« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »
June 2007
Origin Energy - claims don't seem to live up to reality
I just received an interesting call from Origin Energy
I had filled in the form on Origin Energy's website about switching to their green power, basically based on their 100% claim on the website, and that I had heard their products were the "best" green power on the market.
The sales person who called offered me a special offer of $1/week, but the only choice - since i was in NSW - was 10% wind and 90% EXISTING hydro, i.e. not something which adds to our renewable energy supplies at all, i.e. my subscribing to Green Power would make almost no difference at all. This is despite the salesperson claiming it was 100% greenpower (which doesn't match the website which says that product is 10% greenpower, and also offers the 100% products in NSW.
When I challenged the salesperson they suddenly found it very hard to hear me on my mobile, despite the line sounding fine to me, wonder if they were on commission?
I have sent a copy of this to Origin and will add their explanation here if I get a response.
Posted by Blog Administrator at 6:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Cleantech gets its place under the sun.
The article I wrote below appeared in the May 2007 issue of Ethical Investor.
But after attending the 3rd Cleantech shindig. Mitra Ardron thinks the best deals are getting away.
Most pitch-fest presentations were strong and interesting; particularly MicroFlow, Anzode’s Zinc and Biopower.
Last month’s 3rd AustralAsian Cleantech Forum brought about 230 fund managers, investors and investees, regulators and consultants together in Melbourne to review the sector, its growth and prospects. But did they get what they were looking for?
The opening session set a theme for the conference as a whole. Gerry Morvell from the Australian Greenhouse Office attempted to convince the audience of the Federal Government’s commitment to the issue, and of the relevance of its Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. But as other speakers showed, drastic emission reductions are not only possible, but profitable.
Theo Theophaneous, the Victorian minister for Industry, was better received based on recent Victorian proposals for clear, if inadequate, targets of 60% cuts in emissions, by 2050. Theophaneous also made the important statement that environmental challenges bring both costs and opportunities, which the Victorian government is keen to take advantage of.
Of course, politics is politics. Theophaneous concluded that renewables could not meet all of Australia’s needs, and that so-called “Clean Coal” (in particular gasification of brown coal) will need to pick up the difference, and save at least 30% of the emissions.
This point was challenged by Terry Tamminen – advisor to California’s Governor Schwarzenegger, who questioned what would happen to the 70% remaining emissions.
Tamminen as the architect of the Governator’s environment policy was clearly keen that California would take advantage of the mobility of industries seeking a regional Government that is more favourable to renewables.
Then Clint Wilder from Clean Edge, pointed out that 10% of US venture capital investment now goes to cleantech (up from 1% in 1997) and that in 2004 the US had 115,000 jobs in clean energy compared with 80,000 in coal. And he hypothesised that with the automation of most mines combined with even a modest move to renewables, a similar change in the green vs brown jobs balance would emerge in Australia.
... read on ....or get the PDF.
Posted by Blog Administrator at 6:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Comparison of State and PM's proposals for emissions trading
There is a good summary of the PM's task force's recommendations, and a comparison of these with the state schemes on the site of Blake Dawson Waldron lawyers.
In key aspects the proposals from the States are better for the environment, and I believe better for business as they provide more certainty than the vagueness in the PM's proposal.
A quick summary (with my comments in brackets) is:
| Item | PM's (Federal) | State | My comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Targets | Aspirational | 60% by 2050 | Aspirational targets essentially mean no-targets, and minimal movement if past history is to be repeated. 60% by 2050 is inadequate to prevent dangerous levels of warming, but better than nothing). |
| Timeline | 2012 | 2010 | The scheme needs to start, as early as possible, as it will cost less and is more predictable to businesses who are currently planning based on extreme uncertainty. 2012 puts it outside the term of the NEXT government, so is essentially a meaningless promise. |
| Inclusions | Broad: all energy, industrial and fugitive emissions from the beginning (except those from agriculture and land use). | Narrow: stationary energy sources and fugitive emissions from gas pipelines. | The one area the PM's report is better, i.e. it covers mobile sources, both exclude agriculture which means no impact on the major emitters - bovine posteriors |
Otherwise they are broadly equivalent.
Posted by Blog Administrator at 2:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Prime Ministers Climate Change Task Force fails to surprise
The Prime Ministers Climate Change Task force reported yesterday.
Essentially it reported what everyone expected, i.e. it admits that we can't deny that climate change exists, and is important but it tells Howard, "don't do too much, and not without more study, and don't set any targets, and don't do it until several years from now.
With a task force stacked with hand-picked bureaucrats, and mining, energy people the only thing surprising is that Howard will take a few days to respond officially!
Given that taking action later is going to mean a much more drastic cut, this response is very very dangerous.
Even more dangerous is that the most serious money being spent on this issue is going to be a massive advertising campaign - which Howard denied existed in parliament a few days ago - to convince us that his government is doing something on the issue, and that turning the lights off is going to make a huge difference.
Peter Hartcher in the SMH put it well...
Unfortunately, the report seems designed to help Howard not in dealing with the environmental threat to civilisation but in beating back the political threat to the Government.The report gives the Government licence to procrastinate for another few years. While it does propose the essential policy tools for dealing with global warming - an emissions trading system and targets for cutting emissions - it suggests that Australia take four years in getting around to it.
This is all designed to allow Howard to commit in principle to fixing the problem, but without committing to any specifics before the federal election. Why? To give him licence to portray Kevin Rudd, with his target of cutting emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, as an environmental fundamentalist who will wreak economic devastation.
And the report endorses a general posture of cautious followership. Rather than leading the world in the design of good policy, it will allow Australia to continue to function at the level of the world's lowest common denominator.
Posted by Blog Administrator at 9:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)