AlexWhite.org » Environment

100% renewable energy in Australia by 2020

admin — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:13:53 +0000

The target in Australia of 20% renewable energy by 2020 is the lowest it can respectfully be. There is no reason for the target number other than “it sounds good”.

We’re currently around less than 5% in Australia.

A recent report by Zero Emissions Network and the University of Melbourne Energy Research Institute shows that it is technically feasible to reach 100% renewable energy by 2020.

Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan in brief:

The plan shows that it is technically possible to reach 100% renewable energy for Australia within a decade and the technology to achieve this transition is commercially available now. (Solar thermal with molten salt storage replaces baseload power currently sourced from fossil fuels.)

Australia has one of the best solar resources in the world – solar thermal power in the ZCA plan will supply 60% of Australia’s electricity.

Wind will supply 40% of Australia’s electricity in the ZCA plan. This is comparable to Denmark’s 50% by 2025 goal, and Spain’s 25% by 2020. In another comparison, China’s wind energy industry has been growing by 100% per year for the last four years.

The plan sets out detailed resource and labour requirements. A transition to 100% renewable energy will create around four times more permanent jobs than currently exist in the domestic fossil fuel sector.

The ZCA Plan will generate an investment of $370 billion over ten years – a stimulus to the Australian economy that is equivalent to 3% of our GDP over ten years.

The investment required for the transition is affordable at $8 per household per day.

I had the pleasure of speaking to some of the authors of the report from the Energy Research Institute a week ago, to discuss some renewable energy policy.

It’s my firm belief that as we move towards 20% over the next decade, it will become clear that transitioning to a clean economy is easier than we believe it to be now. If we succeed in reaching 20% by 2020, I think we can ramp up quickly to close to 100% by 2030.

Crikey runs with misleading coal-lobby ads

admin — Tue, 25 May 2010 03:47:33 +0000

NewGenCoal is a slick marketing campaign by the coal lobby to try to convince politicians and Australians that the fossil fuel industry is serious about climate change. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, and the coal lobby has done everything in its power to stall comprehensive action on climate change.

Screen caputre of today's issue of Crikey (25.05.10)

Crikey has often lambasted the Australian Government (and the ALP), and many media outlets (such as The Australian) for not taking climate change seriously. They have criticised Rudd for postponing the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme due to a hostile senate. They have pointed out the anti-action campaign run by News Ltd and The Australian, and the exceptional media coverage given to climate denialists Monckton and Plimer.

But it seems that despite their editorial line to attack “lack of action” on climate change, and media bias, Crikey is still willing to take money from the coal lobby.

NewGenCoal is promoting carbon capture and storage (CCS). The fossil fuel industry is promoting CCS as the solution to carbon pollution from coal fired power stations (currently responsible for half of Australia’s carbon pollution emissions).

While carbon capture and storage will eventually be an important part of climate change mitigation, the reality is that the coal lobby is using it today as an excuse for no action. Furthermore, it is being proposed as an alternative investment to genuine renewable energy technology.

For anyone interested in a good starting point on information on clean coal, check out This Is Reality, and these videos they’ve produced about green washing.

Rooted in fantasy land

admin — Mon, 17 May 2010 03:03:14 +0000

Tim Hollo from Crikey blog Rooted is living in fantasy land:

The government’s hope of clinging to any remaining climate credibility relies on pretending that it was the Greens who were intractable, not them. This fits neatly with the Labor mythology of who the Greens are, but it contrasts dramatically with the actual behaviour of the Greens, as 12% of Australian voters now realise. The Greens’ positive approach to legislation such as the stimulus package and many other bills that would have been very different if the Greens were in power show this up as old Labor prejudice rather than fact.

Unfortunately, up to now it has only been Greens saying that Labor refused to negotiate and it is a next to impossible task to convince people with a “he-said she-said” argument, particularly up against the might of a government publicity machine and very strong party discipline.

But now, thanks to Paul Daley in the Fairfax Sundays, someone has squeaked and we have the smoking gun.

Daley quotes a Labor source saying “Kevin was crystal clear from the start – the Greens couldn’t be allowed any sort of ownership of the [emissions] trading scheme.”

This may not sound like much, but it entirely undermines the government’s claim to climate credibility. It was always Kevin Rudd’s political strategy to do a deal on an ETS with the opposition – whom he had consistently branded climate sceptics – so he could share any blame for higher prices with them and to shut the Greens out of any negotiations. The Greens would either have to sign up to a policy the party knew was completely unacceptable or vote against it and wear the orchestrated ALP attack.

The sheer creativity of this conspiracy-laden attack on Labor is amazing – demonstrating that Crikey, like many Larvatus Prodeo writers, is now little more than a mouthpiece for the Greens Party.

In the event that it is not published, I’ve reproduced my comment here:

Are you serious. This entire post is based on a single sentence from an unnamed Labor “insider” saying the “Greens can’t have any ownership over the ETS” – and from that you extrapolate a bizarre theory about Labor not negotiating with the Greens.

If this was true, surely there would have been a much bigger outcry from Christine Milne who was negotiating with Penny Wong.

The fact that an unnamed source said that Rudd didn’t want the Greens to have ownership over the ETS does not equate to “deliberately shutting out the Greens” from the ETS negotiations.

In fact, it means the opposite. The fact that they WERE in negotiations and didn’t want the Greens to gain political capital out of it is far more likely. How could the Greens possibly get ownership over the ETS if there were no negotiations?

This article is just a poor attempt to smear the ALP based on a very, very flimsy premise and an overactive imagination.

Post-script:

The Greens Party – and groups like Get Up – are obsessed with bashing Labor over the ETS and climate change. This is self-defeating and reactionary; the true enemy for climate activists must be climate change denier Tony Abbott and the Liberal-National party.

Seriously, what do the Greens Party want? Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. At least with Tony as opposition leader, there are real, tangible points of difference between Rudd and Abbott, especially on climate change.

Post-script 2:

The nonsense continues from John Hepburn at Crikey’s Rooted blog, where Hepburn attacks the Federal Budget over “lack of action” on climate change, the abandonment of the CPRS, and that the half a billion dollars spent on renewable energy is not enough. Clearly. We would be far better off if we had emissions trading.

An insightful commenter writes:

Folks, just remember who killed the CPRS … the backflip everyone wants to talk about all the time was the result of the Coalition and minor parties.

If they’d shown common sense we wouldn’t be having any of these discussions — lots more would be happening and green industry funding would be on its way.

Blaming the govt for being miserly is like saying “I stubbed my toe but you made it bleed!”

This is a good point. The Greens Party and the Liberal/National parties must face up to responsibility for blocking action on climate change.

The Greens Party in particular must face up to the fact that they handed climate deniers a massive symbolic victory on a platter, while dealing a massive defeat to the pro-action climate movement.

It is possibly the stupidest piece of opportunistic politics ever played by a minor political party, and has made real action on climate change almost impossible for the next few years as we waste time arguing with deniers whether it even exists.

If the Greens Party had shown some maturity, we would now be debating how we can increase and hasten action on climate change, rather than complaining about half a billion dollars being not enough for renewable energy.

The Greens Party and their supporters need to face up to their betrayal on climate change action.

Future Proof in Alphington

admin — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:28:37 +0000

Future Proof, a new community project aimed at promoting the uptake of solar panels, has launched its pilot program in Alphington.

We aim to prepare our communities, homes and businesses for a low-carbon future – to make them future proof – by making Melbourne and Australia leaders in renewable energy use.

Future Proof aims to address the major problems facing homeowners wanting to buy solar power: expense, complexity and risk.

Future Proof removes cost as a hurdle to solar adoption through organising “solar communities” into bulk-buying collectives. Homeowners can help each other understand the complicated process of buying solar panels, and ensure they get the best deal and highest quality panels.

If you live in Alphington, click on the image above (or here) to sign up and express your interest in installing solar panels on your home.

Climatologists vs. meteorologists

admin — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:08:29 +0000

I wrote a few months ago that in the United States, TV weathermen are increasingly skeptical about climate change, while at the same time being highly trusted on the issue by the public.

This is despite many TV weathermen not having a degree relating to their on-screen activities (the days of meteorologists being hired by TV companies seems to be over).

The New York Times reports on the latest instance of this skepticism:

The debate over global warming has created predictable adversaries, pitting environmentalists against industry and coal-state Democrats against coastal liberals.

But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists — especially those who serve as television weather forecasters.

Climatologists, who study weather patterns over time, almost universally endorse the view that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to climate change. Meteorologists, who predict short-term weather patterns, are not so sure.

Joe Bastardi, for example, a senior forecaster and meteorologist with AccuWeather, maintains that it is more likely that the planet is cooling, and he distrusts the data put forward by climate scientists as evidence for rising global temperatures.

The split however is not just from TV weather personalities however, but from actual TV meteorologists. Apparently, the cause of the skepticism is linked to the different weather tracking methodologies.

Yet, climate scientists use very different scientific methods from the meteorologists. Heidi Cullen, a climatologist who straddled the two worlds when she worked at the Weather Channel, noted that meteorologists use models that are intensely sensitive to small changes in the atmosphere but have little accuracy more than seven days out. As a result, Dr. Cullen said, meteorologists are often dubious about the predictions made by climate scientists, who use complex models to estimate the effects of climate trends decades in the future.

I’m not aware of any polling done in Australia of TV weathermen (or weatherwomen), but I would hope that they are less likely to be climate deniers than their US brethren.

However, the key for me is the trust. In the US, weathermen are more likely to be trusted on issues relating to the climate than other people, including well-known personalities like Al Gore or Sarah Palin. It seems to me that in Australia, climate action groups may want to survey and (if necessary) educate TV weathermen.

UPDATE:

Climate Progress has written about this exact topic.

The reason I am repeating this basic fact for the umpteenth time — see “Are meteorologists climate experts?” — is that the former paper of record has once again equated people who don’t know about climate science with people who do (see “NYT Faces Credibility Siege over Unbalanced Climate Coverage“).

My point (and not really covered in the Climate Progress article, which focuses on why the mainstream media are giving credibility to non-experts) is that TV weathermen are amongst the most trusted by Americans on climate change. This makes it very important for climate change activists and organisations to focus on education (especially at universities and colleges). Cross-disciplinary education is also essential (to get those journalism students – who make up around half of the TV weathermen).

Lessons from The (Modern) Prince, Part 1: The CPRS

admin — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:11:27 +0000

As part of my Project 52 posts, I thought I’d spend a few weeks musing on the lessons of Niccolo Machiavelli not learned in our modern times. I’ve added a parenthetical “Modern” as a reference to my favourite theorist Antonio Gramsci‘s famous treatise The Modern Prince. In The Modern Prince, political parties are cast in the role of the Renaissance prince.

The modern Labor party is acutely aware of history – the Howard decade, the Hawke/Keating and Whitlam legacies. Many of the senior operatives in Labor are amateur experts on American history or the history of World War 2. Unfortunately, there seems to be a book missing on their shelves. The seminal Florentine real-politick manual, The Prince.

This is particularly evident in the handling of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Those who by valorous ways become princes, like these men, acquire a principality with difficulty, but they keep it with ease. The difficulties they have in acquiring it arise in part from the new rules and methods which they are forced to introduce to establish their government and its security. And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

Machiavelli: The Prince: Chapter VI.

“Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions…” This is evident when looking at the national debate on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the first step to economy-wide change built around putting a cost to polluting. Climate change is one of the most serious problems facing Australia and the world, and is caused in no small part because of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) emissions. There is no cost to pollute, so no incentive for businesses or citizens to reduce their emissions. The CPRS introduces a (small) cost. It is a first step towards a clean economy.

The political problem is that large emitters profit enormously from the current arrangements. They can pollute with no accounting of the externalities of their actions. Needless to say, they have fought tooth and nail to stop any reform. It is in their interest to oppose any change, and furthermore to fund efforts to make the introduction of the CPRS as politically painful as possible. This has seen scare campaigns run in regional electorates, legions of carbon lobbyists descend on Canberra and marginal seat MPs, and millions of dollars sent to climate denialist groups (including the Liberal Party).

“…and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.” Similarly, any added cost to polluting will be in large part passed on to consumers – citizens. This added cost to ordinary Australians has prompted opposition from a significant (but no a majority) part of the community. Ordinary Australians are being asked to subsidise the big polluters through taxes, and to bear any increased costs through polluters passing on higher costs. This is despite the large number of Australians who support carbon pollution reduction.

Little wonder that supporters are “lukewarm”.

“This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side…” In this case, the opponents are the Liberal Party, who, while they cannot make laws, can hold up laws. Supporters of the CPRS are worried about supporting in the event the Liberals get reelected. Furthermore, they are unwilling to invest in a climate of uncertainty when the Liberals are blocking the CPRS in the Senate. Similarly, many ordinary Australians are being targeted by the scare campaign of the carbon lobby – they are scared of losing their jobs. The carbon lobby (especially aluminium) is especially effective. The vast bulk of Australians are disorganised and inattentive, while the carbon lobby and big business have money, organisation and the Liberal Party in their favour.

“…and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” Even those people who support adding a cost to carbon pollution, there is waning support. Many are cool on the idea because they believe the CPRS does not go far enough. They get information from “green groups” that say that the CPRS gives too much compensation to big polluters or that the targets are not high enough. (Without joining the dots that currently there are no targets, and no reductions in pollution at all). Simply put, they do not believe things will be better under the CPRS – especially since the reforms are so long into the future (2020, 2050 and beyond).

If Machiavelli were around today, he would no doubt be shocked that Labor has been so unMachiavellian.

For environmentalists, and environmentalists in the Labor Party, it may pay to follow the Florentine’s advice a little more closely. We need to overcome the credibility gap in stating that a price on carbon will be pain-free. As Machiavelli says, the most effective princes (or parties) are those who are virtuous and truthful, in reality.

Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

Complaining about Jon Faine

admin — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:18:33 +0000

I sent this complaint into the ABC today after hearing some outrageous commentary from Jon Faine. If you were unfortunate enough to tune in as well, I encourage you to also make a complaint. You can do so here.

I tuned into 774 to hear Jon Faine “interviewing” Dr Peter Singer. I understand that Jon has a pathological obsession with “balance” and playing the devil’s advocate. However, in the case of climate change, there is considerable misinformation and ill-informed commentary that Jon was uncritically repeating as though it were commonly accepted.

Jon Faine should be asked by ABC to inform himself thoroughly on a topic as serious as climate change, and be asked to not repeat denialist nonsense that has no basis in fact.

It is not “balance” to uncritically repeat conspiracy-laden denialist rhetoric. Balance in terms of the scientific debate would be to spend 9 mins out of 10 promoting pro-anthropogenic climate change views.

It is not Jon Faine’s role to repeat uncritically the political views of the leader of the opposition, who until recently was in a minority-position in his own party.

No related posts.

Hybrid and electric cars

admin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:31:34 +0000

Video maker Peter Sinclair has produced a fantastic 9 minute YouTube clip on hybrid cars and renewable energy.

A feature of the video is the Chevy Volt, the new General Motors car that uses an electric battery that is re-charged from a socket, or from a petrol engine while driving. Genius.

It also goes over Better Place, the electric car battery company that is taking the renewable sector by storm (and new home of Evan Thornley). In my view, the best reason for Better Place’s success is solving the “storage problem”.

(Via FastCompany.)

Alan Kohler shows he doesn't know about politics

admin — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:14:41 +0000

Alan Kohler, of Business Spectator fame, wrote yesterday in Crikey:

Against all expectations, Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt have actually come up with a clever climate change policy, and certainly one that will change the debate in Australia.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will now have to quickly do a deal with the Greens to get a government scheme through parliament, or else simply give up and blame everyone else.

With the failure at Copenhagen having pulled the rug out from under him, and a global agreement on emissions trading now impossible this year, Kevin Rudd must avoid a 2010 election on his current CPRS at all costs. To do that by dealing with the Greens now would mean a two-year carbon tax eventually turning into an emissions trading scheme â€“ a big risk.

(My emphasis.)

Unfortunately, this kind of commentary is completely misleading, unhelpful and uninformed. For a business analyst, it shows a concerning naivete in the political process and the dynamics of the Australian Senate.

For the record, the Labor Government needs seven (that’s seven) additional votes in the Senate to pass legislation.

Seven votes.

The Greens Party has five (that’s five) votes in the Senate.

There are two (that’s two) cross-bench, independent senators, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding.

To pass any legislation through the Senate, Labor needs both (that’s both) cross-bench Senators and all (that’s all) of the Greens Party Senators.

There is simply no possible way for a “deal with the Greens” to deliver a carbon tax or anything else. A “deal with the Greens” would deliver an extra five (that’s five) votes in the Senate, falling two (that’s two) short of a majority. Even if Senator Xenophon voted with Labor and the Greens Party, Senator Fielding is an avowed climate denier (and so wouldn’t vote for a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme).

“Dealing with the Greens” would not deliver a two-year carbon tax. It would deliver precisely nothing at all.

Closer to dangerous tipping points: Arctic emissions increase

admin — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:44:45 +0000

A new report shows that carbon emissions from the Arctic have increased dramatically:

ARCTIC emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas jumped 30 per cent in recent years in a worrying hint that global warming might unlock vast stores frozen in permafrost, scientists say.

The 30.6 per cent rise in emissions from the Arctic from 2003-2007, to about 4.2 million tonnes, was the biggest percentage gain for any region of the world’s wetlands in the study in the journal Science with colleagues in Scotland and the Netherlands.

“It’s too early to call it a trend but if it continues this way there will be serious implications,” said Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University in Scotland who was among authors of the study of methane emissions from wetlands.

This dangerous increase takes us closer to dangerous tipping points.

Tipping points in climate change are points of no return of significant, irreversible change to our climate. They can start positive feedback loops, exacerbating and hastening even more climate change.

A well-known tipping point is the melting of the permafrost and tundra in the Arctic circle. Billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane are trapped in the ice in the Arctic. If these greenhouse gasses were released, it could send us over a tipping point.

Many scientists say that we will reach this tipping point if we reach or exceed 2 degrees Celsius in warming.