Energy and Transport

The "documentary" Great Global Warming Swindle aired this week. I'm still waiting to see it, but the interviews with its director were enough to convince me it was rubbish.

Unfortunately this comes at a bad time, just when everyone had got into line about finally doing something - or at least in the case of Coalition and Laour at least pretending to do something.

The ABC who aired the documentary, have now published a blow by blow explanation of why it was bunk.

The following post from Greenleap has links to other sources of the information needed to provide factual analysis of the documentary, and some background on the previously misleading activities of its producer.

The ABC swindle

The ABC's screening of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', a BBC show
which presents falsified and discredited scientific claims as scientific
fact, has caused a considerable debate. The ATA (Alternative Technology
Association of Australia) has grave concerns about some of the claims made
in the program, and would advise readers to seek out some of the many
critical pieces which de-bunk the program.

Below is a selection of the many critiques which have been published to
dis-credit the claims made in the program.

Critiques:
A comprehensive response was put together by the Australian Science Media
Centre in the lead up to the film's Australian airing. Entitled 'The Great
Global Warming Swindle: Scientists Respond' the website includes personal
comment, general rebukes and has a host of links to other relevant
websites (more)

The so-called 'scientific data' presented in the film is widely
discredited, with the film-makers even admitting that some of the data was
altered to support their claims. A detailed critique is provided by David
Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan from the UK's
National Climate Centre and Bureau of Meteorology. (more)

George Monbiot provided significant critique in an article in the Guardian
in March this year. (more)

Carl Wunsch, a leading US climate scientist who appeared in the program
under false pretences has had his views presented in an article in the
Guardian newspaper. He believes that the film was 'grossly distorted' and
'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two', and is
contemplating legal action over his appearance in the show. (more)

Martin Durkin, the film-make himself, has appeared before the Independent
Television Commission in the UK in the past for misleading the public. (more)

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.

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.

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.

This report by Worldwatch, and the Travis Bradford of the Prometheus Institute has an interesting look at the growth in supply, and reduction in cost, of Solar Photovoltaic.

(via greenleap)

The solar industry is poised for a rapid decline in costs that will make it a mainstream power option in the next few years, according to a new assessment by the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C., and the Prometheus Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Global production of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells, which turn sunlight directly into electricity, has risen sixfold since 2000 and grew 41 percent in 2006 alone. Although grid-connected solar capacity still provides less than 1 percent of the world's electricity, it increased nearly 50 percent in 2006, to 5,000 megawatts, propelled by booming markets in Germany and Japan. Spain is likely to join the big leagues in 2007, and the United States soon thereafter.

Continue reading "Solar Power Set to Shine Brightly"

From: Doctors for the Environment Australia via GreenLeap

By Professor Peter Newman, Murdoch University
1 May 2007

Carbon neutral is becoming the policy for innovative companies, individuals and even football teams. Can it be applied to a country? What would it mean for Australia?

I have recently returned from a 6 month study trip which coincided with the remarkable increase in global awareness on climate change due largely to Al Gore and the Stern Report. Of course there was considerable work over 20-30 years by NGO’s, scientists and European politicians that laid the foundation for this awareness. Nevertheless the world tipped into carbon politics over the past 6 months.

The changed world.

The political climate has not only made greenhouse central to elections it has led to a bidding war between cities and states as to who can promise the most reductions and mandate the most renewables. In the US the biggest state, California, and the biggest city, New York, are both promising the most: California will reduce greenhouse gas by 25% by 2020 and New York 30% by 2030. Both were very popular politically and both have come from Republicans. The Democrat Congress have a series of Bills that are poised to restore global leadership for the US on climate change.

However there is little doubt that Europe has gone beyond the US and actually has begun the global greenhouse transition. The UK Climate Change Bill now presents what seems to me the next big agenda: Carbon Neutral.

Continue reading "A Carbon Neutral Country. What would it take for Australia to become a leader in greenhouse?"

Kevin Rudd has just done what what John Howard has failed to do for years - convince many environmentalists not to support Labor at the coming federal election.

By ending Labor's "No New Uranium Mines" policy he has opened up Australia to the toxic waste that mining causes and to being responsible for the un-handlable radioactive waste that will be the end product of the mines. Not forgetting of course that portion that makes its way into the hands of terrorists (inside or outside governments).

I sent the following letter to key decision makers earlier this month after seeing David Bradbury's hard fitting documentary "Hard Rain". I encourage everyone to take a look at this movie when they get a chance.

Continue reading "ALP goes dirty"

I posted this in response in a Care2 forum to the common question from the non-scientist as to whether you can really run a car on water. Since I've been asked this question I thought I'd post it here as well.

Can a car run on water?

Its a good question, and it isn't surprising that non-scientists find it confusing.

Using cheap electricity to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen and recombining them into electricity at the place you want it (e.g. in a running car) is the basis of the so-called 'Hydrogen Economy'.

But .... its also the basis of a lot of scams by people either deluding you, or deluding themselves. Most (though not all) of the "run your car on water" projects are essentially variations of this.

Continue reading "Running a car on water."

Some of the biggest polluters - the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (and presumably Australia) flexed a lot of muscle to water down the recent IPCC report. In particular to the crucial "summary for policy makers" which is all that most non-climate scientists are likely to read.

Kevin Grandia has done an excellent job of comparing a leaked version, with the officially released version to show just what key statements were taken out. His story is here, or read the side-by-side comparison which contains material such as ...

BEFORE: Ongoing water security problems are very likely to increase in southern and eastern Australia, and parts of eastern New Zealand.

AFTER: Freshwater availability in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia particularly in large river basins is projected to decrease due to climate change which, along with population growth and increasing demand arising from higher standards of living, could adversely affect more than a billion people by the 2050s.

Now ... I wonder who would gain from the report no longer saying that water problems are going to increase here in Australia?

Lisa Stiffler at Seattle Post Intelligencer also did a more detailed comparisom of the implications for North America.

I recently corresponded with the staff of our local federal Labor MP about Labor's lack of a climate change policy, and my decision as a result of it to neither preference Labor nor Liberals at the recent state election.

I've attached the correspondance ...

Continue reading "Correspondance with Labor member Justine Elliot's staff"

I've just finished reading the excellent Final Report of Brisbane council's Climate and Energy Taskforce.

There is a longer summary on Energy Bulleting or you can get the 70-ish page report.

The report does a pretty good job of showing the wide range of impacts and a comprehensive set of recommendations. My only (minor) criticism is that it doesn't do a great job of dealing with the challenge of planning in an unknown environment. Governments typically like to study something rather than take action, and no amount of studying will reduce the uncertainty that rely on other people's actions.

Gore recently testified to the US house and senate, and made some serious recommendations .

There is an article about them on Grist.

They are serious recommendations getting to 90% reduction by 2050 (the sort of numbers the labor party should be talking about if they want to be a serious OPPOSITION). A summary of the recommendations are below, and there is a video of his opening statement.

• An immediate "carbon freeze" that would cap U.S. CO2 emissions at current levels, followed by a program to generate 90% reductions by 2050.
• Start a long-term tax shift to reduce payroll taxes and increase taxes on CO2 emissions.
• Put aside a portion of carbon tax revenues to help low-income people make the transition.
• Create a strong international treaty by working toward "de facto compliance with Kyoto" and moving up the start date for Kyoto's successor from 2012 to 2010.
• Implement a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants that are not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
• Create an "ELECTRANET" -- a smart electricity grid that allows individuals and businesses to feed power back in at prevailing market rates.
• Raise CAFE standards.
• Set a date for a ban on incandescent light bulbs.
• Create "Connie Mae," a carbon-neutral mortgage association, to help defray the upfront costs of energy-efficient building.
• Have the SEC (US equivalent of ASIC) require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting, as a relevant "material risk."

Vote Climate has done a side-by-side comparison of the platforms of the various parties vying for power in the NSW election.

It does a pretty good job, though could be improved (see below).

Its noticeable how similar, and how poor both Liberals and Labors policies are. This was born out at the recent candidates meeting, where local candidates Don Page (Nationals, sitting); Melanie Dorien (Labor) and John Bailey (Greens) told us their policies. John was excellent as should be expected from the Greens, Don clearly knows a fair bit about the issue, but of course it should be pointed out that the National Party doesn't share his understanding, nor is it likely to come out with what Don is advocating, and Don votes with the party. Don also refused to be drawn on actual targets prior to their (late) announcement by the shadow environment minister. Labor's policies were similar, which is really poor since you would - if you hadn't experienced many years of their government - expect them to be siding with people rather than profits. I was particularly disappointed in Labors dismal targets and Melanie's lack of understanding of the need for targets that drive policy.

I addressed the meeting on both the need for strong targets that will solve the problem (20% by 2020 is basically heading us for runaway climate change), and for a stable playing field that ensures businesses can invest in energy & carbon-saving measures on the expectation of decent Minimum Renewable Energy Targets (MRETs) and even better a carbon tax.

There were three ways I think this comparison could be extended ...

1. Add the Nationals as distinct from Liberals, though they vote as a team in parliament.


2. Uranium as far as I know only has two significant uses - nuclear power, and nuclear bombs. Since labor supports expanded mining, but opposes nuclear power one is left wondering whether they would like to see the uranium used in bombs?


3. It needs the specific numbers on targets, and also shorter (end of the parliamentary term) and longer term (2050) targets both for emission reductions and MRETs.


4. It needs to draw attention that both Coalition and Labor support privatisation of the electricity industry, a disastrous move as it removes many of the opportunities to push non-financial outcomes. Selling off a massive publicly owned infrastructure is certainly something that should be a question for voters, not the subject of backroom deals.

See the full table at voteclimate.org.au/?q=NSW07-Policy-At-A-Glance-Online.

This press release came from Beyond Zero Emissions,

Prime Minister Helen Clarke is setting the direction for a realigning of
the NZ economy to Carbon Neutrality. New Zealand is taking the lead to
be the first country to be net zero emissions across all sectors..

The New Zealand Government is in the process of developing a series of
targets, the first of which is that 6 of it's 34 own agencies will be
Carbon neutral by 2012.

"New Zealand is targeting all key sectors of their economy and are going
to reduce their emissions to near zero emissions and then offset the
rest, at the same time the Australian government, representing some of
the biggest polluting industries in the world such as BHP and Rio Tinto,
can't even agree to the 108% increase on 1990 levels. that we would be
bound to under the Kyoto agreement, which is the biggest concession
given to any industrialised country." said Matthew Wright Beyond Zero
Emissions Campaigner.

(Read on, and check the references at the end).

Continue reading "New Zealand to be the first Carbon Neutral country?"

Jim Hansen is head of the US NASA Goddard Institute's climate research. Of course, given the efforts of the Bush administration to silence him, I presume in this article that he is speaking as a private citizen, its a good (and reasonably brief) summary of current thinking.

(via Greenleap)

Continue reading "Jim Hansen presentation to National Press Club"

(via Treehugger)

The Melbourne Age reported on the Victorian Convergence on the Global Sustainability Emergency which unfortunately I was unable to attend. I believe that the last few paragraphs on the implications for business of "wildcards" are particularly relevant.

A state of emergency on global sustainability should be declared, writes Stephen McGrail.

LAST week a group of sustainability advocates met to discuss the possibility of declaring a formal "state of emergency". {I was invited, but unable to attend} Now, you may dismiss these advocates as loonies, but the Victorian Convergence on the Global Sustainability Emergency provides insight into what the future might hold ˜ to those willing to pay close attention.

The group reviewed the many inconvenient and interconnected truths ˜ such as climate change, the water crisis, threats to biodiversity, pressures on biological systems, peaking of conventional oil supplies and increasing socio-economic inequality ˜ and concluded that they add up to a sustainability emergency. On its own, this provides useful insight into the consensus-view of activists. But this should be taken one giant step further.

Suppose for a moment that these activists, thinkers and scientists were successful. Suppose they managed to get our political leaders to declare a formal "state of emergency". What then? Hold this moment in your mind. What changes can you imagine flowing on and what would be their impact?

...

Continue reading "A Sustainability Emergency"

Stephanie Long, climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth asked me to pass this on, I think this is an excellent opportunity to pressure the candidates on climate issues, and to discourage them from the non-answers like carbon sequestration and nuclear power.

Invitation to a meet-the-candidates forum

for the March State election

*Date:* Saturday, March 10, 2007

*Time: * Speakers to arrive at 1.30pm for light refreshments & to meet informally

Public meeting, 2pm to 4pm

*Venue:* Byron Bay High School auditorium

*Donation:* We will ask everyone attending to make a donation to go to Byron Bay High School or to North Coast Climate Action Group (NCCAG)

NCCAG believes that Global Warming and Climate Change are the most serious issues facing the entire population of our planet and threaten our very existence. We believe climate change policy and action should be beyond party politics and should head all political and public agendas. The purpose of the forum is for political candidates to outline how they will act to deal with Climate Change and for voters to put questions and discussion points to them. We anticipate the forum will proceed as follows.

1. Brief overview and introduction of speakers – Adrian Gattenhof

2. A ten minute review of the recent Kyoto negotiations in Nairobi, Kenya, and their relevance to Australia – Stephanie Long

3. A Byron Bay High student on local initiatives and innovations

4. Each candidate will be invited to speak for around 15 minutes on what they will do, if elected, to address the issue of Global Warming. Candidates will speak in alphabetical order; John Bailey – Greens, Melanie Doriean – ALP, Don Page, MP, National Party.

5. Panel discussion among the candidates and Stephanie Long with opportunity to question each other, together with questions and discussion points from audience.

The candidates are welcome to distribute election material at the forum.

If you ever doubted that nuclear power was a bad idea, take a look at this photo diary of someone who claimed to bike through the area. (though a lot of poetic licence was clearly used, the pictures are still supposedly real), as presumably are a swedish account.

When I was a kid, we had to clean up the mess from one game before being allowed to play another.

Maybe the nuclear industry should be asked to clean up the area, and the tailings sites near many mines and then find safe storage for the existing nuclear waste, before we even consider their requests to build more of their dangerous toys.

Come to think of it, we could do the same for the gold industry, and other industries where the participants create new companies for each venture, and avoid the responsibility for the mistakes repeatedly made in their industry.

- Mitra

Greenpeace has a new report showing how we could get 50% of our energy from renewables by 2050, thus halving our emissions rather than the massive growth that would come from not making any changes.

The BBC has a good summary, or you can get the full report.

This is a powerful new video on global warming, less information than Inconvenient Truth but makes up for it in emotional power and brevity, from the Ministry of Sound.

Make sure to watch it right to the end (past the titles).

One question I'm asked is where we might get the energy, below are a few links to some of the significant technologies I see coming along. I plan on updating this post as technology develops.

Overview

This paper from the Australian Solar Energy Society shows how a variety of renewables can meet the needs for a 60-80% reduction by 2050. The executive summary is a quick relevant read. In particular it points to over half the savings coming from Energy Efficiency.

Solar

The big improvements in Solar come not from efficiency (watts per square meter) but from cost-efficiency, (watts per dollar). Typically this means low cost devices that take advantage of the large area available on homes. Interesting examples include.

Roof tiles combining solar hot water, with solar electricity to reduce overall costs - status: research project.

Nanosolar announceed 100m funding and costs as low as 10% of current.

Wind

For wind there are huge economies of scale in building large, high, windmills in ideal spots, and we are seeing a lot of this in the UK and the US.

An interesting area is, as for Solar, domestic wind generators. The plus side is that the windmill is competing with the retail, rather than wholesale, cost of power. The minus side is that winds near houses are usually turbulent, and noise and vibration issues are significant. A number of companies have formed to address it. Some interesting ones include:

Skystream: Tower mounted (35-110 feet), 3 blades with an unusual shape. (Jan 07) In production.

Aerotecture: This is a vertical or horizontally mounted turbine using a unique combination of rotor and aerofoil to allow starting at low speeds, and low noise/vibration. (Jan 07) Still in pre-production.

Mag Wind: An interesting shaped windmill on magnetic bearings, though there are some questions about their claims?

Gil Friend has a good article on the 2030 Climate Change challenge that I blogged about previously.

Can renewable energy replace coal?

Recent months have seen a new push from the coal and nuclear industries to discredit renewable energy. The common criticism is that renewable energy cannot provide ‘baseload’ power and therefore cannot replace coal-fired power stations. Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham tackles the renewables sceptics (who not so long ago were climate sceptics) and answers some common questions.

Continue reading "Can Renewable Energy Replace Coal - the "Base Load" question"

The building industry seems to have really come together to show that strong targets can be set across an entire industry

From their press release......

Santa Fe (December 1, 2006) - recognizing that the Building Sector is
responsible for almost half of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually,
key leaders in this Sector have banded together to confront the
global-warming crisis. Last week, the American Institute of Architects
(AIA), U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Architecture 2030 and
about 20 other leaders attended a special meeting at the 2006 Greenbuild
International Conference and Expo, a conference presented annually by the
USGBC. According to Rick Fedrizzi, President, CEO & Founding Chairman of
USGBC, "Eliminating the built environment's negative contribution to climate
change is not just a strategic priority, it's our collective responsibility
to generations to come. Science tells us we have 3650 days to meet that
goal, and urgent action is required."

During the meeting, the group reached a consensus on three critical issues
facing the Building Sector as it works to bring energy consumption and GHG
emissions in this sector under control: the need for a common goal, the
definition of this goal and a baseline to measure progress against. "The
building industry is coming together around the common goal of Architecture
2030's targets for reductions in energy use. The organization