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.

Related posts:

1. Germany runs out of solar panels
2. Most subsidies still go to dirty, polluting fossil fuels
3. Alternative energy funded funneled to dangerous nuclear

From USA Today.

A funny cartoon, with a serious message. Many politicians and leaders don’t understand the benefits of switching to a low carbon economy.

Shifting to a low carbon economy and embracing ecologically sustainable development will bring untold benefits for humanity, and for Australians.

There is no doubt about the science of climate change, and the predictions of dire consequences if we don’t act.

Skeptics should give the planet the benefit of the doubt. They should think: “even if climate change is not real, or not as bad as scientists are warning, we should still have an ambition of a sustainable, clean future for our planet and our children”.

Related posts:

1. The economics of climate change
2. Blog Action Day
3. We need strong action on emissions trading

An interesting little video from the creators of the Story of Stuff, this has an explanation of how “cap and trade” (emissions trading) works, and the major pitfalls with the system.

Unfortunately, the video is one of those preachy, moralising videos that is full of criticisms but no solutions. The closest it comes is proposing a “simple carbon tax”, without recognising that a carbon tax has as many policy hurdles as carbon trading (just look at tax avoidance and minimisation by big companies as it stands).

Related posts:

1. Labor needs a strong stand on emissions trading
2. Coalition ETS amendments shows denalists have won
3. Alan Kohler shows he doesn't know about politics

The amendments proposed by the Coalition (really, the Liberal Party, since the Nationals outright oppose any ETS) are simply a way to divert more money to heavy polluters and will do nothing for the environment.

If the amendments are accepted, the already compromised CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, Australia’s cap and trade scheme) will achieve absolutely nothing except the enrichment of the carbon-lobby.

The Australian Conservation Foundation has recently released a summary of the changes:

The changes would see the Australian government handing out $10 billion in compensation for coal-fired electricity generators, and would require them to buy less carbon permits than proposed under the governments CPRS.

Other changes proposed under the Coalition amendments include:

• excluding emissions from coal mines and moving to permanently ban the inclusion of agriculture in any trading scheme
• Huge concessions to trade-exposed polluting industries – starting at 94.5 per cent free permits, then 90 per cent by 2015. These concessions to remain in force until at least 80 per cent of the industries’ international competitors are faced with a carbon price
• allowing farmers to make money out of the scheme by creating offsets, while excluding them from paying for their emissions
• free permits to be given to food processors such as meat and milk producers

…

The Australian Conservation Foundation conducted its own analysis of the scheme which indicated the Opposition amendments would cost $8.9 billion over the first five years of the scheme in additional compensation. That includes an extra $3 billion in free permits to heavy-polluting industries and $4.6 billion for coal-fired electricity generators.

The ACF estimated $4.8 billion in revenue would also be lost under Coalition plans to exclude emissions from coalmining. It said if the amendments were accepted, the first year of the scheme would cost the budget $402 million, as opposed to a $775 million benefit under current proposals.

As I have written elsewhere, Labor needs to take a strong stand on climate change. The CPRS is a flawed policy instrument, but it is the only thing on the table.

The Government needs to ensure that it doesn’t so further compromise the CPRS that its already small steps send us backwards.

The proposals by the Liberal Party show that Malcolm Turnbull, far from winning at the party-room last weekend, has completely caved into the climate change deniers in his own party.

Related posts:

1. Alan Kohler shows he doesn't know about politics
2. Letter in Crikey
3. Crikey runs with misleading coal-lobby ads

Today (15 October) is Blog Action Day – a day when bloggers from around the world commit to promoting a single cause (climate change this year) and thus raise awareness of that cause.

Climate change is, simply, the greatest ethical, political and policy problem of our age.

Climate change is something that is close to my heart, and is a policy problem that I consider regularly, especially in my work and studies. I have written about climate change often on this blog. I have also been trained as part of The Climate Project to give Al Gore’s climate change presentation.

As a diabolical policy problem, climate change is a challenge which is easy for our political leaders to do very little. It is easy to “green wash”, or to take only some action to mitigate climate change. There is enormous efforts put in by polluters to muddy the debate about mitigating climate change, to create uncertainty, fear and doubt.

This post will be principally about what unions can do about climate change, and what they are already doing.

Unions are well placed to be global leaders in changing perceptions on climate change. In Australia, there is a lot of research which backs this up.

1. Australians by and large want there to be action on climate change (around 90%) and many are willing to personally do something about it – if they are convinced that what they are doing has an effect.
2. Australian union members by and large trust their union on workplace matters.

This means that if unions turn issues such as climate change into a workplace issue, then many of their members will be willing to take action.

The benefits are obvious. Firstly, unions can lead positive mitigation action on climate change through persuading workers to change their personal activities (turning off computers, car pooling to work, etc) and empowering workers into having employers change their policies and practices to be more sustainable (purchasing 100% renewable energy, only using recycled paper, carbon off-setting flights, retrofitting buildings to be energy and water efficient, etc).

Secondly, for unions there are many benefits. By turning members into climate change activists, the union increases its overall number of union activists. While a member may be inactive when it comes to negotiating a new collective agreement, that same member may be willing to stand up to an employer over the purchase of a fuel efficient car fleet. Once a member has been engaged, enabled and activated on one issue (climate change), it is far easier to make them active on a range of other issues (such as workplace rights, health and safety or collective bargaining).

Finally, unions need to be seen as leaders in the climate change debate. Not a debate over whether climate change is real. But rather how our society, community and economy can transition from carbon intensive to low-carbon (or zero carbon). It is union members who will bear the brunt of mitigation and adaptation policies. It is union members, in TAFEs and universities, who will train and retrain workers in carbon intensive industries, or a new generation workforce in clean energy jobs. Union members in ambulances and hospitals will deal with increasing numbers of climate change related illnesses (tropical diseases in temperate areas, heat stroke from unseasonally hot days). It is union members who will have to adapt our mass transit to cope with heat waves. The TUC in the United Kingdom has done some great work on the Just Transition concept in relation to climate change.

The role of unions on climate change is clear. Unions need to shape the future for their members, rather than wait around for changes to be made to them.

Thankfully, unions are responding. The ACTU and a number of unions (including my union) are running a climate change campaign, promoting clean energy jobs and working to engage thousands of unions members on climate change.

The personal action campaigns are a first step – by no means the last. I strongly believe that political action and political will is required to seriously address climate change (that is why I am a member of the ALP).

Nevertheless, personal action campaigns are important. The vast majority of Australians, although they want action on climate change, do not know what they personally can do to help. By engaging them at a personal level, unions can help lift them to a more politically aware level. We cannot expect union members to all be politically aware or active. Most Australians are not.

Running a personal action campaign not only builds union activists and helps make workplaces more sustainable, but also increases the political awareness and engagement of members.

Related posts:

1. We need strong action on emissions trading
2. What union members want from their union's communications
3. What if it's a hoax?

The Garnaut report released earlier this year made the case for a robust emissions trading scheme. If Australia is to combat climate change, Federal Labor needs to take immediate action to reduce the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere.

As activists, we have a duty to lobby senior Ministers in parliament to do everything they can to urgently implement an effective emissions trading system. After all, it is our generation that will need to deal with the problems that are not addressed today.

Without strong action now, by 2050 – in our lifetime – we may face an even more serious economic and environmental crisis than the one we face now. Our standard of living will inevitably decrease, our food supplies will be threatened and our environment will be devastated.

Big business and climate change skeptics inevitably complain that introducing a strong emissions trading scheme will damage our economy. The Stern Report and now the Garnaut Report put those concerns to rest. To do nothing would do more damage than an ETS ever could.

For Australia to take early action now would put as in a better position down the track, as larger polluters are forced to transition to a carbon constrained economy. If we are early adopters and developers of carbon reducing technology, we will be able to export our expertise. New climate-friendly industries – already a massive growth area in the US and Europe – will be opened to Australian investment.

Federal Labor must not waiver from their duty to the future. Kevin Rudd promised long-term thinking. We need Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to stand up to the self-interest of big business and the climate change skeptics in the Opposition.

Web: Garnaut Review

Related posts:

1. Labor needs a strong stand on emissions trading
2. Alan Kohler shows he doesn't know about politics
3. Closer to dangerous tipping points: Arctic emissions increase

Water security and sustainable use are crucial elements for future development. Agricultural use represents seventy per cent of water use in Victoria and Australia, with the remainder consumed by industry and urban usage. The drought and broader environmental concerns necessitate that Victoria develop alternative water sources to traditional surface reserves and rain-fall.

Desalination is an alternative water source to ensure water supplies for Melbourne, and reduce pressure on traditional water sources.

Desalination technologies

Reverse osmosis (RO) is the preferred method in Australia (64% of national capacity) and worldwide, and is being utilised in the NSW desalination plant. This technology can be used for both salt-water desalination and waste-water reclamation (irrigation water or treated effluent).

Environmental considerations

Environmental impacts are of great concern to the public. Of particular concern are any affect desalination may have on:

1. Marine water quality and biota – disposal of concentrated salty effluent, and traces of chemicals used in reverse osmosis process;
2. Vegetation – potential effects of construction and operation of desalination plant on near by vegetation;
3. Atmospheric emissions (especially greenhouse emissions and nitrogen oxides) – most greenhouse gas emissions come from construction and ongoing use, while other potentially toxic emissions originate from the RO process; and
4. Noise – protecting amenity of nearby residents caused by high pressure pumps.

RO plants have lower energy consumptions than other desalination technology, which means less atmospheric emissions. It also converts a greater percentage of intake brine into water, which results in greater amounts of drinking water for the same volume of chemicals needed for other desalination technologies.

The reliance on fossil fuels makes renewable energy an attractive investment. Solar powered RO plants exist in rural areas in Australia.

Economic considerations

Membrane technology, especially RO is widely considered to have lower costs than other technologies, particularly in construction and production of drinkable water.

RO is economical for both large and small scale desalination. Flow rates can be increased or decreased, and plants can be expanded by adding extra modules.

Energy costs represent approximately 33% of total life-cycle costs. Commonly cited energy sources considered globally are RO plant with electric power from the local network and RO plant with solar energy. Renewable energy powered plants reduces carbon emissions caused by power generation, but increase water costs.

Conclusions

Reverse osmosis is the preferred desalination option given the drought conditions and the uncertainty of traditional water sources.

RO is the most widely used, can be utilised for salt and waste water desalination, and its environmental impact is relatively low. RO plants can also be expanded to meet future demand.

Related posts:

1. Labor needs a strong stand on emissions trading
2. 100% renewable energy in Australia by 2020
3. The economics of climate change

Federal Labor needs to take a strong stand on emissions trading.

After the Garnaut Report and the Green Paper, it appears that Federal Labor may not make the Australian emissions trading scheme as robust as it needs to be to ensure that damaging climate change is mitigated.

An emissions trading scheme (ETS) is essential for Australia’s long term environmental and economic future.

A strong ETS with a high price on carbon is crucial. Introducing a cap in emissions creates scarcity; market forces then forces the price up. We need a cap that strongly restricts carbon pollution.

Victoria is well placed to take advantage of a strong ETS. Although we have enormous infrastructure that pollutes heavily, Victoria also has abundant natural resources. And we already have a number of emerging players in renewable technologies.

By setting a high cap, the Federal Government can ensure that market forces ensure that new technologies, particularly renewable energy and carbon capture and sequestration, have an opportunity to compete against lower-cost polluting energy and industries.

Related posts:

1. We need strong action on emissions trading
2. Desalination and water security
3. Alan Kohler shows he doesn't know about politics