Why should it be controversial, after all they've worked well in Germany and California to boost demand for solar and other renewables to get the volumes up to where they will be able to compete with Fossil Fuels (with all their hidden subsidies).

The controversy revolves around the form of the tariff. South Australia, earlier this year adopted a feed-in tariff in name only - offering 44c/kwh but only on net metered power. This means that for 99% of residential installations there is no benefit at all, because they are never producing more power than the home uses.

Queensland made an announcement on 11th March, that appeared to suggest it was going to be "Gross" metered, i.e. the owner of the solar system would be paid for ever kwh they generated, whether they consumed it themselves, or fed it back to the grid. Many organisations congratulated them for getting it right. But then the details emerged and Department of Mines and Energy are writing a "Net" metered Feed In Tariff after all.

Queensland Conservation are one such group that is more than a little annoyed at this backtracking, and have published graphs showing how most households will get no benefit.

It remains to be seen whether Queensland's government will revise this to actually have some effect rather than be just greenwashing, and now is a good time to tell any Queensland politicians you know that a REAL feed-in tariff is needed to stimulate Renewables in Queensland.

However there is a huge difference - as we see with Queensland's Feed-In-Tariffs - between an announcement that looks great; and the implementation.

The Federal Labor government started by minimising the report, which - prior to its release - it claimed was critically important.

Since that time, the political jockeying has started. This is only to be expected, since it is cheaper to influence politicians than to fix the emissions problem.

The Australian covered Ross Garnaut's call to ignore the political fixers, and in particular not to grant free permits to the worst polluters - duh, first they trash they atmosphere then they want a free pass to keep doing it. These are the very people who need to be adjusting their industries, and if they can't find a way - as many of their competitors will - to find a solution that benefits their business then they could, and should, suffer "readjustment". The NSW government, that wants to sell off the state-owned electricity business are putting in their pitch for the money.

It is the employees of polluting businesses we should be looking to support (e.g. retrain) through the transition, rather than the businesses that we should be propping up. This is where we also have to watch for the fixers, the significant pot of money from auctioning permits needs to be used for this re-adjustment, to support the lower-income households likely to be effected by for example the necessary down turn of some industries. One of the first grabs for this money has been from Malcolm Turnbull (Opposition Treasury Spokesman) (printed in the Australian, and reported in the Melbourne Age )

All natural resources reach a peak, and music is not an exception, after approximately half of the talent has been used up it is predicted that annual production of music will decline. While experts argue as to when this peak will be reached, few now disagree with the overall hypothesis that music is, or will soon, be in decline.

Mitigation is the art of reducing our environmental impact through the reduction of the extraction of the key resource - musical talent. This can be achieved in three ways.

The first way is Efficiency - i.e. the production of more music from less talent. Numerous ideas have been suggested to increase efficiency, most focus on reducing the consumption of percussive talent. Early approaches to this realised that percussion is purely a repetitive beat, and could therefore be handled by a loop, reducing talent requirements to a single bar.

Developments have progressed in two directions since then, some marketed under the name "Techno" have used computers to synthesize the first bar, while others such as "House" or in Australia "Doof" have realised that the use of a single beat all night could reduce consumption even further.

The other Mitigation approach is Conservation, i.e. reducing the actual consumption of music. Approaches to reduce consumption will probably require legislation, the first step will be the progressive crack down on musical performance in public, after all drum-circles, busking or other community generated music give the impression that there is an abundance of talent. Some cynics have suggested that this crackdown is really because such events do not allow for the generation of profits (or taxes) from its consumption.

Instead consumption will be required to take the form of either large commercial events, where a minimum of talent can be shared widely, Concerns that the impact of such events will be widespread are dismissed as unfounded.

Alternatively, the mass consumption of identical music through personal-stereos, should reduce the talent requirements even further.

In addition the government is considering the purchase and distribution of a large number of personal-sonic-reducers (commonly known as Ear-Plugs) which while having absolutely no impact on the problem are likely to ensure they stay in office until the next election.

For further information please contact the Association for the Study of Peak Music on +1-00-11-00-11-00-11

I made the investment through www.kiva.org, who match investors - of a variety of sizes, but mostly small, with micro-enterprises in developing countries.

Fotu is one of the few people that has the ability and the recipe for creating one of the oldest Samoan delicacies, traditional pudding. Because of the time, lack of knowledge and effort involved, this pudding is rarely made or sold any more. Fotu's business will attract locals who will love the pudding, and tourists who will be able to sample this delicious dish. Restaurants may also be interested in buying her pudding so they can offer this tradtional dish on their menu. Fotu is requesting a capital loan in the amount of $650.00 to purchase the ingredients that will help her to produce enough pudding to grow her business.

I think this is an easy way to make a small contribution, that has a big impact. After all, the cost to me over a year must be about $1.50.

I'm going to double the money, and find something else to invest in - and encourage others to as well.

From a business perspective you have to start asking the question, "What is the trend in targets", e.g. what do we expect the 2050 target to be IN 2050.

If we extrapolate from firmer policy to proposals i.e. last years (business as usual) to Labor (50% by 2050) to Ross Garnault (70-90% reduction by 2050) to new Scientist (100% reduction) then a prudent business would have to presume that the tougher targets are going to come into place sooner or later.

I think this means that businesses should be looking at planning for a zero-carbon-emissions world, because it will come sooner or later, and being ahead of the curve is likely to bring opportunities, while being behind the curve gets expensive - especially at the carbon prices likely to be needed to get emissions down quickly.

Greenhouse gas emissions will have to be eliminated completely to stabilise the Earth's climate and prevent temperatures from rising. That’s the conclusion of climatologists in the US who say that our current efforts to merely stabilise emissions will not be enough.

Damon Matthews, from Concordia University in Canada, and Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, USA, used a global climate model to study how greenhouse emissions would need to change in order to stabilise global temperatures over the next few hundred years. Previous studies have only looked at what happens when emissions are stabilised.

Humans have been releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in increasing quantities since the industrial revolution. But to simplify the simulation, Matthews and Caldeira injected a single pulse of carbon dioxide into a pre-industrial atmosphere.

Pulse sizes of 50, 200, 500 and 2000 billion tonnes of carbon were used. The model was set to calculate global temperatures and atmospheric and ocean carbon dioxide levels over a simulated 500 years.
CO2 legacy

At the end of that period, Matthews and Caldeira found that between 20% and 35% of the initial emission pulse remained in the atmosphere – even for the smallest emission pulse – with the remainder having been absorbed by land and ocean carbon sinks.

The lingering carbon dioxide means that global warming persisted for the entire simulation. For the four different emission scenarios, global temperatures stabilised at 0.09, 0.34, 0.88 and 3.6 ºC above pre-industrial levels respectively.

So far industrial emissions total around 450 billion tonnes. “Even if we eliminated carbon dioxide today we are still committed to a global temperature rise of around 0.8 ºC lasting at least 500 years,” says Caldeira.

One of the reasons for the persistence is the slow response of oceans. “It takes a lot of energy to heat them up and then a long time for them to cool back down,” he explains.
Technical challenge

Roger Pielke, a climate policy expert at the University of Colorado in Boulder, agrees with the findings. “This research makes the case that simply stabilising concentrations is insufficient to stabilise temperatures. Their argument, if widely accepted, raises the bar on what it means to mitigate climate change,” he says.

Matthews and Caldeira warn that current emissions targets for 2050 are insufficient to avoid substantial future warming. Instead they believe that we need to eliminate emissions, or find a way of actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

“It is technologically challenging, but not impossible. The biggest challenge will be to get political consensus,” says Caldeira. Potential tools to achieve zero emissions include renewable energy, electric cars and carbon capture and some countries such as Costa Rica are already aiming for zero emissions.

Dave Reay, a climate scientist at the University of Edinburgh, thinks that it is a feasible long-term aim. “If used on a large enough scale then new technologies like carbon capture could get us to zero emissions.”

Journal reference: Geophysical Research Letters (DOI: 10.1029/2007.GL032388)

The thing missing from the article is the cost-curves of the different technologies. If you look at CURRENT cost of the technology, and CURRENT price of carbon then much of renewable energy is uncompetitive.

The trick is to watch the cost-curve, what is the price decline in the technology. For example large-scale Wind is currently cheaper than distributed Solar. BUT wind is only decreasing in cost slowly, while solar is decreasing quickly (both through changes in technology, and volumes of production.

With Ross Garnault (Australian equivalent of the Stern report) calling for cuts of 70-90% by 2050; and other scientific studies saying zero emissions is the only way to avoid dangerous climate change, we could be estimating that carbon gets very expensive indeed.

The question then becomes at what point in the future does it become competitive presuming massive production volumes of whatever the technology is.

We are called Beyond Building, and are tackling the issue of the affordability of Green Building and Renewable Energy. In essence we don't believe that sustainability will scale until people stop asking the question "Can I afford to be Green".

Our first program is called Solar Neighbourhoods. We help community activists gather 50 people in a neighbourhood, and then install solar photovoltaic systems. The key thing is the price point, it is $495 (rising to 895 on Feb 15th) for a 1kW system (after federal government rebates and Renewable Energy Credits. We've had a great response - most people who have tried have had no problem finding enough neighbours.

We get the price down through a combination of volume buying, short supply chains (dealing directly with both factories and custmers) and installing 50 at a time.

The program is just expanding to developers, and sponsors (employers, energy utilities etc).

More information at www.beyondbuildingenergy.com

Every country makes an argument that it needs more of the world's share of carbon emissions, and I'm sure each has its own argument - and is good at challenging the others. Good enough for China and the US to impede progress as each waits for the other to move first.

So why should Australia get more than its share?

He argued that food has to travel long distances, I asked why we had to produce milk in Victoria and bring it to Northern NSW where we until recently had a perfectly good dairy industry.

But what about wheat he argued - ignoring of course that Europe and America both move wheat long distances from crop to plate. I responded that if a food has to be grown a long way from its consumers, then it SHOULD incur an extra cost, and that cost should tilt the balance in favor of foods grown closer to home, maybe that would make it more cost-effective to grow vegetables, potatoes, closer to the cities.

What about energy - most of Australia's comes from Coal. But we have abundant resources of wind and solar, if coal was more expensive there would be an incentive to develop those. But - Alok argued, we've already got this massive infrastructure. But as Keith Lovegrove of ANU showed, at a presentation I went to last year, the replacement time of our energy infrastructure is very similar to that needed for reducing to near zero carbon emissions, i.e. if we constructed no new carbon-emitting infrastructure, then over a roughly 20 year period, our emissions from stationary energy would move to close to zero anyway.

Alok's final argument was a good one - that Australia is a resource producing nation, that we have a heavy carbon cost involved in mining resources, and why should the Australian public have to reduce its carbon budget to mine the minerals that other countries consume. This of course is exactly the argument for Australia to be part of an international carbon trading scheme, because if these minerals take so much carbon to produce then the mining companies should have to purchase the carbon credits from the consuming nations, increasing the cost of the minerals to closer to their true price. It is the same logic that says that the industrialisation of China and India incurs a carbon cost, that should be being paid by the consumers of the goods these countries produce, i.e. the purchasers of cheap washing machines should be paying for the carbon credits the producers of those washing machines should need to buy.

All Alok's arguments are ones that are given by Australian politicians, and I'm sure there are equally powerful arguments made in Europe, the US, China and India.

I think its time to start arguing that the world's carbon emission budget belongs to everyone, and that historically high consumption, and inefficiencies is not an argument for future high consumption. If the result is a subsidy for low-carbon countries, then isn't that a pretty reasonable mechanism for international aid?

I've attached their brochure (oops will do when my blog gets fixed), it would be nice if they'd used more of the space to actually talk about the environmentally produced products, rather than repeating hints for homes and businesses which I'm sure everyone has seen by now ... but its a start, I know some of the exhibitors (Comet Skateboard; Guakaki Mate and New Leaf Paper) and they are definitely committed to doing the right thing

From ASEC ...

The mission of the “ASEC Green Room” is to showcase the environmental efforts of the action sports industry and inspire, educate and empower people to make informed, conscious decisions that will change their world. Some of the most influential brands in the world along with a number of natural product companies have joined forces with ASEC with the goal to motivate people to integrate the environment into their decision making and provide business solutions that will empower them to succeed. The Green Room will also feature free natural/organic product sampling, seminars, an eco mini ramp, music, art, and the first annual ‘Green for Green’ poker tournament!

ASEC is uniting the Action Sports Industry – brought together by the shared understanding that our cooperation will improve our collective environmental impact, expand industry participation, and provide a better way of educating a broad audience about the positive opportunities and solutions that the Action Sports industry provides to address the issues of pollution, social division and global warming. ASEC will operate as a resource, authority and educator for the Action Sports industry and community as it works to improve its collective impact on the environment as a way to improve quality of life and resolve the complex environmental challenges facing our world today.

ASEC was founded as a not-for-profit in 2002 by Frank Scura, Bob Burnquist, Jen O’Brien and Damon Way, and now includes a vast membership base that includes individuals, retailers, manufacturers and athletes. For more information, check out www.asecaction.org

Innovative education for sustainability, peace and development – that is the thematic core of the projects that the first finalists – three women and two men – worked on in order to reach their goal. Gaia University (GU) granted one Graduate Diplomas, two Master Degrees and two Post-Graduate Diploma at the Eco-village Lebensgarten Steyerberg in Northern Germany. 40 guests from the immediate region and from abroad attended the celebration.

‘Everyone is thrilled with the high quality of these projects which has not all that of a surprise, considering the individual competencies of the candidates’ said Liora Adler, one of the Founders and President of this international university.

After the final presentations of these projects that had happened in the previous week, Prof. Declan Kennedy said he was more that pleased with the outcome. Kennedy is the person that brought this young university in its first year to Germany – he is also the convener and Chairman of the Advisory Board : ‘If this achievement of Gaia University represents the level that can be expected in the training and education of change-managers for sustainability worldwide, then there is a good chance that we can overcome the challenges of today for to-morrow – namely in fields like climate change, restoration of the Earth, World and regional Peace, regeneration of our soil, forests and waterways, etc.’

Nils Droste (Badenstadt, Graduate Diploma) in his project, developed an innovative approach to sustainable education in a community exchange programme between Ecuador and Germany.

The year’s project of Antja Kennedy (Bremen, Master of Science) dealt with the connection of movement studies within decision-making processes in all walks of life. She will continue her learning process in the form of a book with DVD that will be published next year.

Dietmar Prudix (Sulingen, Master of Science) surprised everyone with his invention of a huge dice, using it playfully for solving conflicts especially in the business world. He plans on using his project results in his consultancy with top managers and also in a forthcoming book.

Kathleen Battke, who had a Master of Arts and works as a free-lance PR person and Katharina Weber, with a Master of Social Science received a Post-Graduate Diploma for their practical work on setting up the German Centre of Gaia University. They each took a separate topics: Kathleen a more theoretical approach to action-learning, incorporating ideas of GU with those of Otto Scharmer (Presencing as a social technology), Dee Hock (Chaordic Organisation) and Spiral Dynamics; Katharina planning and implementing an innovative strawbale building for a new retreat centre connecting a Zen with a Permaculture way of life as part of the Gaia University Regional Centre at Lebensgarten. These modules and building blocks will be of great help for the new Regional Centres of Gaia University being planned worldwide, e.g. for Portugal (Tamera), Brazil (IPEC, near Brasilia), USA – West (Ashland, Oregon) and USA - East (The Farm, Tennessee).

Further interim-presentations was made by Katharina Sander (Steyerberg) on her development of a study programme for Peace Management towards her MSc. (which would include Non-Violent Communication, Mediation and Gender Studies) - and Tobias Kempf (Belzig) about his project of designing sustainable festivals for youth in Germany and abroad - on his study programme towards a Graduate Diploma. They will both graduate in the autumn of this year.

On this day of receiving their degrees, these World Changers also formed an association of graduates and sponsors: Alumni Gaia University Network (AGaiN) – an association that will do fund raising particularly for scholarships and stipends for new Gaia University associates (students). Fees for Gaia University are relatively inexpensive for North American candidates, but candidates from so-called 2nd. World pay a little more than half and 3rd. World - one third. Donations are being sought to support needy applicants.

The World needs new activists and entrepreneurs who understand the problems of social and environmental degradation, Peak-Oil, Peak-Gas, and Peak-Nuke. The idea of Gaia University is both simple and progressive: out of their own projects, associates (Gaia university’s word for students) design possible future solutions for ecological, social and economic problems, using methods such as action learning and virtual workshops in a atmosphere of freedom in organising their own studies as well as having qualified mentors and an international network of supporters. Sustainability is the central theme for the content of the programmes.

Gaia University grants degrees of Bachelor, Graduate Diploma, Master of Science or Post Graduate Diploma (from 2008 on also a Doctorate) in cooperation with the International Management Centres Association (IMCA), UK and Revans University.

Thereby, Gaia University gives entrepreneurs, change managers in business and activists from the social movement equal opportunities to attain an internationally recognized education while they are engaged in activities that further peace, justice and the environment. All programmes on the post-graduate and higher levels are organised mainly through the Internet and take two years, (with an orientation and ending workshop of 15 to 20 days residence). They can be reduced to one year depending on the candidate’s life experience.

The first programmes in the German language will start on Oct. 17th until Oct. 24th. 2007 with an orientation week at Lebensgarten Steyerberg, Lower Saxony, covering the fields of: ‘Sustainable Money Design’ and ‘Peace Management’. The ‘Open Topics’ programme (likewise in German) will run parallel – see www.lebensgarten.de
The next orientation programmes in English will take place in The Farm, Tennessee, USA in October and November – see www.gaiauniversity.org

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)