Increase Productivity on Land, Reduce Emissions & Boost Soil Carbon

CSIRO chief executive Megan Clark said the nation’s best scientists would collaborate with government agencies, universities and agribusinesses to find new, environmentally-friendly farming and forestry alternatives aimed at increasing productivity by 50%, while cutting carbon emissions by the same amount. Connection Research’s Graeme Philipson says the findings of a recent study highlight the opportunities for Australia to be a major international player in the technology of carbon sequestration in soil.

AAP Reports (8 February 2010):

The CSIRO has set its sights on increasing the nation’s agricultural productivity by 50 per cent, while cutting carbon emissions by the same amount.

Australia’s leading scientific organisation on Monday launched its newest research flagship program into sustainable agriculture.

Its goal is to work out how to secure the nation’s agriculture and forest industries by increasing productivity by 50 per cent, while also reducing carbon emissions intensity by at least that much between now and 2030.

CSIRO chief executive Megan Clark said farmers and foresters were facing new challenges and had to adapt.

“We simply cannot continue to farm marginal land or destroy forest for agricultural acreage this time,” she said at the launch in Canberra.

Dr Clark said the organisation’s best scientists would collaborate with government agencies, universities and agribusinesses to find new, environmentally-friendly farming and forestry alternatives.

Science and Research Minister Kim Carr said the new flagship program would conduct about $70 million worth of research and development a year.

About 60 per cent of the money would come from the federal government, with the rest mainly competitive grant funding from public and private sources.

Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said the goals were achievable and did two main things.

“They allow us to be making the transition to a low carbon economy, while at the same time taking advantage of … the increased demand for food throughout the world,” he said.

Source: www.news.theage.com.au

Graeme Philipson for Connection Research:

Carbon sequestration in soil has become a hot topic in recent month with the failure of the Copenhagen conference and the fierce debate in Australia over the government’s proposed CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) and whether agriculture and land use should be included in it. The federal opposition is promoting it as an important part of the answer to our climate change problems.

Many people have come into being with a range of soil sequestration technologies and techniques, but the debate is still in its infancy. Now Sydney based market analyst company Connection Research has released the finding of its survey of Australian practitioners and consultants in the science and economics of carbon sequestration in soil.

The survey was conducted by email in late 2009 and sponsored by software company Object Consulting. The participants were selected from a review of all individuals and organisations mentioned in newspaper and magazine articles and scientific literature in Australia in 2009. Of 167 parties identified, 82 responded.

“A number of key findings emerge,” says Connection Research’s Graeme Philipson, author of the report. “The most significant is that carbon sequestration in soil, by whatever means, is regarded as the most effective technology for removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. It is regarded as more effective than renewable energy sources, more effective than energy conservation practices, and much more effective than so-called ‘clean coal’, which is regarded with great suspicion.”

Mr Philipson says there is a strong consensus that carbon sequestration in soil is the only way that significant amounts of CO₂ can be removed from the atmosphere. Renewables and capture will take a long time to have any impact, whereas carbon sequestration in soil can be effective immediately.

“There is also a strong consensus that Australia has an opportunity to be a major international player in the technology of carbon sequestration in soil,” says Philipson. “But there are many challenges”.

The survey lists a number of these. They include:

• Government Policy – there is a great deal of scepticism that the Australian Government understands the issues or is able to develop an effective policy framework.
• Measurement and Verification – who will measure, verify and monitor the levels of sequestration?
• Allocation of Resources – it all costs money. Who pays? Who receives?
• Risk of Reversal – How do we know the process is permanent, or sufficiently so to make a difference?
• Education – Most people don’t know about the technology. For it to be effective and for the public to be on side, there needs to be much greater public awareness of the technology and its benefits.

The report also shows there is strong agreement that verification of offsets through carbon sequestration in soil should be done through a statutory body or some sort of government or government-accredited agency. There is little support for the market determining the credibility of the verifier. But there is a strong belief in market forces – that the market rather than the government should determine the price or carbon, and therefore the value of offsets. There is a general distrust of government as a player, but an acceptance that effective government policy should set the framework.

“We believe the evidence points towards the emergence of a large carbon trading market in Australia and worldwide,” says Graeme Philipson. “Carbon offsets will be a very important part of that market, and the sequestration of carbon in soil will be a very significant component of those offsets. While there is some uncertainty over many aspects of the technology and the economics of carbon sequestration in soil, there is no doubt that it will be an enormous subject of debate and scientific enquiry over the next decade or more.

“Organisations and individuals who move now to establish expertise and visibility in this area will be well placed to take advantage of the many developments that will occur as the market matures and the technology become more defined and more effective.”

Graeme Philipson can be contacted on 0418 609 397, or at graemep@connectionresearch.com.au

Source: www.connectionresearch.com.au

Back to the Future: Slow is the New Fast

A strong indication that the aviation industry is serious in its commitment to a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, a special Green Pavilion  appeared at the Singapore Airshow for the first time last week showcasing the latest environmental technologies.  And for the ultimate in clean air travel, the Aircruise is conceptually launched.  A giant, vertical airship is lifted by hydrogen and powered by solar energy, to benefit both travellers and the environment.

By Satish Cheney, Channel NewsAsia (04 February 2010):

SINGAPORE : The aviation industry is committed to a 50 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, and reflecting that challenge is a special green exhibition at the Singapore Airshow this year.

Major aviation companies are showcasing the latest environmental technologies at the Green Pavilion at the airshow.

The sector now accounts for two per cent of global carbon emissions and that could rise – especially since the industry is set for major growth in the Asia-Pacific region.

“The one positive thing about aviation and going green is green technology is tied to fuel burn. So as you reduce the amount of fuel you burn, you reduce the amount of carbon emissions and that is definitely related to profitability of the airlines,” said Paul Finklestein, VP of Marketing at Pratt & Whitney.

Reflecting how serious the industry is, in 2008, the European Union (EU) set up a 1.6 billion euros Clean Sky project – a programme to come up with new technologies quickly.

“The normal lifespan of an aeroplane is 30 years and the development of this kind of technology is 10 years. So we really have to start putting as much effort as possible into developing these new technologies,” said Holger Standertskjold, Ambassador & Head of Delegation, EU.

With aviation companies putting all their focus on coming out of dark economic times, there are concerns that green initiatives will take a step back. But aviation companies insist that will not be the case.

“We are pushing forward and this year, (we have) two main projects. The first one is implementation of bio fuels for aviation and the second one is development of modernised air-traffic management,” said Carine Huc-Pinault, director of Environment Strategy, Airbus.

Last month, Airbus flew for the first time a commercial flight with 50 per cent alternative fuel blended with normal jet fuel, successfully.

Despite emerging technologies, the failure to reach any serious agreement in the recent Copenhagen climate talks will mean that the aviation sector will have a challenging time.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

By Kate Schneider (4 February 2010):

TOWERING airships could be the future of luxury travel following the introduction of a concept called the Aircruise.

UK company Seymourpowell today released details of the new travel and transportation concept, which it has likened to a hotel in the sky.

The Aircruise is a giant, vertical airship powered by natural energy and designed to carry travellers instyle and luxury.

Standing at 265 metres tall from base to tip and is capable of lifting 396 tonnes, the craft features penthouse apartments, stylish bars and an array of glass viewing floors.

The company based its design around a maximum of 100 passengers on board, making the journey an adventure in itself.

Nick Talbot, design director at Seymourpowell, said the concept presents an alternative vision of the future, where ‘slow is the new fast’.

“The Aircruise concept questions whether the future of luxury travel should be based around space-constrained, resource hungry, and all too often stressful airline travel, Mr Talbot said.

“A more serene transport experience will appeal to people looking for a more reflective journey, where the experience of travel itself is more important than getting from A to B quickly.”

Lifted by hydrogen and powered by solar energy, the Aircruise concept has benefits both for travellers and the environment.

“The physics of the airship requires a gigantic volume of lifting gas, yet simultaneously demands a relatively limited amount of weight. This allows for a potentially large amount of space with relatively few people onboard – a luxury for any traveller,” Mr Talbot said.

The company has designed a detailed technical specification for the aircraft and believes the project is “achievable”.

It is estimated the craft will travel from London to New York in approximately 37 hours with a cruising speed without tail or headwind of 100 to 150 km/h.

There will be six flight crew members and 14 support staff.

Korean giant Samsung Construction and Trading is also behind the project.

Source: www.news.com.au

Save the Poles Expedition as Arctic Ice Disappears Faster

Climate change is transforming the Arctic environment faster than expected and accelerating the disappearance of sea ice, according to the latest findings from a research project involving more than 370 scientists from 27 countries. Intrepid explorer Eric Larsen has completed his South Pole journey over the southern summer, is getting ready to tackle the North Pole and then will climb Mount Everest -  all this within one year to promote clean energy and to “save the poles”.

Rod Nickel for  Reuters (6 February 2010):

WINNIPEG, Manitoba  - Climate change is transforming the Arctic environment faster than expected and accelerating the disappearance of sea ice, scientists said on Friday in giving their early findings from the biggest-ever study of Canada’s changing north.

The research project involved more than 370 scientists from 27 countries who collectively spent 15 months, starting in June 2007, aboard a research vessel above the Arctic Circle. It marked the first time a ship has stayed mobile in Canada’s high Arctic for an entire winter.

“(Climate change) is happening much faster than our most pessimistic models expected,” said David Barber, a professor at the University of Manitoba and the study’s lead investigator, at a news conference in Winnipeg.

Models predicted only a few years ago that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by the year 2100, but the increasing pace of climate change now suggests it could happen between 2013 and 2030, Barber said.

Scientists link higher Arctic temperatures and melting sea ice to the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

The Arctic is considered a type of early-warning system of climate change for the rest of the world.

“We know we’re losing sea ice — the world is all aware of that,” Barber said. “What you’re not aware of is that it has impacts on everything else that goes on in this system.”

The loss of the sea ice is taking away areas for the region’s mammals to reproduce, find food and elude predators, said Steve Ferguson, a scientist with the Canadian government who took part in the study.

Whale species previously not found in the Arctic are moving into the region because there is less sea ice to restrict their movements.

Climate change is also bringing more cyclones into the Arctic, dumping snow on the sea ice, which limits how thick it can get, and bringing winds that break up the ice, Barber said.

The study is part of the International Polar Year, a large scientific program focused on the Arctic and Antarctic. The scientists have not yet produced conclusions, but they expect to publish dozens of academic papers.

The cost of the Arctic’s rapid melt will be $2.4 trillion by 2050 as the region loses its ability to cool the global climate, the U.S.-based Pew Environment Group said on Friday. The group released a report showing the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet.

Both the Canadian government and the oil and gas industry are keenly interested in the possible environmental impact of development further north in the Arctic, said professor Louis Fortier of Laval University.

Currently, development is focused on mainland regions such as the massive gas fields in the Mackenzie River Delta on the Beaufort Sea. But receding ice levels may make the wider Arctic more accessible to ships and make drilling in more areas possible.

“Conclusions will come later, but … up to now there’s no indication that the impacts would be larger (further north) than elsewhere in the Arctic,” Fortier said.

Source: www.au.news.yahoo.com

From Save the Poles (1 February 2010):

Eric Larsen is making it happen. He completed his South Pole journey over the southern summer and is getting ready to tackle the North Pole. Then he will climb Mount Everest. All this within one year to promote clean energy and “save the poles”.

Here’s Eric Larsen’s latest update as he prepares for his Arctic mission:

“I spent a few hours yesterday with Richard Ortner, a meteorologist from Denver’s KMGH channel 7. We talked about our changing climate, life on the trail, polar gear and training.

“With only a few weeks before my North Pole departure, I am trying to reign in chaos. Not that easy. I wish I could report that everything is great and it’s been smooth sailing but the opposite is true. Our military flights to northern Ellesemere Island did not get final approval and Ryan Waters a stalwart mountaineer and polar traveler backed out of the North Pole team for personal reasons.

“I am trying to prioritize in these final weeks, but it only makes me realize what I already know. Everything is important! In a polar expedition each piece is a critical component of the whole. Training, gear, proper diet (ie clif bars), logistics, safety net, team, clothing, travel systems… I’ll stop there.

“I have had some amazing conversations with all sorts of folks lately about polar travel, solar power, mapping and much more.”

In 2009, renowned Polar Explorer Eric Larsen began an unprecedented journey to the top, bottom and roof of the world. During a continuous 365-day period, Larsen will mount major unsupported expeditions to the North and South Poles and an expedition to the summit of Mt. Everest. This feat has never been completed in one year. To date, only 15 people (no Americans) in history have been to all three ‘poles’.

The expedition’s objectives are:

• Complete the first-ever expedition to Mt. Everest, the North Pole and South Pole in a continuous 365-day period
• Promote clean energy solutions, advocate strategies for reducing carbon emissions post Kyoto 2012 and collect relevant scientific data
• Produce a documentary film, book and educational CD-ROM that focuses on global warming, teamwork and the spirit of adventure
• Develop a post expedition multi-media lecture series

Mount Everest and the North and South Poles represent the harshest and most extreme environments on the planet. Yet as inhospitable as these places are to humans, they are also the areas most affected by people. By summer 2040, the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free. Recently, the 1,250 square mile Larsen B Ice Shelf collapsed off of Antarctica and disintegrated into the Southern Ocean. Snow and ice once stretched to Edmund Hillary’s Everest base camp but now ends five miles above.

While we are seeing the most dramatic changes in the Polar and higher altitude regions, Global Warming is an issue that affects us all.

Source: www.savethepoles.com

Enormous Biofuel Potential for Fast-Growing Eucalypts

Biofuels can replace fossil fuels without eating into too much valuable farming land, says Australian expert Professor Robert Henry, who believes the world could completely overcome its dependence on oil by planting 100 million hectares of biofuel crops – equivalent to about a seventh of Australia’s landmass. But by reducing consumption by increased fuel-efficiency, the area required for biofuels could reduce to perhaps 50 million hectares.

Anna Salleh reports for ABC (27 January 2010):

Biofuels can replace a significant amount of our reliance on fossil fuels without eating into too much valuable farming land, says an Australian expert.

Professor Robert Henry, of the Bioenergy Research Institute at Southern Cross University in Lismore, reports his findings in the online ahead of print edition of Plant Biotechnology.

“It is possible to replace oil by using a relatively small proportion of our total arable land,” says Henry, who has also just completed a book titled Plant resources for food, fuel and conservation.

Recently, concerns have been raised about the potential for biofuel crops to take up land that could otherwise be used for producing food.

But Henry says his analysis shows the world could replace all its dependence on oil by planting 100 million hectares of prime agricultural land to biofuel crops – equivalent to about a seventh of Australia’s landmass.

He says while electric vehicles are an option in cities, liquid fuel alternatives to petrol will continue to be important for heavy transport and aviation because they have a greater energy density than batteries.

Henry says reducing consumption by increasing fuel-efficiency could reduce the area required for biofuels to perhaps plant 50 million hectares.

He says the leading biomass producers in the world include eucalypts and sugarcane, which produce 50 to 100 tonnes of dry biomass per hectare under the best conditions.

Henry says growing biofuel crops on degraded agricultural land would be another option, although this would require more land because the productivity is lower.

He says fast-growing eucalypts have enormous potential globally as a biofuel because they have high productivity in “less than perfect environments”.

Green biofuels?

But Henry says it will be important to roll out biofuel crops in a thoughtful way so that they are a genuine improvement on fossil fuels.

Today’s biofuel crops only convert certain parts of the plant – such as sugar, starch or oil.

But, he says, new technology should aim to convert all of the carbon in the plant, including the woody parts, into fuel to make biofuels an efficient option.

It would also be important to consider the impact of biofuel crops on biodiversity, says Henry. Areas of high biodiversity should be locked up, while tree crops may be planted to improve the biodiversity of degraded farmlands, he says.

Weeds

Henry says another big issue to consider is that biofuel crops are generally chosen for their ability to grow fast and this means they can turn into weeds.

“What need to do is understand their ‘weediness’ before we grow them on a large scale,” he says.

Henry says it’s also important to consider the energy costs in biofuel production.

“The whole lifecycle assessment is important in this,” he says.

This means including fertiliser use, water use, and the location of biofuel crops – which would be best located in regional areas close to cities, says Henry.

“It’s a challenging area because there are so many things you’ve got to analyse to come up with the bottom line is in terms of your net impact,” he says.

Economic incentive

Henry there is a strong economic incentive for Australia to grow more biofuel crops because its oil production is declining.

“Most of our oil in 10 years time will be being imported and that will be a huge cost to Australia,” he says.

Henry says his analysis shows only a bit over a million hectares of highly productive land would be needed to replace the oil used in the country.

“I think we can move fairly quickly in Australia to replacing a third of our fuel with biofuel by 2020 or 2025 without great effort,” he says.

“But we have to have a more considered plan about how we’re going to approach that so we do it in a way that’s going to have a positive environmental benefit.”

Source: www.abc.net.au,  www.scu.edu.au and www.beri.com.au

Energy Efficiency Plays Vital Role for Energy Security

Tony Hayward, group chief executive of BP, told the London Business School that energy security has become a defining issue for the 21st century and “in all circumstances, energy efficiency is the number one priority. That means more efficient vehicles, buildings and electronic appliances – more investment in technology and infrastructure, such as smart grids”.

Andrew Charlesworth for BusinessGreen (5 February 2010):

Energy efficiency will play a vital role in delivering energy security, Tony Hayward, group chief executive of BP told the London Business School in a speech yesterday.

Energy security has become a defining issue for the 21st century and “in all circumstances, energy efficiency is the number one priority. That means more efficient vehicles, buildings and electronic appliances – more investment in technology and infrastructure such as smart grids,” he said.

Fears of overdependence on expensive, imported energy were best allayed by focusing on efficiency, he said: “The most effective way to reduce such dependence is to curb energy consumption – and costs – by significantly investing in energy efficiency.”

Scares over Britain’s dependence on imported gas – which came to the fore during the recent cold period – were more problems of storage and distribution than issues of supply structure, he reasoned. “It’s about the need for investment in infrastructure such as pipelines and storage capacity.”

But energy independence is an unrealistic aim for the UK, he said, and gas will remain the optimum short-term solution to the UK’s energy needs. “Gas is the fuel that offers the greatest potential to achieve the largest greenhouse gas reductions – at the lowest cost, in the shortest time – and by using technology that’s available today.”

Hayward also told the audience that the Copenhagen climate talks should not be seen as a failure but the moment when the global climate debate became ” realistic”.

“There is a dawning realisation that we can’t afford to be paralysed by the absence of agreed targets… Individual governments need to act regardless of whether there is a global treaty…moving in the same direction, not necessarily in lockstep.

“For the first time since the climate debate began in earnest 20 years ago, the vast majority of the world’s countries are lined up and heading in the same direction. Most importantly, China and the US are on board,” he said.

BP forecasts that global energy demand will roughly double by 2050, a demand which can be met only by a diversity of energy sources, Hayward said. “That’s going to require investment of more than $1tn (£638bn) a year – every year.”

Consequently, fossil fuels will be with us for many years to come, he predicted.

“There will still be a major role for hydrocarbons… The share of renewable energy will certainly increase, but we have to be realistic about its contribution… The International Energy Agency can’t see [renewables] accounting for much more than five per cent of consumption in 2030, even with aggressive policy support.”

Nevertheless, BP will continue to factor a carbon cost into the investment choices and engineering design of new projects, he promised. “This is our way of ensuring that our investments are competitive not only in today’s world but in a future where carbon has a more robust price.”

Source: www.businessgreen.com

Time to Join the Frontrunners for Clean Energy Boom

No wonder Australia is lagging behind Spain, Denmark and China with renewable energy, writes Matthew Wright of Beyond Zero. Australia continues to rely on wasteful 19th-century technology. In periods of low demand, such as the dead of night, our antiquated coal-fired power stations throw energy away by blowing steam. We have failed to plan and invest in wind and solar, even though we have the land, plentiful resources and the technology.

The article by Matthew Wright appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald (3 February 2010):

No wonder Australia is lagging behind Spain and China with renewable energy, writes Matthew Wright of Beyond Zero.

Renewable energy is the fastest growing power source in the world, and already generates baseload electricity on the scale of utilities. Large solar thermal plants with heat storage can dispatch power around the clock every day of the week regardless of whether the sun is shining, and make handsome profits during demand peaks.

Wind power is being installed on scales that dwarf Australian grid requirements. These and other clean energy technologies are replacing coal on modern grids. While Australia continues to throw money at 19th-century technologies, Spain, China, the US and others are charging ahead with zero-emissions power generation, and creating export markets.

Spain consumes about as much electricity as Australia, though its population is about twice as large. Like Australia, Spain is blessed with strong, consistent sunshine, and it uses this attribute to ensure energy security. Already it has built 24-hour baseload solar plants, using molten salt to store heat which is then used to create steam and turn turbines. It started with Andasol 1, a 50MW plant, and has now completed two similar projects. More than 1,800MW of projects are under construction and the government has just approved another 2,440MW for their feed-in tariff scheme for construction over the next three years.

The Gemasolar project is the shining light of the Spanish boom in baseload solar power. This solar thermal plant has created 1500 jobs and will operate at 60 to 100 per cent of maximum turbine output for up to 90 per cent of hours each year. Very low maintenance shutdown requirements allow this efficiency, far greater than coal-fired power generators in NSW. When the turbine is idle, heat is bled off the ”cold” 290-degree salt storage tank to keep the turbine seals warm, allowing fast starting – as seen in the best hydro and gas plants. This capacity for baseload and fast-start ”dispatchable” power generation places the Gemasolar plant among the highest-value electricity plants, a fact not lost on investors.

This solar generation capacity is in addition to Spanish wind power. Wind turbines supply 11 per cent of Spain’s electricity demand, and this will more than double to 25 per cent by 2020. Another 6000MW of wind power is approved for installation in the next three years. That is just shy of three plants the size of the Bayswater power station near Muswellbrook, with all the jobs but no emissions.

Spain is phasing out coal and nuclear, and the companies that built the nuclear plants have re-tooled to build solar thermal plants with heat storage. These companies did not want to own the nuclear plants they built, but they have set up investment vehicles to own solar thermal plants.

Compared to the 10 years it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running, solar thermal plants with 24-hour baseload capacity have construction times as short as nine months, so such projects are not exposed to the same political, industrial and financial risks as nuclear plants. Envisaging a lucrative market for their solar infrastructure and expertise, the Spanish anticipate a healthy return on any subsidies for these technologies.

In China, solar hot water and photovoltaic (PV) panels have had huge commercial success. Maintenance-free evacuated tube solar hot water systems were developed in Australia. They are cheap – each tube wholesales for less than $5 and a system for a family costs less than $500. More than 50 million Chinese households now enjoy unlimited, free hot water from such systems.

China produces solar PV panels on a huge scale, and is the leading manufacturer of this technology for domestic rooftops. This triumph also owes much to Australian innovation, and to Australian governments’ failure to support the industry on home soil.

The University of NSW solar PV team is the world leader in its field and holds the global efficiency record for ordinary silicon cells. Much of the technology in China, particularly from the leading company, Suntech, leverages off this Australian innovation.

The Chinese were also ahead of the game when the global financial crisis hit. Their government moved quickly to arrange for government buildings to purchase surplus industrial output. This meant the billions of dollars Chinese companies had invested in PV plants were not wasted when demand suddenly fell.

This is in stark contrast with the situation in Australia. Melbourne’s Solar Systems has proven commercial success in displacing diesel in diesel/solar hybrid power generation for remote aboriginal communities. Solar Systems, a leader in its field, was unable to generate operational revenue and was forced into administration in August. With a bit of Chinese-style foresight, the Rudd government could have created a pipeline of projects for remote area power systems dependent on diesel. This would have been a responsible use of stimulus funds, and assured the company remained viable and ready for the boom after the global financial crisis.

Chinese wind power blows us away, too. A total of 30,000MW of wind power was planned to come online by 2020, but this target will be met early this year. China is now planning for 150,000MW of wind power by 2020, and again it is likely that this will be achieved much earlier.

Within the 150,000MW wind power target is the ”Three Gorges of Wind” project. Named after the world’s biggest engineering project, the Three Gorges dam, it will produce 70,000MW at seven large sites and twice as much electricity as the Three Gorges Dam, but cost half as much. The Three Gorges of Wind will produce about the same amount of electricity as the electricity grid on Australia’s eastern seaboard.

Denmark obtains 20 per cent of its electricity from wind, and this will increase to 50 per cent by 2025. Wind turbines from the 1980s will be replaced with new models that are 30 times larger and much more efficient in a wide variety of wind conditions.

NSW alone is 19 times larger than Denmark. It has about the same population and experiences as much wind in any given place. Our national electricity grid extends from Tasmania and South Australia to far northern Queensland. With such a massive resource over a vast area, wind power can make a large contribution to Australian energy security.

Australia continues to rely on wasteful 19th-century technology. In periods of low demand, such as the dead of night, our antiquated coal-fired power stations throw energy away by blowing steam.

In Germany, policy decisions have boosted renewable energy sales and provided the environment for a high-tech manufacturing industry. This is despite the fact that, under often-grey northern skies, PV panels installed in Germany may produce 50 to 65 per cent less energy over their lifetime than equivalent panels in Australia. German households and businesses will add up to three gigawatts (GW) of photovoltaic generation by the end of this year, bringing the national total to eight GW. That is 86 per cent of the entire Hunter Valley generating capacity.

Planning authorities in the US are also swamped with plans for wind and solar thermal power. More than 97,000MW of solar thermal projects are seeking approval from the US Bureau of Land Management. In the south-west of the country, the bureau is doing a study that would speed up development of more than 100,000MW of right-of-way sites (degraded government lands) for solar thermal plants. There go another 38 Bayswater equivalents. An underdeveloped grid is the main obstacle to the expansion of wind power in the US, but President Barack Obama has announced a huge modernisation plan.

The global financial crisis caused hold-ups with project finance, but with federal stimulus now behind many projects, thousands of megawatts of solar thermal with storage will break ground this year. It includes a huge complex in Nevada by the Spanish multinational Abengoa and another in California by the Israeli constructor BrightSource Energy. These companies are now exporting their expertise, a far more valuable commodity than coal.

With quick action, Australia could develop a solar thermal industry and join this lucrative market.

Those who perpetuate the myth that renewable energy cannot satisfy our electricity demand have an interest in long-established, emissions-intensive industries. These largely foreign-owned companies would prefer to see our energy keep coming from the same old dirty sources. The Rudd government seems more than happy to encourage this approach, signing up to the Coalition’s version of the emissions trading scheme to offer $7 billion of compensation to coal-fired generators, while stonewalling on renewables. This strategy, like the Coalition’s business-as-usual outlook, ignores the opportunities for jobs, export earnings, energy security and zero-emissions electricity on offer in the renewable sector.

With our advantages in sunshine, wind and expertise, Australia should move quickly to make up for lost time, and join the frontrunners in clean energy. Failure to act means Australians will remain stuck in the coal pit while the world prospers from a renewable energy boom.

Matthew Wright is executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions. It is developing plans that could shift Australia to zero emissions by 2020 using existing technologies.

Source: www.smh.com.au and www.beyondzeroemissions.org

70% in US Survey Want CO2 Regulated as a Pollutant

Most Americans continue to want their elected leaders at all levels of government to get on with the job of developing solutions to global warming, says Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University commenting on the latest comprehensive survey. “Two out of three also want to see ordinary citizens like themselves doing more about global warming.”

Centre for Climate Change Communication (4 February 2010):

New Haven, Conn.—Despite a sharp drop in public concern over global warming, Americans—regardless of political affiliation—support the passage of federal climate and energy policies, according to the results of a national survey released a few days ago by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

The survey found support for:

• Funding more research on renewable energy, such as solar and wind power (85 percent)
• Tax rebates for people buying fuel-efficient vehicles or solar panels (82 percent)
• Establishing programs to teach Americans how to save energy (72 percent)
• Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (71 percent)
• School curricula to teach children about the causes, consequences and potential solutions to global warming (70 percent)
• Signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050 (61 percent)
• Establishing programs to teach Americans about global warming (60 percent)

“Surprisingly, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats support many of these policies, including renewable energy research, tax rebates, regulating carbon dioxide, and expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change.

“Further, majorities in both parties support returning revenues from a cap-and-trade system to American households to offset higher energy costs, perhaps opening a pathway for Congressional action.”

Sixty percent of Americans, however, said they have heard “nothing at all” about the cap-and-trade legislation currently being considered by Congress. Only 12 percent had heard “a lot.”

When cap and trade is explained, 58 percent support the policy, but this support drops to approximately 40 percent if household energy costs increase by $15 a month, or 50 cents a day. Sixty-six percent support cap and trade, however, if every household were to receive a yearly bonus of $180 to offset higher energy costs. In addition, 59 percent of Americans said they would likely spend the bonus on home energy efficiency improvements. This increases to 71 percent if the government offered to double the bonus if it was spent on energy efficiency improvements.

Sixty-two percent said the United States should make a “medium-” to “large-scale” effort to reduce global warming, even if doing so has “moderate” or “large” economic costs. This represents a 12-point decline since the fall of 2008. Sixty-nine percent said global warming should be a “medium” to “very high” priority of President Obama and Congress, while approximately half want local, state and federal officials to do more to address the issue. Both of those results represent 10- to 15-point declines since the fall of 2008.

“Most Americans continue to want their elected leaders at all levels of government to get on with the job of developing solutions to global warming,” said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. “Two out of three also want to see ordinary citizens like themselves doing more about global warming.”

The results come from a nationally representative survey of 1,001 American adults, age 18 and older. The sample was weighted to correspond with U.S. Census Bureau parameters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence. The survey was designed by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities and conducted from December 24, 2009 to January 3, 2010 by Knowledge Networks, using an online research panel of American adults.

A copy of the full report can be downloaded from http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/PolicySupportJan2010.pdf

 Source: www.climatechangecommunication.org

274 000 More Jobs with 25% Clean Energy Mandate

A national mandate requiring utilities to generate 25% of power from sources such as wind and solar energy by 2025 will create three times more jobs than the weaker measures US Congress is considering, a study released in Washington last week by renewable energy advocates, while IPO fever is gripping greentech, with rumours circulating that Amryis, the company that made synthetic biology a household word, could be next.

Ayesha Rascoe for Reuters World Environment News ( 5 February 2010):

WASHINGTON – A national mandate requiring utilities to generate 25 percent of power from sources such as wind and solar energy by 2025 will create three times more jobs than weaker measures Congress is considering, a study released by renewable energy advocates said in Washington last week.

RES-Alliance for Jobs, a coalition of green power businesses and trade groups, is using the new study to promote the benefits of a high federal renewable electricity mandate.

“A strong renewable electricity standard is crucial to create a stable investment environment and grow this highly promising sector,” said Don Furman, senior vice president for development, transmission, and policy at wind energy company Iberdrola Renewables.

“Without a strong RES, the US wind industry will see no net job growth, and will likely lose jobs to overseas competitors,” Furman added.

Clean energy backers have been lobbying Congress to adopt a higher national renewable mandate than the measures lawmakers are considering, but they face opposition from lawmakers concerned about raising energy prices during a recession.

The study commissioned by the alliance found the industry would create 274,000 more jobs under a 25 percent renewable power standard than it would create without a mandate.

Such a standard would add three times more jobs than would be gained under a House approved renewable power target and a similar measure that’s pending in the Senate, the study found.

The House passed a bill last year that would require at least 15 percent of electricity generated by utilities to come from renewable sources by 2020.

A mandate approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee would also set a 15 percent renewable power target, but states could meet up to a quarter of the mandate through energy efficiency measures.

Lawmakers from regions without a great deal of solar and wind resources have argued against imposing a stringent renewable electricity standard, saying their constituents would be penalized with more expensive power bills.

To counter this opposition, the alliance pointed to the study’s findings that every state would gain more jobs from a higher renewable standard. The Southeast, which is heavily reliant on coal, would benefit from thousands of new jobs in the biomass industries, the study said.

Source: www.planetark.org

Michael Kanellos for GreenTech Media (5 February 2010):

Will Amyris Be Next to File for an IPO?

IPO fever is gripping greentech, and rumors are circulating that Amryis, the company that made synthetic biology a household word, could be one of the next to file.

The company, which spun out of research conducted at UC Berkeley, could file the necessary documents for an IPO in the second quarter, according to sources. So far, Amyris has raised around $165 million. Codexis, which makes enzymes for fuel production, filed its S-1, the prelude to an IPO, in December and Mascoma, which wants to make cellulosic ethanol, has been trying to raise a few hundred million from the private equity markets to pay for a plant.

Amyris specializes in concocting microbes that feed on sugars and secrete made-to-order hydrocarbon molecules that can be converted into jet fuel, industrial chemicals or biodiesel. In nature, yeast ordinarily eat sugar and produce alcohol. (Fine wine is what happens when microbes go to the bathroom, but don’t expect a sommelier to tell you that.) Developing a genome so that yeast secrete hydrocarbons instead of beer or wine is Amyris’ secret sauce.

Amyris, potentially, will be able to biodiesel that it can sell for $2 a barrel at wholesale, CEO John Melo told us in late 2008.

The first product out of the company was an artificial version of artemisinin, an antimalaria drug that drew millions in support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The metabolic pathway for developing fuel is different, but similar to the one for making artemisinin.

“Some people refer to it (synthetic biology) as metabolic engineering on steroids,” Jack Newman, one of Amyris’ founders, told us earlier. “There are a few things we have adopted from plants. Plants are great for making hydrocarbons.”

Although we spoke to Melo and Newman earlier, we didn’t talk to either of them for this story.

If anything, the company has been notably active lately. In December, it paid $82 million to Brazil’s São Martinho Group for a 40 percent stake in an ethanol mill project that the parties hope will be operational by 2011 or 2012. The Brazilian company already controls three ethanol plants that make about 600 million liters (158 million gallons) of ethanol per year.

Five days later, it entered into letter of intent agreements with three other Brazilian companies-Acucar Guarani, Bunge Limited and Cosan-to produce ethanol and high value chemicals. Later in that month, it hired a chief commercial officer (Peter Boynton) and a COO (Mario Portela).

The company is also working with the state of Alabama to build sugarcane plantations and yeast-powered fuel refineries in that state. Amyris does not want to license its technology. Instead, it wants to produce fuel itself with industrial partners and sell it, initially to large fleet buyers.

If Amyris does file for an IPO, and Codexis follows through a public offering, it will mark a notable moment in biofuels. Investors have plunked hundreds of millions into cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel companies in the last five years. So far, though, only a few of these companies have produced much fuel and no one really is producing large, commercial volumes. Successful IPOs could jumpstart the market by giving these two companies the needed capital to build factories. The U.S. is also woefully behind in meeting its own biofuel mandates so expect some support and encouragement from the government too.

Then again, the road to fuel nirvana has been paved with delays. Back in 2008, Melo said he hoped the company would be able to produce 200 million gallons or so out of its first Brazilian plant. Hey, wait. 2010 is now.

Amyris has said that the company could produce 600 to 800 gallons of fuel per acre. That’s far better than corn ethanol and somewhat on par with sugarcane ethanol. However, it is lower than what cellulosic ethanol and algae growers say they will get. Some algae companies claim they will get 5,000 gallons per acre per year.

Source: www.greentechmedia.com

With Great Social & Economic Change Expect Periodic Backlashes

The so-called climate gate scandal has reignited opposition to the low-carbon economy, and it is time business leaders fought back, says editor of the BusinessGreen James Murray. Environmentalism and the transition to a low-carbon, sustainable economy will inevitably face occasional backlashes that challenge both the conventional thinking on climate change science and the policy proposals for tackling global warming.

James Murray, Editor of Business Green, UK (2 February 2010):

The backlash is upon us.

In many ways it was to be expected. On their own, the failure of the Copenhagen Summit to deliver on expectations; the undoubtedly orchestrated campaign to discredit climate scientists working at the University of East Anglia and contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would have proved damaging. Taken together they are manna from heaven for the climate sceptics and those with vested interests who are attempting to block the transition to a low-carbon economy.

More generally, a backlash has been inevitable for some time. Any movement demanding great social and economic change faces periodic backlashes. Feminism has been locked in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back cycle of progress and backlash for decades, while the civil rights movement has sadly got well used to the periodic re-emergence of ugly and occasionally violent challenges to its demands for equality.

Environmentalism and the transition to a low-carbon and sustainable economy is no different. It will inevitably face occasional backlashes that will challenge both the conventional thinking on climate change science and the policy proposals for tackling global warming.

It is hard to appreciate it right now – when every story about the so-called “climategate emails” prompts screeds of irrational “told you so” taunting from people who still cannot tell the difference between neither one-off data points and underlying climatic trends, one flawed report and a canon of work, nor the essential difference between conspiracy and cock-up – but backlashes can bring numerous benefits. They make advocates of progressive change constantly test their arguments against the real world and the latest available evidence, while also helping to eradicate any flabby thinking and lax standards that may have crept in – something the IPCC evidently needs if its ludicrous claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 is anything to go by.

However, these benefits can only be realised if the backlash is resisted, and with many media outlets taking sceptics’ warped interpretations of the climategate affair at face value and surveys consistently showing that climate change is slipping down the public and political agenda, that is not guaranteed. Which begs the question: how do business leaders who remain convinced that urgent action if needed to tackle climate change resist the backlash and keep their low-carbon strategies on track?

Again, there is much to be learned from previous social revolutions. The golden rule of challenging a backlash is to return to the fundamental issues that originally inspired action – to get back to brass tacks.

This tactic is deployed time and again by equality campaigners who respond to opposition from those seeking to perpetuate gender or race inequality by pointing out the continuing differentials in salary and other economic indicators that are imposed upon different groups. It is such a well-worn argument because it is unanswerable. Backlashes against efforts to tackle inequality tend to wear themselves out on the implacable crux of the problem: namely that entirely unjustified discrimination and inequality still exist.

The same tactic can and should be being deployed by an environmental and green business movement that to date has been thoroughly outmanoeuvred in the fight for public opinion. Not least because the fundamental issues that have driven the low-carbon economy thus far are uncontestable and far more compelling than any cooked-up scandal over a few misplaced weather stations.

This is what we know.

Global average temperatures vary from year to year and decade to decade, but they have been on an upwards trajectory for decades. This is an observable reality. You can see it in temperature records and if you don’t trust them, you can see it with your own eyes in the forms of now and then photographs of retreating glaciers. We also know that if temperatures continue to rise unchecked, it will have a catastrophic effect on biodiversity, weather systems, sea levels and the global economy.

On top of this, we know that greenhouse gases trap heat. Again, this is an observable reality – if you have some baking soda, a couple of plastic bottles and a thermometer, you can do the experiment yourself. There has not been a single peer-reviewed scientific paper in recent history that challenges the underlying hypothesis that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from man’s activity is far and away the most likely cause of rising global temperatures.

The contrived scandal over the climategate emails and the IPCC’s inclusion of a number of exaggerated predictions in its last report does absolutely nothing to challenge these realities. The area where there is genuine debate among climate scientists is at the fringes of our understanding. It deals with questions involving how fast temperatures will rise; what effect they will have; how natural cycles in warming and cooling, such as the one we have experienced over the past decade, will accelerate or slow the underlying increases in temperature; and how carbon sinks will be affected. That scientists admit they do not know the answers to these questions should make us more concerned about pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, not less.

None of this will convince your average climate sceptic, who can come up with a cavalcade of nonsense to try to undermine each of the points above, while singularly ignoring the inconvenient reality that the simple balance of risk makes urgent action to curb carbon emissions highly desirable.

However, the backlash against the low-carbon economy has been far quieter in challenging the numerous other benefits it will bring. The fundamental point that a low-carbon economy will bolster energy security, reduce air pollution and associated health costs, insulate countries against the rising price of oil and natural resources, and create jobs, goes largely unchallenged by those opposing the low-carbon economy on the simple grounds that the case is unanswerable.

As president Obama observed in his State of the Union address: “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here’s the thing: even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.”

It is far easier for opponents of sustainable developments to fixate on leaked emails taken out of context or rare errors from climate scientists working to try to better understand the world in which we live, than it is to address the fundamental realities of risk and reward that are driving the emergence of the low-carbon economy. And it is these underlying facts that will eventually defeat the current backlash.

BusinessGreen.com is the first publication in the UK that is dedicated to green business information. It  provides companies with information on how to plan and undertake successful green initiatives that both cut costs and enhance the brand values of their organisations.

Source: www.businessgreen.com

No.13 …….Lucky Last

We have taken note of some readers’ wishes at least.  We have decided to slightly reduce the size of Express and will now attempt to restrict ourselves to 13 items/articles an issue. It is difficult because there is so much good material out there. So for the Lucky Last feature this week we draw on some sensible words from a politician past – former Coalition Leader John Hewson. He appeared on Sky News the other day and here’s a report from  the ABC, showing that party politics is not all it is cracked up to be. He also criticises the media for focusing on the colour of the political debate rather than the substance of the science. He has publicly put the proposition that “in a true carbon economy, where everyone understands their carbon footprint and is working to reduce it, and where the government’s target is something realistic like a 40% reduction by 2020 towards a 90% reduction by 2050, the introduction of a relatively ‘pure’ market based ETS will be substantially positive in terms of growth and employment”. Read More

By Online political correspondent Emma Rodgers

Former Liberal leader John Hewson has taken aim at Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s climate change policy, accusing him of using fear to win over voters.

In an opinion piece for the ABC’s The Drum which denounces both sides of politics for “squibbing” action on climate change, Dr Hewson has also criticised the media for focusing on the colour of the political debate rather than the substance of the science.

Dr Hewson has urged both Mr Abbott and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to show leadership on the issue instead of “wallowing in the colour and movement of grossly irresponsible politicking”.

“I am particularly disturbed by the way our current ‘debate’ on the challenge of climate change is unfolding,” he writes.

Dr Hewson’s comments come as today’s Nielsen poll in the Fairfax media shows voters prefer the Coalition’s policy over Mr Rudd’s emissions trading scheme.

Recalling having been “done slowly” by former prime minister Paul Keating over his doomed attempt to bring in a GST before the 1993 election, Dr Hewson says Mr Abbott’s strategy could work because it will gain media attention.

“The media fascination back in 1993 was in the colour and movement of my slow death,” he writes.

“To be clear, Abbott’s response is mostly political.

“While there is merit in soil carbon, tree planting, solar, etc, if they were to be well developed policies , as part of a more broad-based overall response, his strategy is the belief that you can frighten and fool most of the people, all of the time.”

In selling his policy to the public Mr Abbott has used the line Mr Keating employed in his campaign against the GST in which he told voters: “if you don’t understand it don’t vote for it”.

Dr Hewson says Mr Rudd has failed to counter Mr Abbott’s “scare campaign” with an adequate explanation of how the emissions trading scheme will work.

“Rudd has the resources of Government,” he writes.

“He should be able to expose a political fear campaign for what it is.”

The Government has the option of a double dissolution election on climate change, with its ETS legislation already having been defeated twice in Parliament.

But it has re-introduced the bills into Parliament and debate will continue today over the scheme, which puts a price on carbon and charges companies to pollute.

Mr Abbott’s alternative policy involves spending $10 billion over 10 years to encourage business and farmers to use direct action measures to reduce emissions.

Source: www.abc.net.au

Former Liberal leader John Hewson was also talking on Sky News the other day, confirming his genuine belief that climate change was very real and we can – and must – do something to deal with it. He has some strong views on how this country can deal with emissions on a much higher level than the Labor Government has even considered. Here’s what he wrote a year ago on Open Forum:

In my professorial days I used to tease my students, in an attempt to encourage them to think for themselves, to think beyond the text books, by asking them what particular conclusion they wanted to reach on some economic policy issue, and them claiming that I could build an economic/mathematical model to “prove” it!

I was particularly keen to ensure that their thinking was not constrained by any particular theoretical or model framework and to get them to understand the limitations of any particular models that they were working with.

In those days students, and their teachers, had become enamored with, if not addicted to, the “precision” or “science” of economics, and there was a danger that these “models” would become an end in themselves, rather than just a means to an end, simply a means to aid their thought processes. 

It was all too easily forgotten that the discipline of economics is as much an “art” as it is a “science”, and we are hoping to develop a “society”, and not just an “economy”.

Against this sort of background, I am of course disappointed by the recent climate change debate, and in particular the discussion about the likely consequences of a sensible and responsible set of targets for emissions reductions by 2020/2050, and the introduction of an emissions trading scheme.

Today, almost everybody has their own economic model which they claim “proves”, or at least “shows”, the mostly negative effects of an ETS etc. But all they have really done is prove my point that you can build a model to substantiate your conclusions, to show what you want to argue. They still have to demonstrate that such conclusions are sensible, reasonable and responsible.

They all mostly start with the assumption (and a model’s outcome is always predetermined by the assumptions, provided of course that the model is internally consistent) that the introduction of an ETS, which if effective simply puts a market price on carbon, must have a negative effect on economic growth and employment, the key point of their exercise simply being to demonstrate just how much negative.

However, there is absolutely no reason why we should start with a negative assumption. And in saying this, it is most important to recognize that it is really beyond the capacity of Treasury-type economic models to properly capture the effects of the development of significant new industries in this context.

I don’t have the time or space to demonstrate by way of a new model, but let me develop the argument by way of anecdote and personal business experience.

I start with the proposition that in a true carbon economy, where everyone understands their carbon footprint and is working to reduce it, and where the government’s target is something realistic like a 40% reduction by 2020 towards a 90% reduction by 2050, the introduction of a relatively “pure” market based ETS will be substantially positive in terms of growth and employment. The debate and onus of proof should therefore concentrate on just how positive.

Being involved with the National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development for many years, six years as Chairman, and that Forum having brought the likes of Al Gore to Australia some five years ago in an attempt to stimulate debate on climate matters (alas somewhat ahead of our time), I became frustrated with the paucity of the business interest and skepticism and decided to get involved with a number of New Age climate response industries to satisfy myself of the significant and profitable(in time) business opportunities that would inevitably flow from an appropriate national response to the challenge of climate change.

I was, and in some cases am still, involved with the early development of alternative technologies for the treatment of household waste, energy efficient lightbulbs, biofuels including  the building of the largest biodiesel plant in the world, and green data centres , as well with as a host of proposed new technologies and businesses. I am also presently involved with a large carbon credit trader that is in the process, even in this recessed economy , of hiring some 2000 new staff in relation to its installation of home efficiency packages.

In every case the economic growth and employment consequences were substantial, and my limited experiences are just the tip of the iceberg of what I firmly believe will be a technological revolution, which will lead to a substantially new and significant industrial base to our economy.

The opportunity is there for us to grasp, or lose!

There are interesting parallels with the protection debate of the 80s and early 90s. The “old guard” industries lobbied governments to sustain or increase their tariff and other forms of protection, threatening dire growth, trade and employment consequences if they weren’t listened to.

True, some of these protected industries declined and, in some cases, disappeared, but only to be replaced by new ones, to the extent that our economy went into probably the longest period of sustained growth with historically low unemployment.

The point is that our present industrial structure and lifestyle is unsustainable. The challenge is how we most effectively make the transition to a “carbon economy” and maximize our long tern economic, business and lifestyle opportunities.

We simply must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, dramatically improve our energy, soil, water and transport efficiencies, reduce our carbon emissions wherever possible, by developing new, more carbon efficient ways of doing things.

In these terms, we can learn much from the protection and other past debates particularly, I believe, about the most effective ways to cushion and facilitate the essential industrial transition with appropriate financial support, re training, etc, where perhaps it wasn’t done as well as it could have been in the past.

We also have a significant opportunity to lead the world in the development of some of these technologies with considerable export possibilities, the most obvious being clean coal technologies- but to refer back to my own experience, we are already doing it with alternative waste technologies.

The transition must be made. Time is of the essence! It’s not an issue where we can hope to play catch up! It’s not an issue that can be fobbed off to someone else’s watch!

Unfortunately, the climate change debate to date does not adequately reflect this inevitability, this urgency. Indeed, it’s dominated by blatant, short term vested interests and political game playing of the worst kind.

We all have an economic, social and a moral responsibility to do better!

Dr John Hewson is an economic and financial expert with experience in academia, business, government, media and the financial system. Dr Hewson’s business career, before entering politics in 1987, was as a company director and business consultant, including a role as Executive Director, Macquarie Bank Limited. Dr Hewson’s political career included seven years as a ministerial advisor and a further eight years as the Member for Wentworth. He was Shadow Finance Minister, Shadow Treasurer, Shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce and Leader of the Liberal Party and Coalition in Opposition for four years. Since leaving politics in 1995 Dr Hewson has run his own investment banking business and was, until December 2004, Member, Advisory Council of ABN AMRO, having previously been Chairman of the bank. He is Chairman to Osteoporosis Australia and KidsXpress. He is also Director of a number of other public and private companies. Dr Hewson also writes a regular opinion column for the Australian Financial Review. In February 2009 he will take on the role of Chairman of the GAP initiated Carbon Economy Taskforce.

Source: www.openforum.com.au