning to increase coal royalties to force the industry into paying for clean coal technology research.

Speaking in New York, Mr Beattie said the increase would be for their own good because if the industry did not clean up coal it would not survive.

He said research was vital to cut greenhouse gas emissions, save the planet and ensure the long-term future of Queensland's powerhouse coal industry.

He angrily accused the state's coal companies of reneging on an agreement to provide $300 million for research into clean coal technologies.

...

Read the article.

Warming triggers `alarming' retreat of Himalayan glaciers

2007-05-14T20:48:00.000+10:00

Fri, May. 11, 2007
From Real Cities dot com

"The presence of glaciers is very vital to the Himalayan river systems," said Anil Kulkarni of the Indian Space Research Organization, who has used satellite data to measure the glacial retreat. "It is really alarming. We have to be really concerned."
..
As the glaciers recede, lakes on the Tibetan Plateau are rising steadily, and experts foresee floods, landslides and mudflows from mountain lakes overrunning their banks.
..
Glacial retreat in the Himalayas may have a surprising impact in extremely arid areas far from the mountains.

Yao said oases in China's far western deserts, such as the Taklimakan, get their underground water from glacial runoff. Towns are usually built around the oases.

"If the glaciers disappear, then the oases will also disappear," Yao said.

...

Read the article.

Why does atmospheric CO2 rise

2007-05-13T23:57:00.000+10:00

1. Why does atmospheric CO2 rise ?

Time and again, some people claim that human activities are only
a minor source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which is swamped
by natural sources. Compared to natural sources, our contribution is
small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or `anthropogenic'
input is enough to disturb the delicate balance. "Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2.

The vexing thing is that, in the global carbon cycle, the rising level
of atmospheric CO2 and the human origin of this rise are about the only
two things that are known with high certainty. Natural CO2 fluxes
into and out of the atmosphere exceed the human contribution by more
than an order of magnitude. The sizes of the natural carbon fluxes
are only approximately known, because they are much harder to measure
than atmospheric CO2 and than the features pointing to a human origin
of the CO2 rise.

...

Read the page.

BAN THE BULB: Worldwide shift to CFLs

2007-05-10T22:18:00.000+10:00

But what about all those flood lights which light our bridges and buildings?

May 9, 2007
From Earth Policy

On February 20, 2007, Australia announced it would phase out the sale of inefficient incandescent light bulbs by 2010, replacing them with highly efficient compact fluorescent bulbs that use one fourth as much electricity. If the rest of the world joins Australia in this simple step to sharply cut carbon emissions, the worldwide drop in electricity use would permit the closing of more than 270 coal-fired (500 megawatt) power plants. For the United States, this bulb switch would facilitate shutting down 80 coal-fired plants.

The good news is that the world may be approaching a social tipping point in this shift to efficient light bulbs. On April 25, 2007, just two months after Australia’s announcement, the Canadian government announced it would phase out sales of incandescents by 2012. Mounting concerns about climate change are driving the bulb replacement movement.

In mid-March, a U.S. coalition of environmental groups—including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Coalition for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and the Earth Day Network—along with Philips Lighting launched an initiative to shift to the more-efficient bulbs in all of the country’s estimated 4 billion sockets by 2016.

...

Read the article.

Blitz spirit needed to face threat of climate change

2007-05-10T22:12:00.000+10:00

Wednesday May 9, 2007
From Guardian (UK)

The government's climate change bill has nowhere near the vision commensurate to the scale of the threat. The Stern Review has already set out the facts: we can carry on as we are, leading to a global economic collapse, or we can try to halt the worst ravages of climate change by stabilising CO2 at 450 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere, or we can aim to stabilise CO2 at 500-550 ppm.

...

Read the article.

Solar energy storage system

2007-05-10T07:46:00.000+10:00

2 May 2007
From Australian National University

This is further proof that base-load energy demands can be supplied by renewable energy sources.

“Because we are storing energy before generating electricity, we can deliver multi-megawatt base-load electricity and meet peak loads on-demand in the same way as coal, nuclear or gas fired power stations do. The efficiency of our storage system is also very high because we use a chemical process that has no extra energy losses regardless of how long the energy is stored.

Read the article.

See ANU Engineering description of the technology.

News Corp carbon neutral by 2010

2007-05-10T07:37:00.000+10:00

May 10, 2007
From News (Aust)

NEWS Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch has announced a dramatic shake-up to make all the company’s businesses carbon neutral within the next four years, to combat the “clear, catastrophic threats” posed by climate change.

Mr Murdoch has laid out a plan for the company’s film and television, newspaper, publishing and online divisions to reduce their energy use, invest in cleaner technologies, and buy carbon credits to balance out emissions that cannot be eliminated.

...

Read the article.

Public purse props up fossil fuel industries

2007-05-08T22:53:00.000+10:00

May 8, 2007
From Sydney Morning Herald

GOVERNMENT subsidies to some of Australia's electricity generation companies are so big they exceed the profits made by those companies, a report on energy and transport subsidies says.

Government support for the coal industry and coal-fired electricity is so generous that in some cases it has led to the construction of coal-fired power plants when other types of electricity generation would have been cheaper, the report by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney has found.

Subsidies to fossil fuel energies, worth close to $10 billion, result in a serious market distortion, create an unfair disadvantage to renewable energy, and help increase greenhouse gas pollution, says the report, written by the institute's research principal, Chris Riedy, and commissioned by Greenpeace.

...

Read the article.

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

2007-05-07T15:56:00.000+10:00

April 25 2007
From Financial Times

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

...

Read the article.

Italy heat wave risks power cuts

2007-05-07T15:47:00.000+10:00

Thursday, 26 April 2007
From BBC News (UK)

Italy's government is facing calls to introduce a state of emergency to fight the threat of power cuts following the mildest winter since records began.

With summer still weeks away, rivers and lakes in the worst-affected North of the country have never been drier.

It is being taken as the latest sign that Italy could find itself on the frontline of the global warming war.

Now even the Vatican is taking the problem seriously, organising a conference to address the issue.

...

Read the article.

Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved

2007-05-07T15:37:00.000+10:00

April 25, 2007
From Phys Org dot com

This is a story about a promising device to extract carbon from the air and prepare it for easy sequestation.

It would be great if this technology worked flawlessly, though it will no doubt take some time to develop (time we likely don't have). As far as R&D funds go, we would be best to cover our arses setting up renewables plants for our energy production followed by reducing the amount of coal we burn. THEN we are in a safer position to expend the effort, R&D dollars and how ever long we like on developing such Carbon Dioxide exraction technologies.

Global Research Technologies, LLC (GRT), a technology research and development company, and Klaus Lackner from Columbia University have achieved the successful demonstration of a bold new technology to capture carbon from the air. The "air extraction" prototype has successfully demonstrated that indeed carbon dioxide (CO2) can be captured from the atmosphere. This is GRT’s first step toward a commercially viable air capture device.

...

Read the article.

Power station harnesses Sun's rays

2007-05-06T16:32:00.000+10:00

Wednesday, 2 May 2007
From BBC (UK)

There is a scene in one of the Austin Powers films where Dr Evil unleashes a giant "tractor beam" of energy at Earth in order to extract a massive payment.

Well, the memory of it kept me chuckling as I toured the extraordinary scene of the new solar thermal power plant outside Seville in southern Spain.

From a distance, as we rounded a bend and first caught sight of it, I couldn't believe the strange structure ahead of me was actually real.

A concrete tower - 40 storeys high - stood bathed in intense white light, a totally bizarre image in the depths of the Andalusian countryside.

The tower looked like it was being hosed with giant sprays of water or was somehow being squirted with jets of pale gas. I had trouble working it out.

In fact, as we found out when we got closer, the rays of sunlight reflected by a field of 600 huge mirrors are so intense they illuminate the water vapour and dust hanging in the air.

...

Read the article.

Climate change and Australia's health

2007-05-06T16:23:00.000+10:00

03/05/2007
From ABC News (Aust)

Most of the dire warnings about climate change have focused on costs from damage to ecosystems, loss of habitat, and damage to property from freak weather patterns; fires, storms, floods and so on. There hasn’t been much attention given to the effect on the long-term health of populations.

But anything that radically affects housing, water and food supply, will affect our wellbeing. And climate change has the ability to affect all these in spades.

The latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report looked at the health implications of global warming and the news was grim. There'll be hundreds of thousands of deaths from crop failures and food shortages, floods, cyclones, droughts leading to mass population displacements, and water contamination leading to diarrhoeal diseases like cholera and dysentery.

...

Read the article.

Harvesting houses for the planet

2007-05-06T16:17:00.000+10:00

Wednesday, 2 May 2007
From BBC (UK)

Buildings are expected to feature as a crucial area for energy-saving in the UN's third report on climate change this week.

Russian design for houses made from sand and seawater blocks (image: Unido)
Unido says Russian sand and seawater blocks fit like Lego

Encamped on the edge of London's docklands development, a bazaar of corporate stalls is pursuing the green pound in Britain's ever-hungry construction industry.

Production of concrete, that staple of modern building, alone accounts for up to 10% of man-made greenhouse gas, US scientists believe.

Then there is the energy spent on shipping the materials, and finally the power needs of the finished buildings.

Yet with a bit of clever substitution and sourcing, and some deft adjustments to the existing housing stock, environmentalists believe that CO2 emissions could be reduced anywhere in the world.

House of straw

If the number of "green" consultancy companies at London's Think 07 trade fair is anything to go by, environmentally-friendly architecture is becoming big business in the developed world.

Read the article.

The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER

2007-04-26T23:20:00.000+10:00

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.

Letters against Nucelar Energy / Uranium Mining

2007-04-26T19:31:00.000+10:00

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

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.

CSIRO contradicts PM over emission cuts

2007-04-25T23:33:00.000+10:00

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):

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.

Tim Flannery considered handing award back

2007-04-25T23:21:00.000+10:00

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

News.com.au story on this topic

Risk ahead: overheating planet or nuclear disaster?

2007-04-25T22:15:00.000+10:00

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.

Blair welcomes collective approach to climate change

2007-04-25T12:11:00.000+10:00

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

2007-04-25T00:24:00.000+10:00

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.

John Howard has absolutely no idea

2007-04-23T19:58:00.000+10:00

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.

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

Prof Ian Lowe: Rainwater tanks better than dams

2007-04-17T19:51:00.000+10:00

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.