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.

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.

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?

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.

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)