Posted under Express 89

Efficient Ways to Cut Energy Costs

Australians will have to pay up to an extra $1000 over the next three years for power, with about a third directly attributable to the proposed CPRS. But Queensland Mines and Energy Minister Stephen Robertson has raised serious questions over whether electricity prices should rise and also points to energy efficiency measures to reduce costs to the consumer.

Andrew Fraser in The Australian (16 December 2009):

AUSTRALIANS will have to pay up to an extra $1000 over the next three years for power, with about a third of the extra cost directly attributable to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

The NSW regulator yesterday issued a draft ruling allowing the state’s three electricity companies to raise their charges over the next three years, and it is the first such ruling where the cost of a CPRS can be exactly determined.

The federal government has estimated that an ETS would add $1100 a year to the average family’s bills, with gas, fuel and groceries set to rise along with electricity.

Power prices in Australia are set by each state within a national framework, and the Australian Energy Regulator recently issued guidelines for South Australia and Queensland, with those for Victoria due to be released in the new year.

But these rulings allow only for increased charges for network costs and not a CPRS, making yesterday’s ruling by the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal the first on what it sees as the potential cost to consumers of a CPRS.

While NSW is the first state to make such a call, its figures would be a guide for other state regulatory bodies when they issue their rulings for possible rises.

Under the NSW body’s draft ruling issued yesterday, the three main energy companies would be able to start charging for a CPRS from the middle of next year, even though the scheme was not due to start until the middle of 2011.

Notes issued with the ruling show that customers of Energy Australia would pay an extra $288 over three years for a CPRS, while those with Integral Energy would pay an extra $314, and those with Country Energy an extra $302.

This represents a rise in cost between now and 2012-13 of 23 per cent for Energy Australia, 25 per cent for Integral Energy, and 21 per cent for Country Energy.

In the case of all three distributors, the cost of a CPRS is about half the overall increase recommended by the independent regulator, with most of the extra cost to consumers coming from the need to replace ageing infrastructure.

The overall costs allowed by the NSW pricing tribunal would see rises over three years of $554, or 44 per cent, for customers of Integral Energy, $727, or 58 per cent, for those of Energy Australia, and $893, or 62 per cent, for those signed to Country Energy.

Tony Abbott seized on the last figure as evidence of how the CPRS would hit ordinary consumers.

He claimed that “those massive increases are due in significant measure to Mr Rudd’s emissions tax”. “There is a real problem here. Mr Rudd is trying to tell us that there is a painless way to tackle climate change,” the Opposition Leader said. “There isn’t. And we have learnt today from the NSW authorities that Mr Rudd’s emissions tax is likely to impact massively on Australian families.”

But the federal government planned to allow full or partial compensation for electricity consumers who earned less than $160,000.

The NSW opposition said the planned increases showed the extent that basic infrastructure such as powerlines had been allowed to run down under the Labor government.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

 

Mines and Energy Minister Stephen Robertson has today raised serious questions over the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) draft determination on electricity price increases, to apply from 1 July 2010.

“I am concerned about the assumptions being used within the QCA draft determination,” Mr Robertson said.

“The QCA draft determination gives a significantly higher price rise than Government and members of the public would consider reasonable,” he said.

“I have directed my Department and Treasury to carry out a rigorous analysis of the QCA’s methodology.

“For instance, I fail to understand how New South Wales’ independent tribunal has this week assumed a zero per cent increase in the cost of energy, while the QCA today assumes it is rising at 10.7 per cent, and passed on a significant increase as a result,” Mr Robertson said.

The QCA today released a draft decision on the Benchmark Retail Cost Index (BRCI), recommending the maximum price of electricity should rise by 13.8 per cent from 1 July, for twelve months. The BRCI is used to adjust regulated electricity prices each year.

“I am concerned about the impact this will have on low-income earners and pensioners, which is why we will be closely scrutinising this draft decision. I will also be looking at the financial assistance programs available for people who are doing it tough.”

The Queensland Government knows some electricity consumers will find it hard to meet the price increase and provides help through:

•    a $3 million hardship scheme, with up to $720/year for households struggling to pay their electricity bills

•    the pensioner’s and senior’s electricity rebate, increased 15 per cent to $190.85 a year

•    $100 solar hot water systems for pensioners ($500 for non-pensioners) available through the Queensland Solar Hot Water program

•    The Low-Carbon Diet, promoting energy-efficient lifestyles through community groups

•    The ClimateSmart Home Service, giving energy efficiency advice to more than 120,000 home-owners.

“The QCA decision means households with an electricity bill of about $350 a quarter using approximately 8,130 kilowatt hours of electricity a year will pay an extra $194 on their bill in 2010-11, ” Mr Robertson said.

“Smaller households with power bills of $150 a quarter would face an increase of around $80 per year.

“If our analysis shows the QCA’s price rises are not supported by facts, or if there are ways to lessen the increases, we will raise this with the QCA in the months ahead.”

Mr Robertson said the QCA’s final price decision would be announced by 31 May and come into effect on 1 July 2010.

“The Queensland Government will make a strong submission in response to this draft determination. I urge Queenslanders to provide feedback during the public consultation, which runs until February next year,” he said.

Mr Robertson said although electricity prices were rising across Australia, until now Queenslanders had enjoyed below average charges.

An annual comparison of residential electricity bills in July this year showed that despite the price rises of recent years, Queenslanders had the third cheapest electricity in the country.

Source: www.mysunshinecoast.com.au

Posted under Express 89

Yes to Renewables, Not Sure on Nuclear

A Newspoll survey commissioned by the Clean Energy Council (CEC) has shown overwhelming public support for the government to focus its support on renewable energy – such as solar and wind – over nuclear power, while the Australian Government is providing a grant to support Queensland research into plastic solar panels.

Renewables trounce nuclear in Newspoll (15 December 2009):

NATIONAL: A Newspoll survey commissioned by the Clean Energy Council (CEC) has shown overwhelming public support for the government to focus its support on renewable energy – such as solar and wind – over nuclear power.

Given a choice between supporting the development of renewable energy sources and nuclear power, four out of every five people polled favoured the government giving greater priority to the development of renewables. 

CEC chief executive Matthew Warren said the results show Australians want to see the development of renewable energy ahead of contentious options like nuclear. 

“This confirms what we have thought for some time – you need to exhaust every other alternative before talking about nuclear energy as a climate change solution for Australia.

“The answers in this poll show that some people may express support for nuclear power in principle, but four out of every five people would prefer to see an effective renewable energy strategy as a priority.

“We need to see what renewable technologies can achieve over the next decade.  Renewables have enormous potential, but we still have a lot of work to do to find out how much energy they can deliver and at what cost,” he said.

Respondents were asked two questions. The first was to baseline their support for each energy source individually and the second to gauge whether they thought the government should give a greater priority to the support of renewable energy or nuclear power.

Baseline support

There appears to be broad acceptance for developing alternative energy sources:

The baseline results for nuclear power mirrored a Nielson poll from the last couple of months.  93 per cent of those polled favoured the Federal Government supporting the development of renewable energy.

Just under half (49 per cent) also showed support for the development of nuclear sources 

Greater priority for government

There is a clear preference for giving priority to developing alternatives to nuclear energy

On the matter of which approach should receive the greater priority, the vast majority (80 per cent) said that the government should give priority to renewables while only 15 per cent favoured priority being given to developing nuclear energy sources.

 Males, 22 per cent, were significantly more likely than women, 8%, to believe greater priority should be given to nuclear energy.

Those aged under 50, 86 per cent, were significantly more likely to prefer renewables over nuclear, than those aged over 50, 71 per cent.

Source: www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au

Federal Funding Boost for Queensland Solar Research (18 December 2009):

Mines and Energy Minister Stephen Robertson today welcomed the Australian Government’s $945,000 grant to support Queensland research into plastic solar panels.

“Queensland is the solar state and it’s only fitting that our researchers are recognised as being at the forefront of developing affordable solar technologies.

“The University of Queensland’s $1.945 million research project led by Professors Paul Meredith and Paul Burn looks at improving the efficiency of plastic photovoltaic cells to potentially deliver a low-cost, flexible solar cell that could be integrated into buildings and other consumer products.

“The UQ Centre for Organic Photonics and Electronics project was one of only five selected to receive funding under the Australian Solar Institute’s competitive solar energy grants program.

“This important research project was selected from among 87 proposals.

“It’s just another example of the research and development expertise we are building right here in Queensland to deliver a cleaner energy future for all,” said Mr Robertson.

University of Queensland Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) Professor Max Lu also welcomed the funding, which builds on almost $2 million in Queensland Government support this year for research into plastic photovoltaic cells delivered under the National and International Research Alliances Program.

“The project has the potential to expand Queensland’s high-tech industry base and create new jobs and new skills”, said Mr Lu.

The grant is being delivered by the Australian Solar Institute, a $100 million program under the Australian Government’s $4.5 billion Clean Energy initiative.

Minister Robertson said the Queensland Government was committed to harnessing the natural energy of the sun to lower our carbon footprint through solar mapping, large-scale solar plants and solar hot water.

“Solar will play a leading role in our energy future supporting other renewable resources like geothermal energy and wind,” said Mr Robertson.

Source: www.physics.uq.edu.au/cope/

Posted under Express 89

 

In the same week that Boeing’s most fuel efficient Dreamliner 787 took to the skies for the first time, a new aviation tax plan surfaced as a way to break the deadlock at the Copenhagen talks by raising billions of dollars to help poor countries cope with climate change.

Wall Street Journal’s Peter Sanders reports:

EVERETT, Wash.—Boeing Co.’s 787 Dreamliner on Tuesday made its first flight, marking a success for the company after two years of delays but setting up an equally challenging drive to churn out large numbers of the cutting-edge aircraft.

Thousands of spectators gathered under cloudy skies at Paine Field here, cheering as the blue-and-white-striped jet lifted off the runway for its maiden flight. “It’s great to finally get the plane in the air,” said Boeing Chairman and Chief Executive Jim McNerney.

But the repeated setbacks have pushed the company into a tight spot: Now it must quickly turn a cutting-edge prototype into a mass-produced money maker.

“Ramping up production certainly will be a challenge,” said Mr. McNerney. Boeing hopes to produce seven Dreamliners a month by 2011, increasing to 10 a month by 2013.

The company’s ability to achieve that goal will have a huge impact on the commercial-aviation industry world-wide.

The Dreamliner’s more than 300 global suppliers won’t begin to fully recoup their money until the planes are delivered to customers.

Many suppliers have already been squeezed by past delays. And airlines and leasing firms, which have ordered 865 of the aircraft, are counting on Boeing to make its new production target so they can plan routes and service.

The delays have already caused Boeing—the single largest exporter from the U.S. and long a symbol of American engineering prowess—to bleed cash. The Chicago-based aerospace giant swung to a $1.6 billion third-quarter loss after posting a $3.5 billion write-down attributed to problems with the Dreamliner and another jetliner program. The missed delivery dates have set off payments of millions in penalties and dented the company’s credibility with customers and investors.

More interactive graphics and photos Boeing has staked much of its future on the pioneering aircraft. It is the first-ever commercial jet to be built half out of strong-but-lightweight carbon-fiber composite material, which the company promises will make the Dreamliner more fuel-efficient and durable than current models. That prospect played well with customers.

The plane, with a list price of more than $160 million, has received more orders ahead of its first flight than for any jetliner in history.

By any measure, even Boeing’s seven-planes-a-month production target is ambitious. After 14 years of producing the larger, aluminum-shelled 777 model, Boeing only this year got on track to deliver more than seven of that aircraft a month.

On top of that, the 787 marks the first time that Boeing is trying to manufacture an aircraft made largely out of composite material, the novelty of which has already led to glitches. Boeing in June abruptly postponed what was supposed to be the first flight, disclosing that composites around where the wings meet the main fuselage were damaged. It took nearly six months to fix the problem.

The Dreamliner also must run through an elaborate test-flight program before the Federal Aviation Administration will clear the aircraft to carry passengers. In a sign of the challenges involved, Boeing shortened the planned four-hour flight by an hour because of bad weather.

From the Dreamliner’s conception early this decade, Boeing planned to keep customization to a minimum “to make sure it wasn’t a boutique plane,” said James Albaugh, the head of the company’s commercial-aircraft unit. The company now is intensely focused on “what it’s going to take to ramp our production up.”

When Boeing set out to build the Dreamliner, it chose to outsource much of the production to firms based as far away as Italy and Japan.

But Boeing had a hard time keeping on top of such a vast network of suppliers. In addition, the many delays strained its relations with some key suppliers.

“The critical issue is not that Boeing isn’t going to have a successful flight test,” Marshall Larsen, CEO of supplier Goodrich Corp., said earlier this year. “It’s that the Goodriches of the world successfully support Boeing in getting the aircraft into service.” Goodrich, based in Charlotte, N.C., produces major elements of the Dreamliner and the A380, including the 787′s brakes and thrust reversers.

“We really have to focus on making sure we have a supply chain that delivers on what we promised,” Mr. Albaugh said. “We know there are going to be changes along the way, and we just have to make sure we minimize disruptions on the factory floor.”

One of Boeing’s key 787 suppliers, Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. of Wichita, Kan., said it is eager finally to increase production after years of fits and starts.

“We’re really excited to get past first flight and get to the next phase and really get into production,” said Spirit spokeswoman Deborah Gann. “We’re looking forward to getting more regularity with the 787 and think there are lots of improvements on that process that we can continue to make.”

Source: www.online.wsj.com

 

Lenore Taylor and Peter Wilson From: The Australian December 17, 2009

AFRICAN nations, led by Ethiopia and backed by France and Britain, have presented a plan to break the deadlock at the Copenhagen talks by raising billions of dollars to help poor countries cope with climate change through levies on international aviation and shipping and possibly even a controversial global financial tax.

Kevin Rudd discussed the plan with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown soon after his arrival in Copenhagen. Mr Brown, along with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, is backing the Ethiopian scheme, although the financial tax proposal was last night meeting resistance from other developed countries.

A spokesman for Mr Brown said London supported the Ethiopian proposal and hoped it could “provide a way forward” for the struggling climate change talks.

British Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change Ed Miliband told The Australian that much would depend on how the Ethiopian proposal was received in Copenhagen today. “It’s important to see its reception today,” Mr Miliband said.

World Vision chief executive the Reverend Tim Costello said it was “the first serious breakthrough from the entrenched blocs and set positions”.

“This is the first time a country from the north and a country from the south have shown a way to address financing, which is a showstopper here in Copenhagen, especially if developed-nation emission-reduction commitments remain weak,” Mr Costello said.

Signs of a breakthrough came as the Australian government’s project of trying to make coal less polluting by capturing and storing its carbon emissions was dealt an expensive blow at the climate summit.

The UN conference refused to include clean coal technology in its main program for channelling money to clean fuel projects, locking carbon capture and storage out of potentially billions of dollars of funding.

The Copenhagen talks are in need of a breakthrough, with formal official-level negotiations ending in confusion and anger late yesterday when a final text was pushed through, despite objections from both the US and developing countries.

More than 100 arrests were made last night (AEDT) as about 3000 protesters massed outside the conference centre.

The Prime Minister warned there were “no guarantees of success” and that getting rich and poor nations to sign on to agreements was the key. “In the past, this has primarily been a debate about what happens with the developed world,” Mr Rudd said.

“We know that the developed world is responsible for the largest slice of accumulated greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere . . . the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the future will be the major developing countries, led by China.

“China already – as of today – is the world’s largest polluter. It’s now bigger than the United States. For the first time in history, there is the prospect of an agreement which brings in the developing countries, for the first time.”

Developing countries are demanding more than $100 billion a year to help cope with the effects of global warming and reduce their own emissions but the UN has so far only secured informal backing for an initial $10bn-a-year “start- up” fund for the next three years and has received firm pledges for only a fraction of that amount.

The financing plan proposes to raise $80bn a year after the three-year “fast-start” program expires, rising to $160bn a year by 2020, through levies on international shipping and aviation and possibly a financial transaction tax such as the Tobin tax on global financial transactions, although the Tobin tax idea has been rejected by the US, Canada, Russia and the International Monetary Fund.

The broad plan was also discussed at a special summit of European Union leaders over the weekend, but the fact that it is being presented by Ethiopia could help overcome developing-nation suspicions and encourage major developing-country emitters such as China and India to promise internationally binding emission reductions. Mr Meles announced his proposal at the high-level segment of yesterday’s meeting, saying he knew its funding was not as ambitious as some African countries would have liked.

“I know my proposal will disappoint some Africans . . . It scales back the ambition in return for more reliable funding and a seat at the table in the management of any such funding,” he said. “Because we have more to lose than others, we have to be more flexible than others and go the extra mile . . . Such flexibility should not be confused with desperation.”

Mr Brown said Mr Meles’s proposals were a “framework within which developed and developing countries can work together”.

So far, Japan has reportedly offered $11bn a year for the “fast-start” financing fund, and the EU about $10.5bn. The US and Australia have promised to contribute their “fair share”, without specifying amounts.

Under the Ethiopian and French plan, 40 per cent of the fast-start money would go to Africa and 20 per cent would be used to stop deforestation in developing countries. Details would be worked out by a group of developed and developing countries to report to the next G20 meeting. The fund would concentrate on “poor and vulnerable countries, particularly in Africa, least developed countries, small island states and other developing countries with a low per-capita income”.

The chief executive of Australian think tank the Climate Institute, John Connor, said last night it was good the negotiations were being handed over to politicians. He attacked some negotiators for their criticism of Australia and other countries. “While there are some legitimate concerns for developing countries, some of the negotiators are using a tax on Australia and other developed countries to avoid scrutiny of their own actions,” he said.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Posted under Express 89

Greenhouse at Woodford Folk Festival

The Greenhouse program at Woodford Folk Festival from 27 December to 1 January includes scientists, authors, intellectuals, environmentalists, inventors and a senator/spokesperson on Climate Change. Ken Hickson joins Dr Mike Smith and Ulrike Schuermann to discuss Business’s Role in the Future on 31 December. 

Here are all the speakers for the Greenhouse program at Woodford Folk Festival appearing from 27 December to 1 January. For the full program go to www.thegreenhouse.org.au

Anna Keenan

Anna is a leading international youth climate activist. She is currently based in Bonn and Copenhagen where she coordinates youth advocacy at the intersessional meetings of the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change. Anna will be seen at the GREENhouse via video footage.

Barbara Ford

Barb is an ex-bush GP and international aid worker who would rather see healthy people than sick ones. She teaches permaculture and has a passion for solar cooking and simple technologies that improve the health of people and the planet.

Ben Kele

Ben Kele is a water scientist with Midell Water and CQ University. Midell Water has designed, built, and is operating the wastewater treatment and water recycling system used at the Woodfordia site. Ben will be discussing the Woodfordia wastewater treatment facility.

Bill Hoffmann

Bill Hoffman is Editor at Large, Sunshine Coast Daily. Whether taking on developers hell-bent on destroying the Coast’s natural appeal, state governments hell-bent on facilitating that outcome or a Prime Minister indifferent to the plight of the poor he has never been one to mince his words

Bob Abbot

The Sunshine Coast’s larger than life Mayor, Bob Abbot, has been in local government for 27 years. Bob’s ultimate goal is for the Sunshine Coast to become Australia’s most sustainable region. He is also passionate about protecting its unique and diverse character as a community of communities.

Clive Hamilton

After many years at The Australia Institute, Clive is now professor of public ethics, based at the ANU. His books include Growth Fetish, Affluenza (with Richard Denniss) and The Freedom Paradox: Towards a post-secular ethics.

Daryl Taylor

Daryl is director of integralevolution – a personal, team, organisational and community development coaching consultancy. Lucy Filor is a teacher, puppet-maker and performer, specialising in social and environmental justice community performance making. With their daughter Maggie, they survived the Black Saturday firestorm.

Dr. Allan Dale

An Adjunct Professor at James Cook University, Allan worked with CSIRO and lead the State’s natural resource management policy agenda. He now heads Terrain NRM focused on building a sound foundation for an ecosystem services economy for the Wet Tropics and northern Australia.

Dr. Chris Pettit

Chris is a principal research scientist within the Victorian Department of Primary Industries and Associate Professor – Geomatics, University of Melbourne. He has over 10 years experience in developing and applying geographical technology tools for envisioning sustainable landscape futures.

Dr. David Wyatt

Chairman of ASX-listed banana veneer company, Papyrus Australia Ltd and Adjunct Professor at UQ Business School, David bridges the world’s of social and environmental entreprise and activism.

Dr. Hans Baer

Dr. Hans Baer is a world leader in global warming research and the political ecology of health, healing and happiness. In 2008, he published ‘Global Warming and the Political Ecology of Health-Emerging Crises and Systemic Solutions’ . Join Dr. Baer for his interpretation of the heath effects that we will experience with the increased development of global warming.

Dr. Linda Selvey

Linda is CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific.  Until recently, she was Executive Director of Population Health Queensland also a former chair of Queensland Conservation Council. She is interested in preventing chronic disease, through improving nutrition, and is also a supporter of QCC’s ‘grow local’ campaign.

Dr. Michael H Smith

Michael Smith is Research Director of The Natural Edge Project, a solutions-orientated Sustainability Think Tank based at Griffith University and ANU. Michael and his TNEP colleagues have developed a wide range of climate change and sustainability books, manuals and online training packages.

Dr. Patricia Kelly

An education consultant at several Australian universities Patricia’s background includes teaching, drama, media, education and cross-cultural education. She is interested in transformative education and the qualities needed to create futures we would be happy for our grandchildren to live in. Her book Towards Globo Sapiens: was published in 2008.

Dr. Matthew Gray

Matthew has over ten years experience as a researcher and teacher in environmental studies, sustainability, and systems thinking. In 2006 he became a sustainable transport campaigner with the Queensland Conservation Council, the State’s peak environmental non-government organisation.

Dr. Wendy Sarkissian

Nimbin-based social planner Wendy Sarkissian PhD seeks spirited ways to nurture an engaged citizenry. She has co-authored three new Earthscan books: Kitchen Table Sustainability: Practical Recipes for Community Engagement with Sustainability (2008). SpeakOut (2009) and Creative Community Planning (January 2010).

Faith Thomas.

Faith, founder of the ‘Living Schools’ project in NSW, works with ‘Growing Communities’ in Brisbane, and is their Communications coordinator. She has extensive experience in sustainability education with schools and local authorities.

Fiona Scott-Norman

Fiona is a writer, satirist, broadcaster and columnist who contributes to The Age, The Australian, ABC Radio 774 am, and The Big Issue. She is currently touring her hilarious comedy show The Needle and the Damage (about her terrible record collection, not her raging heroin habit).

Friends of the Earth

Friends of the Earth-Brisbane Co-op is a community based social change cooperative working on local, regional, national and international issues. We are working towards the creation of an ecologically sustainable and socially just society through community action. Current campaigns include Coal, Climate Justice and Nuclear.

Gabe Anderson

Gabe parents took him to forest blockades in a backpack: studied Resource and Environmental Management at ANU, joined OzGREEN and worked across Australia. Now based in Newcastle Gabe is OzGREEN facilitator for a biodiversity corridor project – Snowy Mountains to Atherton Tablelands.

Gary Burke

Gary, Rich’n’Famous Double Bass player; now finishing PhD at Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, believes we can make a re-configured economic framework to help us decide what needs doing, how to do it well, and in what sequence.

Gary Kane

Gary is a specialist emergency coordinator at the Department of Environment and Resource Management (previously EPA). He springs in to action to handle oil spills, toxic leaks and explosions.

Giselle Wilkinson

Giselle is President of the Sustainable Living Foundation which she co-founded in 1999, also a foundation member of Safe Climate Australia recently launched by Al Gore. Author The Conscious Cook, innovator of social change she is currently undertaking a doctorate focusing on collaborative strategies for rapidly mobilising whole communities.

Graeme Taylor

Author of ‘Evolution’s Edge: The Coming Collapse and Transformation of Our World’, which won the Independent Publisher’s 2009 Gold Medal for the book “most likely to save the planet” Graeme is also the coordinator of BEST Futures a project using evolutionary systems theory to model societal change, analyse global problems and develop viable solutions.

Hugh Duffie

Hugh leads the Environment Club at Toowoomba Grammar School. In July Hugh attended ‘Power Shift’, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s first national youth climate summit in Sydney. In September he was awarded – Keep Australia Beautiful QLD’s “Green and Healthy Schools – Young Legend” Award.

Ian Mackay

Debater, poet, keen conservationist and friend of lungfish. A witty wordsmith whether it be debating or rhyming verse.

Ian Dearden

Ian Dearden is a former criminal defence and anti-discrimination lawyer. Since 2005 he has been a Qld District Court judge.

Ian Golding

Ian was a pioneer of the Horticulture Industry in tropical Northern Australia and has been farming and marketing fruit and vegetables there for over 25 years. He has recently settled in Maleny to establish the collaborative business network called Beyond Organic.

Imogen Zethoven

Imogen Zethovan AO, formerly QCC and WWF is currently employed by the Pew Environment Group – Australia, of the Pew Charitable Trusts. She leads a campaign to establish the world’s largest highly protected area to the east of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in the Coral Sea.

Janet Millington

Janet Millington; teacher, author, permaculture educator and communitarian in 2007 helped establish ‘Transition Sunshine Coast’ – moving from oil dependency to local resilience and addressing climate and energy uncertainty. She recently co-authored the book Outdoor Classrooms: a handbook for school gardens.

John Morahan

A co-founder of Northey Street City Farm 15 years ago,  John coordinates the implementation, design and networking of community gardens across SE Queensland through the ‘Growing Communities’ organisation. He has designed gardens for over 20 schools.

Jo Bragg

Jo Bragg is an experienced public interest environmental lawyer at Environmental Defenders Office. She has worked on environmental test case litigation and has successfully advocated for increased community enforcement rights in Queensland legislation.

Julie Shelton

Julie Shelton is an organic farmer, distributor, retailer, writer, gastronome, Churchill Fellow and passionate supporter of small-scale local food producers.  In 2009, she founded Slow Food Sunshine Coast Hinterland to promote food that is good, clean and fair.

Justin Sawell

An accountant, consultant and speaker, Justin is passionate about electric cars. He is a member of the Australian Electric Vehicle Association, the founder of the Brisbane Electric Vehicle Association and has been instrumental in promoting the Better Place electric vehicle program in SEQ

Kenny Walpole

Kenny is an engineer who joined ‘Engineers Without Borders’ to work in remote mountainous regions of Nepal. Kenny installed solar-powered lighting with the aim of relieving some of the extreme poverty in the province of Humla.

Ken Hickson

Ken had 47 years working as a journalist in newspapers, magazines, radio and television, as a consultant to organisations throughout the Asia Pacific and is a Governor of WWF Australia. He is the author and publisher of The ABC of Carbon and also produces the weekly e-newsletter abc carbon express.

Leonie Shanahan

Leonie works for ‘Edible School Gardens’ through Permaculture Noosa. She is an experienced and passionate gardener, currently working across 14 local schools on the Sunshine Coast.

Louise Orr

Louise lives and works as a committed environmentalist. She is passionate about food and the challenges and risks presented in feeding the Earth’s people. She is a committed local food advocate, who understands how cultural, ecological and economically healthy food systems create resilient, inclusive communities.

Luke Taylor

Luke Taylor is co-director of the Sustainable Living Foundation (SLF). SLF seeks to help foster the rapid adoption of ways of living that will make it possible to sustain the community of life locally and globally. Luke has been the Director of Australia’s foremost sustainability event the Sustainable Living Festival for the past 8 years.

Mark O’Connor

Mark is a well known environmental poet and activist. Mark’s latest book is Overloading Australia: How governments and media dither and deny on population.

Maryella Hatfield

Maryella Hatfield is the director and co-producer of The Future Makers documentary, exploring some of the world leading technologies in renewable energy coming from Australia. In her travels researching the film, she encountered many fabulous innovators. ‘The Green Inventors’ forum explores some of them.

Mathew Dick

Mathew is a passionate nutritionist with an interest in making it easier for all Queenslanders to eat well. He coordinates statewide food supply projects for Queensland Health and has over 15 years experience working on statewide, regional and local nutrition projects.

Nadja Kunz

Nadja is a member of the Queensland Youth Environment Council and a PhD scholar at the Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry.  She previously worked as an engineer, and last year volunteered at an indigenous school in Central Australia.

Nick Heath

An accountant, then political advisor Nick is now defending the planet with the World Wildlife Fund. Recently WWF has successfully convinced Federal and State Governments to invest $375m to cut farm pollution of the Great Barrier Reef by 50%, and to further reform land clearing laws.

Northey Street City Farm

Volunteer gardeners from this well-established Brisbane community garden present practical Permaculture workshops to help you garden and live sustainably in the city. NSCF itself provides a model for applying these ideas to all aspects of life for individuals, families and organizations.

Professor Andrew Wilford

Now an Associate Professor from Bond University’s School of Sustainable Development Wilf was a senior manager at Boeing Australia and ran their F-111 program. This prior experience enabled him to deal with large scale complexity and engage with “Safe Climate Australia” and “Transition Town” movement.

Professor Ian Lowe

Pre-eminent scientist and environmentalist Professor Ian Lowe AO, is President of Australian Conservation Foundation. He is recipient of many awards and has authored many publications. Recently an expanded and revised edition of one of his books A Big Fix has been published.

Professor Sohail Inayatullah

Sohail is a political scientist associated with Tamkang University, Taiwan and the University of the Sunshine Coast.  He is the author/editor of twenty books/cdroms.  He has recently presented to Queensland Nurses, Singapore Defense, Australia Federal Police, and the Organization of Islamic Conference.

Rebel Star

Rebel Star was the face of school students for the 2009 World Environment Day Festival held at the University of the Sunshine Coast.  She is an active member of her school’s Environment Portfolio and sends her message through song.

Richard Sanders

Richard is an ecological economist, environmental scientist and futurist and the founder of Quest 2025. Trained as a transdisciplinary thinker, Richard has spent the past 20 years grappling with the problem of ecological sustainability and what it means for our society and economy.

Roger Currie

Roger Currie is a Land for Wildlife Blocky who runs a biodiversity and GIS consultancy in the Fraser Coast. He is also Vice President and Water Policy Officer at the Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council.

Robert Pekin

Robert is founder and CEO of Food Connect (putting the culture back into Agriculture). A former organic dairy farmer, market gardener and agriculture advisor he has developed Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs (CSAs) across Australia – Food Connect being the largest of these.

Russell Austerberry

Russell integrates experiences in ways which lead to personal peace as well as community health. Driving a council bus provides a base from which to advocate sustainable communities, become involved in Transition Town work, and foster the uptake of electric car conversions.

Sandy McCutcheon

Sandy is a playwright and best selling author. He is currently working on his 13th novel.

Senator Christine Milne

Senator Christine Milne, Australian Greens Deputy Leader and spokesperson on climate change, was elected to represent Tasmania in 2004. She served as Leader of the Tasmanian Greens from 1993-1998. Christine was appointed to the United Nations Environment Programme’s Global 500 Roll of Honour in 1990.

Simon Baltais

An active environmental campaigner, Simon holds positions on Queensland Conservation Council, Vice President of SEQ Sustainable Population Australia, Ambassador for LifeLine and more. Son of a migrant and father of one child, his broad experiences make him ideal to discuss population issues.”

Steph Zannakis

Healing self/societal and human/nature relationships is central to Steph’s journey, in particular his practice of architecture. An ethical practice of being in the world of climate change, peak oil, resource consumption and a meaningful collaborative sustaining lifestyle is the path Steph is seeking to walk.

Sonya Wallace

Sonya is a permaculture teacher/designer and co-founder of Transition Sunshine Coast – preparing communities for future climate and energy uncertainty. Creating resilient food, energy and transport systems and much more she travels Australia supporting councils and communities in doing the same.

Steve Campbell

Head of Campaigns and key spokesperson at Greenpeace Australia-Pacific Steve also holds an Honours degree in Law from Macquarie University. Before joining Greenpeace he was a researcher, writer and trainer, working on youth justice and policing issues. He plays with ‘Genevieve Maynard and the Tallboys’.

Steve and Sheila Davis

Steve and Sheila are prominent Gold Coast environmentalists and regular Woodford presenters.  Their talks are always entertaining and informative as Steve is a professional comedian and an Al Gore Climate Messenger and Sheila is an environmental educator.

Tim Winton

Tim Winton, founder of the Permaforest Trust, is a sustainability educator and consultant who regularly speaks and writes about issues ranging from peak oil and climate change to permaculture, PatternDynamics and Integral Sustainability.

Tristan Peach

Tristan is a town planner and community activist with interests in sustainable transport and community engagement. His masters thesis analysing people’s attitudes to public transport was awarded the 2008 Minister’s Town Planning prize.

Vivien Griffin and Dennis Etheridge

A Himalayas Trek alerted Vivien to the hardships faced by Nepalese villagers in meeting their energy needs.  She and partner Dennis explored opportunities for volunteering in renewable energy projects in Nepal, and signed up to SWOGUN Nepal’s Solar Aid program, providing renewable energy to remote rural villages.

Ulrike Schuermann

Ulrike runs Momentum International Partnership, a sustainability and corporate social responsibility firm specialising in strategy, education and people engagement. She works with civil society and business and is passionate about bringing people together to create solutions to social and environmental challenges.

Source: www.thegreenhouse.org.au

Posted under Express 89

Your Chance to Express Yourself

In this the final issue of abc carbon express for the year, we not only review Copenhagen and what’s past, we ask you the reader for your honest feedback in our first ever reader survey. Please click on the link – http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QZK9JKH  – and get the chance to win one of three books (“The ABC of Carbon”, of course) on offer.

Ken Hickson sets out his highlights for the year past and his hope for the next decade, but first he asks all abc carbon express readers to give their feedback on this weekly newsletter and what they would like to see in the future. Go to the survey – http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QZK9JKH

Highlights of 2009 through the eyes of abc carbon express:

Profiles

We featured movers and shakers in the world of climate change at home and abroad, some very familiar to our readers no doubt and others lesser known mortals, even though just as important. Denmark’s Climate Change Minister Connie Hedgegaard took her place, along with the new US Energy Secretary Stephen Chu. We profiled an amazing young African William Kamkwamba with his innovative wind power inventions and Charles Darwin’s great, great grandson Chris Darwin. Australians making their mark included Anne-Maree Huxley, Michael Ottaviano and Dr Heinz Schandl. We also made a point of occasionally profiling a subject other than a human! Therefore CPRS and GECO left into prominence.

Articles

As you would expect we drew articles and ideas from sources far and wide, both the established daily news media, as well as NGOs (like WWF), online newsletters, and direct from companies and organisations. We have tried to be as comprehensive and as current as possible, but admittedly we have shown some favouritism. Those who have supported us – like Carnegie and ZeroGen – get covered, but we also welcome news and announcements from small companies and large if they have something significant to report. We have not ignored community organisations we recognise as doing great things – like Sustainable Jamboree – or individuals who have a valuable point of view, like Bjorn Lomborg or Tim Flannery. While the majority of our reports favour Australia, but do try to give every issue an international flavour as well.

Events

We not only reported on important events around the nation, we attended them. In the past12 months such events visited have included the Moss/Sustainability Challenge workshop in Sydney, Carbon Trading Expo in Melbourne, Greenfest in Brisbane, the Earth Building Conference in Victoria, Climate Change & Business in Melbourne, Going Green Expo in Brisbane, Carbon Market Expo on the Gold Coast, and the Electric Vehicle Conference in Brisbane. We meet lots of wonderful people at these events, who in turn inspire us and equip us with more material and ideas for the newsletter. Keep inviting us to attend and we’ll be there if at all possible. We haven’t ventured overseas in the past year – though we have virtually though the newsletter – but we hope to take flight in coming months.

ABC Carbon 50

We decided to launch this novel list, to coincide with World Environment Day, of the 50 most influential people in Australia who are committed to the environment, the planet and for the future of life on earth. We compiled the list from nominations received. Cate Blanchett came out on top – a popular choice. All who made it were (still are) advocates for climate change awareness and action at home and abroad, as well as campaigners for sustainability, clean energy and energy efficiency. Some were very well known. Some were new discoveries. We’ll be doing another ABC Carbon 50 for 2010. Nominations are welcome.

Book launch

Our own big event of the year was the launch of “The ABC of Carbon”, a book that was two years in the making. Launches were held in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne in August. We have written about it and talked about it in Express, as well as on radio, Tv, online and in papers. We don’t hesitate to blatantly promote the book through the newsletter, because we believe it has some important messages. We also started the weekly e-newsletter to supplement the book. To provide regular updates. The book has been purchased by many companies and organisations, it is selling through bookstores around the country as well as online. See the special offer through www.sustainableinsight.com.au

Media is the Message

While we see Express as a medium in its own right, we both draw on material from other media and we provide story ideas and content for other media, online and print. Many journalists around the country and overseas have tapped into our content, as we have used theirs. We have also written regular articles for the likes of Eco Voice and Be the Change. We have appeared on Sky News Eco Report three times. We get invited to attend events – even Government meetings – as “media” and take that responsibility seriously. We also make every attempt to get our point of view out to the mainstream media as much as we can by writing letters to the editor and articles. We will continue to do that.

Next issue

We will take a little break, but be back with the first issue of Express for a new decade in the first week of January 2010. We hope to get plenty of feedback from our first reader survey and hope it helps determine which day of the week you would prefer to receive the newsletter. In the meantime compliments of the season where-ever you are. Have a very Happy Christmas and best wishes for a fruitful and profitable 2010.

Ken Hickson

Posted under Express 88

Profile: Anthony Pratt

What Australia has been waiting for – green business leadership. Anthony Pratt says that environment and green issues will increasingly dictate success in business for the foreseeable future. “Business has a key leadership role to play as it pursues the goal of turning green into gold”. His companies have turned waste into jobs, creating 5500 green-collar jobs in Australia and 3500 in the US.

Anthony Pratt, 49, is executive chairman of Visy and Pratt Industries USA, and works with the Climate Group. Son of the late paper and packaging billionaire Richard Pratt, Anthony is a former McKinsey consultant, who spent almost 20 years running Visy’s U.S. operations.

This week an article written by Anthony Pratt appeared in The Australian. We also reproduce here an extract about his US operation Pratt Industries taken from my book The ABC of Carbon:

By Anthony Pratt in The Australian 12 December 2009:

REGARDLESS of the eventual outcome in Copenhagen, one thing is clear. The environment and green issues will increasingly dictate success in business for the foreseeable future.

The political divergence over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation notwithstanding, both of Australia’s main political parties are committed to reducing greenhouse emissions. Consumers want action.

The result is that the new curve for businesses and economies is increasingly being cast as a green, low-carbon one. Businesses that stay ahead of the curve can turn green into gold, converting low carbon into new profits.

Global investments in renewable energy companies and projects totalled $US155 billion last year, overtaking similar investments in fossil fuels for the first time. Some estimates have put the global value of green products and services worldwide at more than $US3 trillion and rising. The green component of the recent financial stimulus in Australia alone totalled almost $US10 billion.

Although there are undoubtedly challenges, the growth in low-carbon technologies, services and markets represents one of the best business opportunities for Australia we have seen in years.

Australia is a resource-rich nation. We have been good at exploiting our minerals base and agricultural sector for exports. But we also have enviable natural resources for renewable energy generation. Our abundant sunshine, rich geothermal potential, large biomass-growing land base and extensive coastline could become the bedrock of a golden 21st-century industry that will create thousands of new jobs and a stream of long-term investment.

We have already seen the kind of progress that can be made. By the middle of last year, Germany, a country hardly celebrated for endlessly sunny days, had managed to create 40,000 jobs in its solar industry alone. Israel, a country not long in water resources, enjoys a disproportionate share of the hi-tech water efficiency market.

My company in the US, Pratt Industries USA, has grown from scratch to become a billion-dollar business based on recycling, as well as the largest Australian-owned employer of US citizens. Recently we commissioned a US$60 million plant in Atlanta that gasifies waste from the recycling process and timber construction waste, turning it into clean energy which then drives our recycling mills and reduces our energy costs.

We have plans for similar investments in Australia. Producing clean energy from non-recyclable waste is an important part of my future vision for family company Visy Australia.

Given the right incentives, our agricultural sector also has the potential to flourish in a sustainable way. New carbon sequestration technologies mean that farmers can lock carbon dioxide into our soils, creating carbon credits and opening up a very welcome source of income. As a means of building on the water legacy left by my father, Richard Pratt, I am backing former governor-general Mike Jeffery’s initiative to restore our precious rural landscapes by mainstreaming sustainable farming practices.

These techniques also increase the carbon content, fertility, water retention and productive capacity of our soils, which have eroded through decades of unsustainable practices. There is no reason why Australia cannot lead the world in this technology if we start taking steps to do so now.

If we do, our farmers, our food processors and our consumers will be in much better shape.

Visy has a vested interest in achieving this outcome because 70 per cent of our packaging customers are connected to agriculture in some way, either as growers or food processors.

As the global trade in carbon continues to gather pace, Australia has the opportunity to establish itself as a hub in our region for a trade the World Bank estimated as being worth $US126 billion last year, about 12 times what it was worth just three years earlier.

My faith in the economic potential of the low carbon economy is not an untested prediction. Here and in the US, Visy has built a multibillion-dollar business based around a closed loop of packaging and recycling. In so doing we have turned waste into jobs, creating 5500 green-collar jobs in Australia and 3500 in the US.

But this is just a small part of the global green picture. The international race to win a share of the new green markets and opportunities is already well under way. International non-government organisation the Climate Group recently reported on the extent to which green businesses and technology development have become a mainstream element of China’s growth strategy.

The country is already the world leader in solar energy, supplying 40 per cent of the world’s photovoltaic panels. It is doubling its wind generation capacity every year. Chinese companies are leading the way with electric vehicles, creating the first car that can travel 400km on a single charge, as well as starting mass production of such vehicles.

In the field of carbon trading, South Korea is looking to assert itself in emerging green markets, having spent more than 80 per cent of its stimulus package on green investments. Along with Singapore, it is now a serious contender in the competition to become the Asia-Pacific’s dominant carbon trading centre.

Australia is on the cusp of an exciting economic opportunity but if we are to make the most of it, we have to move with more purpose than we have done so far.

And we should not rely solely on governments. Business has a key leadership role to play as it pursues the goal of turning green into gold.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Extract from “The ABC of Carbon”:

 

Visy papers US. Australian Anthony Pratt made a USS$1billion commitment towards investment in paper recycling and waste-to-energy infrastructure at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) meeting in New York 26 September 2007.

 

The money will enable the construction and operation in the US of at least 3 new paper recycling mills, 4 waste-to-energy plants, and 30 MRFs (materials recovery facilities), as well as ancillary packaging plants to fully integrate the paper mills. It will save hundreds of thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide from going into the air during the first half of the 10 year commitment period and more than 1 million tonnes per annum by the end of the decade.

 

Pratt’s company, Pratt Industries USA, is the largest Australian owned employer in the USA with over 3200 American employees. Anthony Pratt said the US was moving towards a zero waste society, so the company’s plan was to increase US recycling rates dramatically by investing in recycling operations and by helping to create a recycling movement. ‘As almost one quarter of all carbon emissions are from landfills and deforestation, every tonne of paper we divert from landfill stops 1.2 tonnes of carbon emission, hence our view that recycling is one of the most important weapons against climate change,’ Pratt said.

 

Currently Pratt Industries produces 720,000 tonnes of 100% recycled paper annually in the US. The construction of Pratt’s first US waste-to-energy plant, which will convert wood waste (otherwise destined for landfill) into energy to power their existing recycled paper mill in Conyers, Georgia, will be operational by March 2009 at an establishment cost of US$50 million. Pratt Industries USA is a sister company to Visy, Australia’s largest packaging and recycling company.

Source: www.visy.com.au

Posted under Express 88

A Better Climate Deal for Queensland

In this first special report from Copenhagen Kate Jones, Queensland’s Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability tells us what she’s been up to in the United Kingdom and her hopes for a meaningful climate outcome, while we also get updated on who’s been behind the hacking of climate researchers’ computers.

Special Report for ABC Carbon Express from Kate Jones, Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability, Queensland (12 December 2009):

While things hot up for COP-15 and we need a global deal more than ever, Queensland is punching above its weight.

As world leaders descend on Copenhagen over the next week, I’ll be engaging in climate change talks knowing that Queensland has a lot at stake.

For a state with around a fifth of Australia’s population, Queensland accounts for nearly a third of the nation’s emissions.  And it’s one indicator that we don’t want to be a leader on.

The UN recognises that state and regional governments will action up to 80 percent of mitigation measures and here in Queensland we have shown that we are more than up to the task through initiatives to force down emissions through ClimateQ and complementary measures.

Significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions is vital to our state’s future. With a number of climate-sensitive industries and ecosystems we will be the hardest hit of anywhere in Australia. We need global action. And we need it now.

We certainly don’t need the sideshow that we have seen in Canberra in recent days.  In the UK Gordon Brown and David Cameron stand side by side when it comes to climate change.  They are looking to implementing cuts. The science is not up for debate.

To complement our work, this week I have been working with world leading climate experts from Reading University, The Walker Institute and the Met Office Hadley Centre.  And while there has been some distraction in relation to leaked emails giving heart to the sceptics, we have been focused on the task of carrying out collaborative research on Flood Risk and Climate Change in Queensland.

Our partnership has culminated in an announcement this week that there will be the establishment of a ‘shop front’ for the Hadley Centre within the Ecosciences Precinct at Brisbane’s Boggo Road in 2011 as part of a Queensland-UK Climate Science Fellowship Program with four Fellowships to commence in the first half of next year.

The program will further enhance our role in contributing to the International Panel of Climate Change 5th Assessment report – the pre-eminent international science on climate change.  We’re helping to inform the IPCC through a climate modelling project with the help of a A$4 million super computer at the our Indooroopilly base.

Further, Queensland and UK experts in hydrology, climate and meteorology are also exploring the frequency and intensity of Queensland’s historical climate and how it related to changes in the flood risk.  They are looking at what the latest climate models were telling us about the future flood risk, focussing on rivers, streams and sediment loss.

This is particularly important in Queensland giving the devastating effects of flooding and the potential risks associated with climate change and because 80 per cent of Queenslanders now live on the coast.

It’s why we recently had out for public comment a new Coastal Management Plan to better plan for tidal inundation.

We are focussing on providing the best possible science to mitigate the consequences of climate change and provide certainty for Queensland communities.

Next week is vital in order for us to make bold steps towards avoiding dangerous climate change in the future, but Queensland will continue to act now to best place us to operate in a decarbonised world, however it may look.

December 7, 2009

Was Russian secret service behind leak of climate-change emails?

By Shaun Walker in The Independent (7 December 2009):

FSB accused of paying hackers to discredit scientists after stolen correspondence traced to server in Siberia

The news that a leaked set of emails appeared to show senior climate scientists had manipulated data was shocking enough. Now the story has become more remarkable still.

The computer hack, said a senior member of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, was not an amateur job, but a highly sophisticated, politically motivated operation. And others went further. The guiding hand behind the leaks, the allegation went, was that of the Russian secret services.

The leaked emails, which claimed to provide evidence that the unit’s head, Professor Phil Jones, colluded with colleagues to manipulate data and hide “unhelpful” research from critics of climate change science, were originally posted on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk, at a firm called Tomcity, an internet security business.

The FSB security services, descendants of the KGB, are believed to invest significant resources in hackers, and the Tomsk office has a record of issuing statements congratulating local students on hacks aimed at anti-Russian voices, deeming them “an expression of their position as citizens, and one worthy of respect”. The Kremlin has also been accused of running co-ordinated cyber attacks against websites in neighbouring countries such as Estonia, with which the Kremlin has frosty relations, although the allegations were never proved.

“It’s very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services,” Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, said in Copenhagen at the weekend. “It’s a carefully made selection of emails and documents that’s not random. This is 13 years of data, and it’s not a job of amateurs.”

The leaked emails, Professor van Ypersele said, will fuel scepticism about climate change and may make agreement harder at Copenhagen. So the mutterings have prompted the question: why would Russia have an interest in scuppering the Copenhagen talks?

This time, if it was indeed the FSB behind the leak, it could be part of a ploy to delay negotiations or win further concessions for Moscow. Russia, along with the United States, was accused of delaying Kyoto, and the signals coming from Moscow recently have continued to dismay environmental activists.

When Ed Miliband, the Secreatary of State for Climate Change, visited Moscow this year, he had meetings with high-level Russian officials and pronounced them constructive. But others doubt that Russia has much desire to go green.

Up in the far northern reaches of Russia, there are stretches of hundreds of miles of boggy tundra; human settlements are few and far between. Often, the only inhabitants are indigenous reindeer herders, who in recent years have reported that their cyclical lifestyle is being affected by the climate: they have to wait until later in the year to migrate to winter camps, because the rivers do not freeze as early as they used to. In spring, the snow melts quickly and it becomes harder for reindeer to pull sleds.

Much of Russia’s vast oil and gas reserves lie in difficult-to-access areas of the far North. One school of thought is that Russia, unlike most countries, would have little to fear from global warming, because these deposits would suddenly become much easier and cheaper to access.

It is this, goes the theory, that underlies the Kremlin’s ambivalent attitudes towards global warming; they remain lukewarm on the science underpinning climate change, knowing full well that if global warming does change the world’s climate, billions of dollars of natural resources will become accessible. Another motivating factor could be that Russia simply does not want to spend the vast sums of money that would be required to modernise and “greenify” Russia’s ageing factories.

But global warming also brings with it a terrifying threat for Russia, the melting of permafrost, which covers so much of the country’s territory. Cities in the Siberian north such as Yakutsk are built entirely on permafrost, and if this melts, are in danger of collapsing, along with railways and all other infrastructure.

But many in Russia’s scientific community are deeply sceptical of the threat from global warming. And only 40 per cent of Russians believe climate change is a serious threat, a survey shows

Russia’s commitments ahead of Copenhagen have been modest. In June, the President, Dmitry Medvedev, said Russia would reduce emission levels by 10 to 15 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. But what this actually means is a whopping 30 per cent rise from the present levels. Using the 1990 figures as a benchmark is a way to gain extra leeway, because emissions in Russia have tumbled since the Soviet Union collapsed and much of its polluting industrial complex went down with it.

Of course, Russia is not alone in falling short on climate commitments. But nor does it have a track record for openness for dismissal of the claims against the FSB to be straightforward. The Tomsk hackers in the message along with their leak, wrote of their hopes that the release would “give some insight into the science and the people behind it”. Similar insights into the hackers themselves look extremely unlikely.

Source:  www.independent.co.uk/

Posted under Express 88

Global Deal for China & US Leaders

It might be ultimately down to the US and China leaders, but Nick Rowley thinks what is the most likely outcome is an “agreement on the parameters of a more effective global climate treaty and the process for agreeing the rules”. David Hood reports from Copenhagen that having aviation and maritime emissions included raises big attribution issues, particularly for “flags of convenience” nations.

Special Report for ABC Carbon Express from David Hood, Brisbane engineer and Chairman of the Australian Green Infrastructure Council (11 December):

Literally thousands have gathered here in Copenhagen for the UNFCC Conference of Parties (COP) 15.    Last figures put the total registrations at over 35,000 from NGOs, Parties to the Convention, negotiators, media, and a world of other observers.    It is now being claimed that next week, Thursday and Friday, will see the biggest ever in history gathering of world leaders in one place.  

Seems that some think we might just have a little problem to solve.    The Bella Centre where it is all happening only holds 15,000.   But worse – the main plenary hall only holds 2,000, so getting close to the real negotiations is difficult indeed.    

The mornings are cold (around 4C), and the foggy wetness of Copenhagen can be depressing, but once inside the mood is changing – there is a sense that something big is about to happen.

To get close to the happenings you have to wait to pass quite thorough security lines, and registration checks, then scan the daily agenda that is stretching up to 50 pages as the delegate numbers grow, then wander bewildered, through the vast halls and meeting rooms, wondering where we are supposed to be, and how we can best “make it happen”.   

But it does have a warming family feeling – we are here for a purpose.  On the buses, in the lines, over dinner, we mix and chat, negotiators and NGOs alike.  With no protocol, we can simply walk up to senior officials, Ministers, CEOs, and executive directors to chat about issues and concerns, and the response is welcoming. 

So far I’ve said “Hi” to Penny Wong, chatted with Tim Flannery, Greg Bourne, and met with, and been briefed by a number of Australian officials, and been welcomed at Al Gore’s Climate Project office.  

However, beating all of them is Brisbane’s Anna Keenan now in her 36th day of fasting for Climate Justice which is starting to show as weight loss and tiring, but she is amazingly happy, full of fight and spirit.  I just hope that our leaders realise her commitment and respect her and our concern with a serious outcome next week.   See Anna at www.climatejusticefast.com

Each evening, our business groups meet at Copenhagen’s NASA Club for Climate Spark’s presentation by CEOs from some of the world’s leading sustainability businesses (and some who just think they are), swapping notes and networking over a red wine or two.   It is all quite inspiring, if you put aside the fact that the energy consumption and greenhouse output from the event itself would most likely exceed that of some small evolving nations.

So, what’s been going on so far?    The “Danish Text” has caused a stir that you’ve no doubt read about as “having split the Conference”.   It is all part of the game, and now the UN and parties in a closed session this morning have negotiated and released a revised alternative text on which a response is due to be debated this weekend. 

There’s naturally disagreement from many parties on parts of both texts – for instance Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is proposed to be included in the new protocol, and Brazil is strongly opposing.   Measurement, Recording and Verification still has very problematic areas that Australia is particularly concerned over and is seeking greater transparency.   

Aviation and maritime emissions are going to be included (no more “fugitive emissions”), and these are raising big attribution issues, particularly as most of the world’s shipping is registered in evolving nations (the so called “Flags of Convenience”), unlike the airlines which “belong” to the big polluting nations for reasons of “national pride”. Interesting.

Attended a very good session today on Denmark’s sustainable buildings industry – they have been doing energy efficiency for years, and leaving us for dead!

Their energy efficiency regulations and voluntary uptake of simple things like insulation, double glazing, and thermostats on gas heating, as well as centralised precinct heating have reduced annual average energy across the built environment (commercial and residential) from 140kWh/sqm to less than 35kWh/sqm in recent years. Interesting to note a comment on growing research in Denmark on the integration of cars and buildings, as cars will more and more become mobile energy storage devices.

I’ve also connected usefully with a group promoting greater understanding of earth system science and how human activity is, and is not working with, what James Lovelock calls Gaia.  They had not thought of the significant links with engineers and how we consider systems in our artefact designs.  As most will know I believe that Environmental Engineering needs to more definitively link these two areas of learning and practice.     More to come, stay tuned.      – David A Hood FIEAust CPEng

 

Lenore Taylor in Copenhagen for The Australian (12 December 2009):

The first week in Denmark points to a mistrustful relationship between the US and China

THERE are 32,000 people at the Copenhagen climate change conference, but in the end its success will depend largely on just two: US President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

The leaders of the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters have both promised substantial emission reductions: Obama, a 17 per cent cut from 2005 levels; and China a reduction on business-as-usual emissions of about 10 per cent.

Both superpowers have been reluctant to bind those commitments into an international agreement and neither is prepared to do its bit if the other does not.

China’s preference would be for the US to join in with a second round of pledges under the legally binding Kyoto Protocol while it was left to its own devices to make good on any promise.

The US could not be any clearer that this idea is unacceptable. “The United States is not going to be part of the Kyoto Protocol, so that is not on the table. And if you mean taking the Kyoto Protocol and putting a new top on it, then we are not going to be part of that either,” US special envoy on climate change Todd Stern said this week.

That China is still clinging to hopes of such an outcome was flushed out in the posturing and pre-positioning at the Copenhagen talks.

First China and the Group 77 organisation of developing nations reacted with rather over-dramatised fury after one of their own number leaked a draft document formulated by the Danish government as a possible political deal for a single new binding treaty covering all countries. This would kill the Kyoto Protocol, they fumed, and was a plot by rich countries to avoid their responsibilities.

But when Ian Fry, a Queanbeyan-based Australian who works for the Tuvaluan government, demanded the Copenhagen meeting actually talk about one of the things it was supposed to be talking about — a new, legally binding Copenhagen Protocol to cover developing countries, to sit beside the Kyoto Protocol’s rich country pledges — China and the G77 hyperventilated even more.

China’s reluctance appears to be partly an issue of sovereignty, an unwillingness to have outsiders scrutinising what it does, and partly a fear that signing on to an agreement and failing to meet its targets could leave it exposed to the kind of carbon border taxes advocated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and contained in the US House of Representatives’ Waxman-Markey legislation.

The US is stuck in a political catch-22. The way it could build trust with China and the G77 is by offering deeper domestic emission cuts. But its legislation has not yet passed the US Senate, so it cannot put more on the table than the 17 per cent cut in the House of Representatives bill. If the Copenhagen deal fails to secure an agreement that includes China, the chances of passing strong domestic laws diminish.

The US has gone all out to prove it’s bona fide in Copenhagen in other ways, including the attendance of the President on the final day, the attendance of four cabinet secretaries and an information centre to explain all the emission-reducing things the US is doing.

But the first week of climate change talks became hopelessly mired in the debate about the form of any agreement, a debate that was really a proxy for the mistrustful stand-off between the US and China and other developing countries.

Possible outcomes include a new set of rich country pledges under a second stage of the Kyoto Protocol and another legally binding agreement containing the pledges of the US and developing countries or — Australia’s preferred option — a clear agreement for a single new treaty for everyone.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says more important than the form of the agreement is what it contains, and that has to be verifiable commitments from all large emitters. Nick Rowley, director of Australian-based consultancy Kinesis and former climate adviser to British prime minister Tony Blair, thinks the outcome is likeliest to be a single agreement similar to the much maligned Danish draft.

“The leaked Danish text is a very early draft of what is likely to form the outcome of this meeting: agreement on the parameters of a more effective global climate treaty and the process for agreeing the rules within that treaty,” Rowley says.

“Kyoto has long been viewed as the sacred cow of international climate policy, yet it has serious flaws,” the most obvious being that it does not require anything of China and is unacceptable to the US.

But this week in Copenhagen has proven that Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen was right when he decided months ago that the negotiations were never going to result in a final agreement unless political leaders stepped in and took over.

If you look at how many leaders are turning up wanting desperately to report home that they have played their part in making history, there is reason for optimism. If you look at the mistrust and lack of progress on display in the Danish capital, there is not. And, with several thousand observers on hand to scrutinise the outcome, it will not be possible for the leaders to issue a statement of fine-sounding words and spin it as an earth-saving outcome.

That’s why this meeting is such a high-stakes game.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Posted under Express 88

COP15 Initial News: WMO, WWF & IMF

World Meteorological Organization’s says the first decade of the 21st century is likely to be the warmest on record. George Soros suggests the IMF use its gold reserves as the collateral for green loans to developing countries.  WWF says clean energy technology is on track to become the third largest industrial sector globally, with Australia languish behind most industrialised countries.

Samantha Donovan for ABC’s AM Programme (9 December 2009):

Some annual reports are drab lifeless documents that are consigned early to dusty shelves or recycle bins. But one report that came out overnight will be pored over and have a life long after today.

According to the World Meteorological Organization’s annual statement, the first decade of the 21st century is likely to be the warmest on record. The snapshot of the globe’s temperatures was released at the climate change conference in Copenhagen overnight.

SAMANTHA DONOVAN: The secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, Michel Jarraud, says the first decade of the 21st century is likely to be the warmest on record. And 2009 is set to be the fifth warmest year since records began in 1850.

MICHEL JARRAUD: There were above normal temperature in most part of the continents and only in USA and Canada there were significant areas with cooler than average condition. But in large part of southern Asia, central Africa, these regions are likely to have the warmest year on record.

SAMANTHA DONOVAN: Michel Jarraud says the year has also been notable for extreme weather events.

MICHEL JARRAUD: China with the third warmest year in the last 50 years, heat waves in Italy, UK, France, Belgium, Germany, an extreme heat wave in India, and Australia the third warmest year on record with three exceptional heat waves.

SAMANTHA DONOVAN: Those heatwaves hit the south-eastern Australia in January, February and November and the sub-tropical east in August.

Blair Trewin, a climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre, isn’t surprised that the WMO has highlighted those events and the deadly February bushfires.

BLAIR TREWIN: You know it’s not often you see long term stations which have been going for a long time break monthly temperature records by two, three, four degrees and to have it happen three times in the same year in the same continent is pretty significant.

SAMANTHA DONOVAN: The WMO report also observes that an El Nino weather pattern began midyear. It’s dreaded by Australian farmers because it means lower than average rainfall, particularly in the east.

Blair Trewin says the El Nino pattern is well-established.

BLAIR TREWIN: So far the impacts in Australia have been a bit more modest than those of the last two in ’02 and ’06. It’s interesting to note that in the strongest El Nino years what you tend to see is that the year in which the El Nino ends tends to be a particularly warm one. Globally we saw that in 1998 and it will be interesting to see if something similar happens in 2010.

SAMANTHA DONOVAN: The WMO will release a final report on 2009 next March. Secretary-GeneralMichel Jarraud says at this stage it’s impossible to predict what global conditions will be like next year.

MICHEL JARRAUD: On top of the trend there’s a lot of variability, so we are in a warming trend, we have no doubt about that, but what will be the prediction for next year I would be very, very hesitant to tell you that.

TONY EASTLEY: Michel Jarraud, the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization ending Samantha Donovan’s report.

Source: www.abc.net.au

By Europe correspondent Emma Alberici for AM, ABC (11 December 2009):  

George Soros suggests the IMF use its gold reserves as the collateral for green loans.

Billionaire investor George Soros has unveiled a proposal to provide up to US$110 billion (A$120 billion) in cash for poor countries to help them develop climate-friendly technology.

Mr Soros made a flying visit to the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen to suggest the International Monetary Fund (IMF) use its gold reserves as the collateral for green loans.

He implored the 192 nations at the climate conference to consider this mechanism as a simple way to transfer money from rich to poor nations.

“There’s a gap between the developed and the developing world on this issue, which could actually wreck the conference,” he said.

“Developed countries are labouring under the misapprehension that funding has to come from their national budgets, but that is not the case. They have it already.

“It is lying idle in their reserves accounts and in the vaults of the IMF.”

Under the Soros proposal, countries would hand over their special drawing rights – international foreign currency assets distributed by the IMF.

“I propose that the developed countries… should band together and lend $US100 billion worth of these SDRs for 25 years to a special green fund serving the developing world,” Mr Soros said.

The money could be invested in low-carbon energy sources, reforestation, rain forest protection and programs to adapt to drought, floods and other consequences of climate change, he said.

Source: www.abc.net.au

 

Australia missing out on clean energy boom

Copenhagen, Denmark – A WWF report released at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen today shows clean energy technology is on track to become the third largest industrial sector globally, with Australia languish behind most industrialised countries.

Clean Economy, Living Planet – Building Strong Clean Energy Technology Industries is the first ever worldwide country ranking by clean energy sales, finding that relative to GDP, it is wind energy and insulation pioneer Denmark and bio-ethanol giant Brazil that are leading the way, with Australia ranked 28th.

The report predicts that by 2020 the industry will be worth €1600 billion a year, ranking behind automobiles and electronics as the third largest industrial sector. In 2007, clean energy technology had a sales volume of €630 billion and was already larger than the global pharmaceutical industry.

“Without an emissions trading scheme and greater support for emerging clean technologies Australia is at risk of missing out on the clean industry revolution,” said WWF Climate Change Policy Manager Kellie Caught.

“While the Government’s target of 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020 and its Flagship grants program will begin to grow Australia’s clean energy sector, it will not be enough to lift Australia to the top of the clean energy rankings.

“China, one of Australia’s major trading partners is ranked fourth in terms of clean energy technology absolute sales, and sixth relative to its GDP. As with manufacturing, Australia stands to lose the opportunity to create a thriving export market and risks thousands of clean energy jobs.

“Australia has a competitive advantage in solar thermal, geothermal, and wave technology. We need to modify the Renewable Energy Target (RET) or utilise Feed- in-tariffs to grow these industries now.

“Forgoing these opportunities for the sake of propping up an ageing, polluting fossil fuel sector for as long as its lobbying power remains significant is acting for vested interests not the national interest.”

Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF’s Global Climate Initiative, has urged nations consider the potential of an agreement in Copenhagen to drive growth in clean energy.

“Clean energy is where the money is going to be, and where energy security is going to be.

“We are already seeing clean economy growth happening now with only a partial Kyoto protocol international framework supporting clean energy development, patchy national support for green energy and huge subsidies to fossil fuel use.

“Imagine what is possible with a successful Copenhagen climate deal and the national mechanisms to deliver its outcomes.”

The report advocates countries seeking to develop their clean energy technology sectors should “follow the leaders” with technology action plans to take technologies from research to demonstration and commercialisation.

Central banks could help by encouraging the inclusion of “carbon risk” into financial modelling.  Access to seed or venture capital has also been a factor in the success of clean energy in the leading countries

The report also emphasises the importance of developing a strong domestic market in technologies with a strong domestic fit. 

For further information:

Clean Economy, Living Planet – Building Strong Clean Energy Technology

Source: www.panda.org

Posted under Express 88

Peace Prize & Power on Emissions & Efficiency

President Obama humbly accepts his Nobel Peace Prize in the same week as his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it has the power to introduce tough regulations on emissions and the US National Research Council says energy efficiency technologies lower projected energy use 17-20% by 2020, and 25- 31% by 2030.

REUTERS report (8 December 2009):

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this week cleared the way for regulation of greenhouse gases without new laws passed by Congress, reflecting President Barack Obama’s commitment to act on climate change as a major summit opened in Copenhagen.

The EPA ruling that greenhouse gases endanger human health, widely expected after it issued a preliminary finding earlier this year, will allow the agency to regulate planet-warming gases even without legislation in Congress.

The agency could begin to make rules as soon as next year to regulate emissions from vehicle tailpipes, power utilities and heavy industry under existing laws.

Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress will still pursue legislation in Congress, which has been slow to act. But the EPA move gave a timely push to the president’s aims of securing short-term limits to harmful emissions.

It was expected to inject some optimism into the two-week United Nations meeting in Copenhagen, which Obama is due to attend next week, but was criticized by some U.S. business groups who fear it could push up costs.

“EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution and is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants,” said Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator. “This administration will not ignore science or the law any longer.”

The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA had the right to regulate emissions of the gases under the Clean Air Act. But under the administration of former President George W. Bush, the EPA said Congress was the right place to frame action.

Business groups said the EPA announcement would hurt the economy and endanger jobs just as the country emerges from a deep recession.

Legislation by Congress would be more palatable politically for Obama, because it would represent a compromise between business, politicians and other interests rather than through an imposed ruling.

STRONGER HAND IN COPENHAGEN

The EPA ruling applies to six gases scientists say contribute to global warming, including the main one, carbon dioxide.

There had been fears that Obama, who has made fighting climate change one of his priorities, would arrive almost empty handed at the U.N. conference because climate legislation has stalled in Congress.

“The EPA move strengthens Obama’s hand at Copenhagen,” said Joe Mendelson, global warming policy director at the National Wildlife Federation. “It gives him additional authority that if Congress doesn’t pass climate legislation, the agency can put the country on the path to meet his climate goals.”

Obama will pledge at Copenhagen that the United States, the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, will cut emissions by roughly 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

World leaders hope to reach an agreement at the meeting on getting rich and developing countries to share the burden in fighting climate change.

The climate bill has been delayed in the U.S. Senate by a debate over a sweeping reform of healthcare, but lawmakers hope to pass a bill in the spring. Climate legislation passed narrowly in the House of Representatives in June.

The Obama administration has always said it prefers legislation over action by the EPA.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

If the EPA acts alone it could face a slew of legal challenges, including from business groups who say the action would overstep the administration’s authority, as well as from environmentalists who seek stronger steps.

But the administration had pressed the EPA to prod business to support efforts in Congress, and to show the world Washington is committed to fighting climate change.

Democratic Senator John Kerry said the EPA move was meant to spur Congress to act. But he said “imposed regulations by definition will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing in the Senate today.”

Republicans said the move was equivalent to imposing an energy tax. “By seeking to sharply curtail carbon dioxide (and thus energy usage), the EPA is in effect working to decrease economic activity,” the Republican Study Committee said.

One business group was quick to criticize the EPA.

Keith McCoy, vice president of energy policy at the National Association of Manufacturers said the EPA was moving forward with an agenda that will put additional burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up the price of energy.”

The EPA decision, which now will be open for public review, does not preclude legislation. Any new regulations could take a long time to implement, giving Congress room to act.

Still, big industry could learn about changes soon. Jackson said car makers will know by the end of March about required increases in fuel economy standards for cars built for the 2012 model year.

“All industries will be called upon to reduce carbon emissions,” said Dave McCurdy, chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

An administration proposal unveiled in September would require a boost in fuel efficiency by 40 percent by 2016 and aim to cut carbon emissions by 21 percent by 2030.

Source: www.planetark.org

 

WASHINGTON — Energy efficiency technologies that exist today or that are likely to be developed in the near future, could save considerable money as well as energy, says a new report from the National Research Council. Fully adopting these technologies could lower projected U.S. energy use 17 percent to 20 percent by 2020, and 25 percent to 31 percent by 2030.

Achieving full deployment of these efficiency technologies will depend in part on pressures driving adoption, such as high energy prices or public policies designed to increase energy efficiency. Nearly 70 percent of electricity consumption in the United States occurs in buildings.

The energy savings from attaining full deployment of cost-effective, energy-efficient technologies in buildings alone could eliminate the need to add new electricity generation capacity through 2030, the report says. New power generation facilities would be needed only to address imbalances in regional energy supplies, replace obsolete facilities, or to introduce more environmentally friendly sources of electricity.

Many cost-effective efficiency investments in buildings are possible, the report says. For example, replacing appliances such as air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, furnaces, and hot water heaters with more efficient models could reduce energy use by 30 percent.

Opportunities for achieving substantial energy savings exist in the industrial and transportation sectors as well. For example, deployment of industrial energy efficiency technologies could reduce energy use in manufacturing 14 percent to 22 percent by 2020, relative to expected trends. Most of these savings would occur in the most energy-intensive industries, such as chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, pulp and paper, iron and steel, and cement.

Although there is great potential, many barriers exist to widespread adoption of energy efficiency technologies, the report points out. The upfront costs can be high, which can deter investment despite the possibility of long-term cost savings.

Volatile energy prices can cause buyers to delay purchasing more efficient technology due to a lack of confidence that they will see an adequate return on their investment. In addition, there is a shortage of readily available, trustworthy information for consumers hoping to learn about the relative performance and costs of energy-efficient technology alternatives.

Investments in energy-efficient infrastructure are particularly important, as these can lock in patterns of energy use for decades. Therefore, taking advantage of windows of opportunity for infrastructure is crucial.

Overcoming these barriers will require significant public and private support, and sustained effort. Many energy efficiency initiatives have been successful, such as the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star labeling program. Efforts undertaken by California and New York have yielded large energy savings for those states. These experiences provide valuable lessons for national, state, and local policymakers on enacting effective energy efficiency policies.

This is the final report in a series from the National Academies’ America’s Energy Future project, which was undertaken to stimulate and inform a constructive national dialogue about the nation’s energy future.

The America’s Energy Future project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, BP America, Dow Chemical Company Foundation, Fred Kavli and the Kavli Foundation, GE Energy, General Motors Corp., Intel Corp., and the W.M. Keck Foundation. Support was also provided by the National Academies through the following endowed funds created to perpetually support the work of the National Research Council: Thomas Lincoln Casey Fund, Arthur L. Day Fund, W.K. Kellogg Foundation Fund, George and Cynthia Mitchell Endowment for Sustainability Science, and the Frank Press Fund for Dissemination and Outreach. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.

Source: www.national-academies.org