UNAA WED Awards Winners for the Environment

The United Nations Association of Australia announced the winners of this year’s World Environment Day Awards at the Awards Presentation Dinner held at the Grand Hyatt Melbourne on 4 June, 2010 and hosted by Rob Gell, environmentalist and President of Greening Australia. For special mention here was the award for Environmental Reporting shared by Adam Morton of The Age and Tanya Ha for “Warm TV”.

The United Nations Association of Australia announced the winners of this year’s World Environment Day Awards. Winners were announced at the Awards Presentation Dinner held at the Grand Hyatt Melbourne on Friday 4 June, 2010. This gala event was hosted by Rob Gell, Environmentalist and President of Greening Australia.

The new Department of Sustainability and Environment Biodiversity Award, introduced this year to celebrate the United Nations International Year of Biodiversity, went to the Western Australian Local Government Association for its development of Local Biodiversity Strategies, training opportunities and the bringing together of State government, industry and community groups.

Awards were presented across 14 categories to individuals, schools, community groups, businesses and local governments, highlighting top environmental initiatives and programs from across Australia.

Amidst strong competition the Virgin Blue Business Award for Best Specific Environmental Initiative was won by Goulburn Valley Water & Greater Shepparton City Council for their joint project “Resource Recovery Precinct.” Centred on the Shepparton Wastewater Management Facility, the project involves several businesses that turn waste into resources such as renewable energy and compost.

The Kimberley Toad Busters took out the Community Award for its “Cane Toad Control” project, an initiative which has mobilised the community with volunteers clocking up more than a million hours working to stop the progress of cane toads towards the Kimberley.

The Northern Gulf Resource Management Group’s “Carpentaria Ghost Net Programme” was the winner of the Excellence in Marine and Coastal Management Award, impressing judges with its support of the indigenous communities who are finding local solutions to tackle the negative effects of fishing net debris on native marine life.

Bond University was declared winner of the Szencorp Green Building Award, having been accredited with a six star Green Star rating for its Mirvac School of Sustainable Development Building which allows visitors to experience its sustainable processes in action.

Equally impressive was the Monash Sustainability Institute who won the Education/School Award for its “Green Steps” program empowering participants with the skills and knowledge to positively affect environmental practices within organisations.

International law firm Allens Arthur Robinson won the WSP Lincolne Scott Sustainability Leadership Award for its performance and approach to sustainability as well as its ability to influence both their suppliers and clients from an environmental, social and community perspective.

Edstein Creative Stone was awarded the Excellence in Sustainable Water Management Award for developing a recycling system which cuts its water use in stone cutting and polishing by 98 per cent.

Established in 2000, the Awards program is now in its 11th year and continues to acknowledge action taken at a local level to address global environmental issues.

Department of Sustainability and Environment Biodiversity Award WINNER: Western Australian Local Government Association – “Perth Biodiversity Project & South West Biodiversity Project”

Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development Meeting the Greenhouse Challenge Award WINNER: Darebin City Council – “Darebin’s Climate Change Action” SPECIAL COMMENDATION: National Australia Bank – “Carbon Neutral 2010 Strategy” Szencorp Green Building Award WINNER: Bond University – “Mirvac School of Sustainable Development Building”

Virgin Blue Business Awards – Best Specific Environmental Initiative WINNER: Goulburn Valley Water & Greater Shepparton City Council – “Resource Recovery Precinct” SPECIAL COMMENDATION: Zoos Victoria – “They’re Calling On You!” – Environmental Best Practice Program WINNER: InStyle Contract Textiles “Sustainability with Style”

WSP Lincolne Scott Sustainability Leadership Award WINNER: Allens Arthur Robinson SPECIAL COMMENDATION: National Australia Bank Education/School Award WINNER: Monash Sustainability Institute – “Green Steps” Excellence in Marine and Coastal Management Award WINNER: Northern Gulf Resource Management Group – “Carpentaria Ghost Net Programme”

Excellence in Sustainable Water Management Award WINNER: Edstein Creative Stone Local Government Awards – Excellence in Overall Environmental Management WINNER: Byron Shire Council – “The Brunswick Estuary Management Plan & Sewerage Augmentation Scheme” – Best Specific Environmental Initiative WINNER: Moonee Valley City Council – “Moonee Ponds Green Precinct” SPECIAL COMMENDATION: Fairfield City Council – “Sustain ‘n’ Save Business Program” Community Award WINNER: Kimberley Toad Busters – “Cane Toad Control”

Individual Award for Outstanding Service to the Environment WINNER: Emeritus Professor Tor Hundloe – “An Environmental Pioneer” Media Award for Environmental Reporting JOINT WINNER: Adam Morton, The Age – “Climate Change Coverage” JOINT WINNER: Tanya Ha – “Warm TV” Source: www.unaavictoria.org.au

While not a winner, the work of Greenfleet was recognised for biodiversity in World Environment Day Awards. In addition to recapturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, Greenfleet has always committed to planting a selection of locally native trees to form biodiverse forests, which also reduce salinity and erosion, and increase habitat for wildlife.

This commitment was recognised recently when Greenfleet, along with project partner Biolinking Australia, was selected as a finalist for the UNAA World Environment Day Awards in the Biodiversity category. The Northern Victorian Biolinks project is a collaboration between Biolinking Australia and Greenfleet – two likeminded organisations focused on developing an innovative market-based approach to protecting, enhancing and restoring Victoria’s biodiversity.

So far the project has achieved: • Landscape scale revegetation of over 2000 hectares of marginal agricultural land • Protection of over 1300 hectares of existing formerly grazed areas of biodiversity • Increased connectivity between significant areas of privately owned remnant vegetation • Increased resilience of significant populations of threatened species While we didn’t win, we were still pleased to be named a finalist.

We were also particularly pleased to be recognised for our actions during 2010 – International Year of Biodiversity. This recognition helps to demonstrate that action on climate change can also bring about significant benefits for the Australian landscape.

Source: www.greenfleet.com.au

The Anthropocene Debate: Marking Humanity’s Impact

Human activity is altering the planet on a scale comparable with some of the major events of the ancient past. Some of these changes are now seen as permanent, even on a geological time-scale. Scientists are now considering whether to officially designate a new geological epoch to reflect the changes that Homo sapiens have wrought: the Anthropocene. For what it’s worth, in “The ABC of Carbon” Ken Hickson suggests we should declare this era “The Carbon Age”.

By Elizabeth Kolbert on ABC Environment (7 Jun 2010):

Is human activity altering the planet on a scale comparable to major geological events of the past? Scientists are now considering whether to officially designate a new geological epoch to reflect the changes that Homo sapiens have wrought: the Anthropocene.

THE HOLOCENE — or “wholly recent” epoch — is what geologists call the 11,000 years or so since the end of the last ice age. As epochs go, the Holocene is barely out of diapers; its immediate predecessor, the Pleistocene, lasted more than two million years, while many earlier epochs, like the Eocene, went on for more than 20 million years. Still, the Holocene may be done for.

People have become such a driving force on the planet that many geologists argue a new epoch — informally dubbed the Anthropocene — has begun. In a recent paper titled “The New World of the Anthropocene,” which appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, a group of geologists listed more than a half dozen human-driven processes that are likely to leave a lasting mark on the planet — lasting here understood to mean likely to leave traces that will last tens of millions of years. These include: habitat destruction and the introduction of invasive species, which are causing widespread extinctions; ocean acidification, which is changing the chemical makeup of the seas; and urbanisation, which is vastly increasing rates of sedimentation and erosion.

Human activity, the group wrote, is altering the planet “on a scale comparable with some of the major events of the ancient past. Some of these changes are now seen as permanent, even on a geological time-scale.” Prompted by the group’s paper, the Independent of London recently conducted a straw poll of the members of the International Commission on Stratigraphy, the official keeper of the geological time scale.

Half the commission members surveyed said they thought the case for a new epoch was already strong enough to consider a formal designation. “Human activities, particularly since the onset of the industrial revolution, are clearly having a major impact on the Earth,” Barry Richards of the Geological Survey of Canada told the newspaper.

“We are leaving a clear and unique record.” The term “Anthropocene” was coined a decade ago by Paul Crutzen, one of the three chemists who shared the 1995 Nobel Prize for discovering the effects of ozone-depleting compounds. In a paper published in 2000, Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer, a professor at the University of Michigan, noted that many forms of human activity now dwarf their natural counterparts; for instance, more nitrogen today is fixed synthetically than is fixed by all the world’s plants, on land and in the ocean.

Considering this, the pair wrote in the newsletter of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, “it seems to us more than appropriate to emphasise the central role of mankind in geology and ecology by proposing to use the term ‘anthropocene’ for the current geological epoch.” Two years later, Crutzen restated the argument in an article in Nature titled “Geology of Mankind.” The Anthropocene, Crutzen wrote, “could be said to have started in the latter part of the eighteenth century, when analyses of air trapped in polar ice showed the beginning of growing global concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane.” Soon, the term began popping up in other scientific publications.

“Riverine quality of the Anthropocene” was the title of a 2002 paper in the journal Aquatic Sciences. “Soils and sediments in the anthropocene,” read the title of a 2004 editorial in the Journal of Soils and Sediments. A spreading idea Jan Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the Britain’s University of Leicester, found the spread of the concept intriguing. “I noticed that Paul Crutzen’s term was appearing in the serious literature, in papers in Science and such like, without inverted commas and without a sense of irony,” he recalled in a recent interview.

At the time, Zalasiewicz was the head of the stratigraphic commission of the Geological Society of London. At a luncheon meeting of the commission, he asked his fellow stratigraphers what they thought of the idea. “We simply discussed it,” he said. “And to my surprise, because these are technical geologists, a majority of us thought that there was something to this term.”

In 2008, Zalasiewicz and 20 other British geologists published an article in GSA Today, the magazine of the Geological Society of America, that asked: “Are we now living in the Anthropocene?” The answer, the group concluded, was probably yes: “Sufficient evidence has emerged of stratigraphically significant change (both elapsed and imminent) for recognition of the Anthropocene… as a new geological epoch to be considered for formalisation.” (An epoch, in geological terms, is a relatively short span of time; a period, like the Cretaceous, can last for tens of millions of years, and an era, like the Mesozoic, for hundreds of millions.)

The group pointed to changes in sedimentation rates, in ocean chemistry, in the climate, and in the global distribution of plants and animals as phenomena that would all leave lasting traces. Increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the group wrote, are predicted to lead to “global temperatures not encountered since the Tertiary,” the period that ended 2.6 million years ago. Zalasiewicz now heads of the Anthropocene Working Group of the International Commission on Stratigraphy, which is looking into whether a new epoch should be officially designated, and if so, how.

Traditionally, the boundaries between geological time periods have been established on the basis of changes in the fossil record — by, for example, the appearance of one type of commonly preserved organism or the disappearance of another. The process of naming the various periods and their various subsets is often quite contentious; for years, geologists have debated whether the Quaternary — the geological period that includes both the Holocene and its predecessor, the Pleistocene — ought to exist, or if the term ought to be abolished, in which case the Holocene and Pleistocene would become epochs of the Neogene, which began some 23 million years ago. (Just last year, the International Commission on Stratigraphy decided to keep the Quaternary, but to push back its boundary by almost a million years.)

Standardisation In recent decades, the ICS has been trying to standardise the geological time scale by choosing a rock sequence in a particular place to serve as a marker. Thus, for example, the marker for the Calabrian stage of the Pleistocene can be found at 39.0385°N 17.1348°E, which is in the toe of the boot of Italy. Since there is no rock record yet of the Anthropocene, its boundary would obviously have to be marked in a different way.

The epoch could be said simply to have begun at a certain date, say 1800. Or its onset could be correlated to the first atomic tests, in the 1940s, which left behind a permanent record in the form of radioactive isotopes. One argument against the idea that a new human-dominated epoch has recently begun is that humans have been changing the planet for a long time already, indeed practically since the start of the Holocene.

People have been farming for 8,000 or 9,000 years, and some scientists — most notably William Ruddiman, of the University of Virginia — have proposed that this development already represents an impact on a geological scale. Alternatively, it could be argued that the Anthropocene has not yet arrived because human impacts on the planet are destined to be even greater 50 or a hundred years from now. “We’re still now debating whether we’ve actually got to the event horizon, because potentially what’s going to happen in the 21st century could be even more significant,” observed Mark Williams, a member of the Anthropocene Working Group who is also a geologist at the University of Leicester.

In general, Williams said, the reaction that the working group had received to its efforts so far has been positive. “Most of the geologists and stratigraphers that we’ve spoken with think it’s a very good idea in that they agree that the degree of change is very significant.” Zalasiewicz said that even if new epoch is not formally designated, the exercise of considering it was still useful. “Really it’s a piece of science,” he said. “We’re trying to get some handle on the scale of contemporary change in its very largest context.” This article first appeared at Yale Environment 360

Source: www.abc.net.au

Lucky Last – Here’s the ABC Carbon 50 for 2010

Outspoken and daring climate change activists young and old – including a Nobel award winning scientist and international movie star – feature in this year’s ABC Carbon 50. This is the list, like no other, of Australia’s most notable and influential people, recognised for their contribution to climate change action and awareness, the environment, conservation, green issues and opportunities, energy efficiency and/or renewable energy.

We received more 150 nominations from readers and supporters around the country and while there may well be additional worthy recipients, we decided to draw the line at 50. Preference was given to people who had achieved national recognition, even though there are some who have been particularly active in one state or community. Many of those selected also have influence way beyond Australia.

The decision on the final 50 was made by Ken Hickson, Director of ABC Carbon, who was ably assisted in the selection process by Graeme Philipson of Connection Research and Graham Readfearn, environmental journalist & green blogger.

We should point out, as we have said before, that politicians and journalists have been excluded from the final list, even though some had been nominated. We do feel it is important to acknowledge the important role that journalists and communicators are playing in Australia and globally to influence the debate and action for the planet’s sake. We are currently developing a list – most likely a TOP 20 – to serve this purpose.

This year, it was also decided that there would not be a ranking or order from 1 to 50, as just securing a place in the final 50 was enough. So names are listed in alphabetical order – just to be different – based on first names not last!

We congratulate all those who made it. Keep up the good work.

ABC CARBON 50 for 2010:

Andrew Grant, CEO, CO2 Australia

Andrew Lawson, CEO, MBD Energy

Andrew Petersen, PWC Partner & professional advocate on Climate Change

Andy Pittman, Climate Change Researcher, University of NSW

Anna Keenan, Climate change Campaigner & organiser Climate Justice Fast

Anna Rose, Founder of Australian Youth Climate Coalition

Anne-Maree Huxley, CEO, Models of Success and Sustainabilty (MOSS)

Barry Brook, University of Adelaide climate scientist

Ben McNeil, University of NSW climate scientist & author

Cate Blanchett, Sydney Theatre Company Director & speaker World Business Summit at Copenhagen, international film star, actress and green activist

Clive Hamilton, author & climate change campaigner

Dave Sag, Founder, Carbon Planet

David Baggs, Founder, Ecospecifier and new Green Tag certification for building products

David Hood, Chairman, Australia Green Infrastructure Council

David Karoly, University of Melbourne climate scientist

Dick Smith, businessman, outspoken on climate change & population issues

Fiona Wain, CEO, Environment Business Australia

Ian Lowe, President, Australian Conservation Foundation

Janis Birkeland, QUT Built Environment Lecturer & author of “Positive Development”

Jean Palutikof, Head of National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility

Jeff Angel, Founder, Total Environment Centre & Green Capital

Jeff Harding, Director Carnegie Corporation & Chairman, Ceramic Fuel Cells

John Buchanan, Director Workplace Research Centre & Climate Change @ Work conferences

John Connor, Director, The Climate Institute

Jon Dee, Founder, Planet Ark, Do Something Campaign and National Tree Day

Ken Bellamy, Founder, Prime Carbon & VRM Biologic

Linda Selvey, CEO, Greenpeace

Mara Bun, CEO, Green Cross

Martijn Wilder, Baker & McKenzie Global CC Director  & Director, Carbon Trust

Matthew Warren, CEO, Clean Energy Council

Matthew Wright, Director,  Beyond Zero Emissions

Michael Ottaviano, CEO, Carnegie Corporation (wave energy project)

Michael Raupach, Global Carbon Project & CSIRO

Natalie Isaacs, Founder, One Million Women Campaign

Ngaire McGaw, Sustainable Jamboree & climate activist

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director, Global Change Institute & University of Queensland Professor

Pep Canadell, Global Carbon Project

Peter Cosier, Wentworth Group of Scientists

Peter Doherty, author & Nobel Prize winning scientist

Richard Cassels, Director Climate Leadership

Rob Cawthorne, CEO, Carbon Reduction Institute

Robert Pekin, Founder, Food Connect

Rupert Posner, The Climate Group

Robert Quirk, World Sugar to Ethanol project

Ross Garnaut, economist & Government advisor

Sam Mostyn, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, University of Sydney

Sara Gipton, CEO, Greenfleet

Sidonie Carpenter, President, Greenroofs Australia

Tim Flannery, Chairman, Copenhagen Climate Council, plus author & scientist

Will Steffen, ANU Climate Change Institute at Australian National University

Source: www.abccarbon.com

What’s the world coming to?

A massive oil spill that even the best brains and technology in the world don’t know how to stop until it ruins an ocean and shore environment. A Government that continues to mess up every time it attempts to clean up its act, even failing to effectively introduce a super mining tax.  A global agreement which could finally deal with the deforestation scourge of tropical rainforest regions. Businesses the world over are showing definite signs they’re prepared to commit to sustainability and a low carbon economy. Solar ships on the oceans, sails to capture the sun in space advanced solar cells for more people on land. Small advances in large communities to get people to switch to clean energy for daily cooking. All too much? Well there’s more. A renowned international actor who believes the world needs to deal with the big issues like over-population and sustainability. Could this lead to another Inconvenient Truth?  Europe is embarking on a bold plan to address emissions, while India has to deal with a heatwave to beat all others. We hear what people think about renewable energy and life without a price on carbon as well as what the new Carbon Trust aims to do for Australia. We cannot resist another electric car story. Ethics and the environment are starting to have appeal to investors in Australia, while Graham Readfearn tells us we need to get real and face up to climate change adaptation. You’ll have to wait another week to find out who’s on the ABC Carbon 50 list. All nominations are in. Make the most of World Environment Day (5 June). – Ken Hickson

Profile: Jeremy Irons

The world is becoming so overpopulated that nature will one day wreak its revenge, claims Jeremy Irons, the British actor. Launching himself as a green campaigner, he reveals plans to make a documentary about sustainability and waste disposal. In the wake of the global financial crisis, we are facing an economic revolution and things can ever be the same again.

By Amy Turner in The Sunday Times  (23 May 2010):

Earth will bite us back, warns Irons

There are too many humans and disease may restore the balance, the actor claims

Jeremy Irons fears population growth will be controlled only by a natural disaster.

The world is becoming so overpopulated that nature will one day wreak its revenge, claims Jeremy Irons, the actor.

Launching himself as a green campaigner, Irons has revealed plans to make a documentary about sustainability and waste disposal, likening himself to Michael Moore, the controversial film maker, although “not as silly”.

The increasing global population would put an intolerable strain on the world’s resources, Irons said, and the gulf between developing countries and westerners living a bountiful “pie-in-the-sky” existence must be addressed.

“One always returns to the fact that there are just too many of us, the population continues to rise and it’s unsustainable,” he said in an interview with The Sunday Times. “I think we have to find ways where we’re not having to scrap our effluent junk and are a really sustainable planet.”

Natural systems of self regulation may stop population growth, he said: “I suspect there’ll be a very big outbreak of something because the world always takes care of itself.”

The 61-year-old actor went on to speculate that either disease or war, “probably disease”, could become nature’s way of halving the population.

He is seeking funding for a film on sustainability, which he hopes will be in the manner of An Inconvenient Truth, the Oscar-winning Al Gore documentary on climate change.

“We’ll be pulling in a lot of expert opinion and we are in talks for funding,” said Irons. “We hope it will be a movie.”

The actor, who says he is apolitical although he is a former Labour donor and his wife Sinead Cusack is “deeply socialist”, has already made a plea for action in a short video for an organisation campaigning to end world hunger.

In a film on the website 1billionhungry.org, Irons declares: “People around the world suffer hunger — 1 billion. Now that’s bad, worse than bad, that’s crazy! We’ve got to get mad. I want you to get mad. I want you to get up right now, stick your head out of the window and yell, ‘I’m mad as hell’.”

Irons, who owns seven houses, including a pink castle in Co Cork, Ireland, believes a new economic vision is needed in the wake of the global financial crisis. “We are facing an economic revolution,” he said. “I don’t think things can ever be the same again. The next generation will have to think laterally and find ways to cope with this.”

He dismissed the idea that a recovery in consumption would help Britain out of recession: “You walk down the high street and it’s just clothes, clothes, clothes. How many clothes do people need? We’re on a hiding to nothing with that.

“We’ve always known the City was a bubble. We can’t continue to divide the world between people who live a pie-in-the-sky life and people who are starving.”

Irons, who says he runs “very old motor cars” including a 13-year-old Range Rover, also launched an attack on today’s throwaway society. “Why does it make sense for us all to be buying a lot of motor cars, selling our old ones and scrapping them? Why don’t we make cars that last for 40 years? We could,” he said.

Known for backing causes such as an international ban on capital punishment and the repeal of the fox hunting ban, Irons said he developed his views after discussions with Richard Leakey, the Kenyan conservationist and politician.

Leakey has argued that the world cannot sustain more than 15 billion humans. The global population is now at 6.7 billion — and rising fast.

Earlier this year Sir David Attenborough, the naturalist, said it might be the duty of humans to commit to having smaller families and change their lifestyles to sustain the planet.

Irons, who has two children, Samuel, 31, and Max, 24, says the answer is not enforced population control: “Morally, I don’t think you can tell people not to have children.

“In the West we tend to have smaller families anyway, but in developing countries we need to offer as much technology and medical aid as possible. Whether that can happen before some natural disaster kicks in, we’ll have to see.”

The grimmer alternative, says Irons, is to continue to inflate the richer western economies to bursting point at the expense of poorer nations: “We would have to ringfence those who are starving and fighting over water, keeping everybody out. We’d live in a sort of fortress world, with an area which is fine, with its guarded oil pipe coming from Afghanistan or wherever, but I can’t see that working.”

The ultimate solution, he says, is for us all to live less decadently — growing our own food and recycling instead of replacing goods: “People must drop their standard of living [so] the wealth can be spread about. There’s a long way to go.”

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Rich & Poor Countries Turn REDD

The Oslo Climate and Forest Conference, attended by representatives of 52 countries, agreed on a non-binding framework to funnel aid promised by the rich world and set up monitoring standards to ensure money flows are based on solid results, while Indonesia agreed place a two-year moratorium on new concessions to clear natural forests and peatlands under a deal signed with Norway aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

From The Guardian (27 May 2010):  

Rich and poor countries have agreed on guidelines for releasing aid to save forests, in the first concrete sign of global action on climate change since Copenhagen.

Norway, which chaired last week’s climate conference, said aid pledges to save forests had risen by $500m (£345m) since the UN climate conference in Copenhagen last December.

But this is less than was expected just weeks ago – showing the limits of more state funding amid economic crises and unrest in the financial markets.

Some experts say the modest increase in state aid for forests, whose conservation is seen as the cheapest way of lowering carbon emissions, underlines the need for private sector engagement.

The Oslo Climate and Forest Conference, attended by representatives of 52 countries, agreed on a non-binding framework to funnel aid promised by the rich world and set up monitoring standards to ensure money flows are based on solid results. Such frameworks are known as Redd (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) programmes.

“The outcome of this meeting could be the first comprehensive component for a future international agreement on climate change [since Copenhagen],” World Bank chief Robert Zoellick said in a televised address from Washington DC.

In Copenhagen, global leaders failed to deliver a legally binding deal on manmade emissions. Rich nations did agree, however, to provide $30bn from 2010-12 to help poor states combat global warming, rising to $100bn a year by 2020.

The US, the UK, Australia, France, Japan and Norway had specifically agreed on $3.5bn from 2010-12 to save forests, a pool of money which has now grown to $4bn (£2.75bn), according to Norway.

“There is no way to mobilise that much money without mobilising the private sector,” Norway’s prime minister Jens Stoltenberg said, referring to a plan to spend $30bn on forests and other fast-track green financing until 2012.

Deforestation and forest degradation wipes away an area the size of England each year and is responsible for 17% of global carbon emissions – more than that made by the world’s cars, trains and planes combined, according to UN data.

“Reducing deforestation and forest degradation can provide the largest, fastest and cheapest cuts in carbon emissions,” Stoltenberg said. Such efforts could achieve “a third of the cuts in carbon emissions needed by 2020″, he added.

Norway, which is rich in oil, yesterday formally announced $1bn in aid to Indonesia to help protect forests in the south east Asian nation, which has been quickly clearing trees for palm oil plantations. It has a similar deal with Brazil.

Growing populations, agriculture and the timber industry have all reduced tropical forests from the Amazon to Indonesia, where it has become more profitable to cut down natural forests.

“Today, the market values forests more destroyed than standing,” said Papua New Guinea prime minister Michael Somare.

“We must find a way to value forests more alive than dead.”

To push people to protect forests, as well as to attract private sector financing, it will be essential to set up a global price for carbon emissions, either via a market or a carbon tax.

“This is a good day – it rebuilds trust in the international community’s ability to confront climate change,” said Abyd Karmali, global head of carbon markets at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

“What is needed is a bit more assurance that the carbon price will be there and that the private sector will have input how the system of green financing is set up.”

Prince Charles was among the speakers at the conference, after being invited by Stoltenberg.

The prince told the delegates that three years ago experts warned him how serious the deforestation problem had become.

He said: “However, the great positive difference between the summer of 2007 and today is that we now have a serious group of governments – with none showing greater leadership than Norway – who are prepared to work together to find a durable solution which will effectively tackle the drivers of tropical deforestation.”

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Reuters report on ABC News (27 May 2010):

Indonesia will place a two-year moratorium on new concessions to clear natural forests and peatlands under a deal signed with Norway aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

Norway will invest $1.2 billion in forest conservation projects in Indonesia under a deal struck by Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg in Oslo.

“In the second phase of the partnership, Indonesia is prepared to suspend for two years new concessions for the conversion of peat and natural forest lands,” a statement said.

“Sufficient non-forest lands exist for Indonesia to accommodate the growth of its vitally important plantation industries, a major source of livelihoods in Indonesia.”

The suspension will encourage the development of new plantations “on degraded lands rather than vulnerable forests and peatlands”.

Previous concessions already granted to clear forest land are likely to still be honoured, since the statement only referred to new concessions.

Palm oil firms such as Wilmar and Indofood Agri Resources have big expansion plans in Indonesia, already the largest producer of an oil used to make everything from biscuits to soap.

Part of Norway’s $1.2 billion will be spent on creating monitoring systems and pilot projects under a UN-backed forest preservation scheme called Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD).

REDD allows developing nations to earn money by not chopping down their trees and preserving carbon-rich peatlands, seen as key to slowing climate change because forests soak up huge amounts of greenhouse gases.

Indonesia has vowed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 per cent from business-as-usual levels by 2020, or by 41 per cent with sufficient international support.

Source: www.abc.net.au

India Swelters as Europe Storms Ahead to Cut Emissions

Europe was tipped to introduce a new plan to combat global warming, committing it to the world’s most ambitious targets. If it goes ahead EU would cut emissions by 30% on 1990 levels by 2020, and cost an extra $58 billion a year by 2020, according to a report in The Times of London. Meanwhile, India has been going through a heatwave of record proportions.

Ben Webster in The Times of London (27 May 2010):

EUROPE was tipped to introduce a new plan to combat global warming, committing it to the world’s most ambitious targets.

The surprise plan proposes a massive increase in the target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this decade.

The European Commission is determined to press ahead with the cuts despite the financial turmoil gripping the bloc, even though it would require EU member states to impose far tougher financial penalties on their industries than are being considered by other large economies.

The plan, to cut emissions by 30 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, would cost the EU an extra $58 billion a year by 2020, according to a draft of the commission’s communication leaked to The Times.

The existing target of a 20 per cent cut is already due to cost $84bn. The commission will argue that the lower target has become much easier to meet because of the recession, which resulted in the EU’s emissions falling more than 10 per cent last year as thousands of factories closed or cut production. Emissions last year were already 14 per cent below 1990 levels.

Business leaders fear thousands of jobs could be lost and energy bills could soar. Carbon taxes on road fuel, heating and other sources of emissions could be introduced, with proceeds reinvested in renewable energy.

The EU’s present policy is to wait for other countries to commit to equivalent action before raising its target to 30 per cent “as part of a genuine global effort”. But after the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit, a global deal on cutting emissions is unlikely to be agreed until the end of next year.

Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard will make the case for the EU to commit itself unilaterally to a 30 per cent cut to inspire other countries to follow suit and accelerate the development of low-carbon industries. The draft communication says: “The extra economic effort needed to reach 30 per cent – while still substantial – has fallen. Both the international context and the economic analysis suggest that the EU is right to continue preparing for a move to a 30 per cent target. With the 20 per cent target reachable with less effort, and the carbon price low, it also acts as a much less powerful incentive for change and innovation.”

The plan also says that the higher target would reduce air pollution from fossil fuels and improve the health of millions of people, generating up to $14bn a year in economic benefits from having a healthier population.

The draft commission document raises the possibility of trade wars by suggesting EU industries could be protected by imposing border tariffs on imported goods from non-EU countries with less stringent emission controls.

Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, said: “A unilateral move to 30 per cent would damage the European economy at a time when we can ill afford it.”

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Amanda Hodge, South Asia correspondent for The Australian (27 May 2010): 

NORTHERN India is sweltering under a killer heatwave that has claimed 55 lives in the past 48 hours, with soaring temperatures shattering records and causing massive power blackouts and water shortages.

The Indian Bureau of Meteorology warned yesterday a swath of northern and central India – including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat – was suffering a severe heatwave, with temperatures climbing to 48C and higher.

The temperature in the Rajasthani city of Kota reached an intolerable 48.4C on Tuesday, seven degrees above the average for this time of year.

Across the north, serious cases of heatstroke are stretching the resources of local hospitals, with admissions 20 per cent up on normal.

At Vadilal Sarabai hospital in the Gujarat capital of Ahmedabad, superintendent M.H. Makawanna said most of the patients were elderly people who could not acclimatise to the sudden rise in temperature.

Delhi has sweltered under intense heat for weeks, with the mercury tipped to top 46C yesterday. The misery has been intensified in parts of the city by prolonged electricity blackouts and irregular water supplies.

In outlying Mehrauli, some residents complain they have had no water for the past week.

“Today is the seventh day we’ve gone without water,” said Ruksana Choudhry.

“We have to buy water from private tankers for 200 to 300 rupees ($5 to $6.60). Even after that, carrying water up to the third floor is difficult.”

Bureau of Meteorology forecasters attribute the record heat to lack of atmospheric moisture, hot dry winds blowing from the Thar Desert and the after-effects of last year’s El Nino cycle – normally marked by a hot spring and summer.

This year is on track to be the world’s hottest since records began in the late 1800s. Recent figures from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show last month was the hottest April on record.

In India, mean temperatures for March and last month were the highest in more than 100 years.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Advance for Solar Cells, But Carbon Price Needed To Boost Investment

The message is out that what investors need most of all is a carbon price, to give a clear market signal of the viability of renewable energy, and without it, investment in low-CO2-emissions power sources does not make sense. Meanwhile, China’s solar billionaire Zhengrong Shi agreed to head a new Victoria-Suntech Advanced Solar Facility in Melbourne to revolutionise solar cell technology.

Jennifer Foreshew in The Australian (1 June 2010):

A $12 MILLION project aimed at delivering next-generation solar cell technology was officially launched in Melbourne.  

The Victoria-Suntech Advanced Solar Facility (VSASF) is a collaborative venture between Melbourne’s Swinburne University of Technology and Suntech Power Holdings in China, one of the world’s leading producers of solar panels.

The facility, expected to be staffed by about 10 researchers, has been partially funded by a $3m grant under the Victorian Science Agenda Investment Fund.

Current solar cell efficiency is far below what is expected of it in the future, VSASF director Min Gu said. The aim of industry is to try to double the solar cell efficiency and reduce costs.

The VSASF would also be headed by Zhengrong Shi, Suntech’s chairman and chief executive, as well as a fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.

The collaboration would provide a platform for the partners to commercialise Nanoplas, a revolutionary nanoplasmonic solar cell technology being developed at Swinburne.

The Nanoplas technology would allow for the efficient collection of solar energy from a wider colour spectrum than cells currently being developed.

This could make them twice as efficient as the current generation of cells, making them significantly less costly to produce and use.

“As soon as we prove the concept, Suntech will work with the Victorian government to invest money to produce a plant in Victoria,” said Professor Gu, who is also director of the Swinburne Centre for Micro-Photonics.

He said the technology was expected to be commercialised in about three to five years.

It would also complement Suntech’s industry-leading Pluto solar cell technology.

“We are pretty confident that we should be able to apply this Nanoplas technology into their current product,” Professor Gu said. “On the other hand, our concept can also produce a totally independent solar cell, but that will probably take longer.”

Professor Gu said the project would compete with a similar project that had recently been announced in Europe.

“So there is competition now on which one is going first,” he said.

Professor Gu said the team was in a unique position to research, develop and commercialise the innovative solar cell technology.

“So we can reduce the time of development, the cost of development and then transfer the knowledge to the production.”

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Carbon price is missing impetus

James Dunn in The Australian (27 May 2010):

BATTERED by the global financial crisis, the shelving of Australia’s emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and, for some, the government’s new Resources Super Profits Tax (RSPT), it is a shaping as a bleak winter for Australia’s renewable energy companies.

What they want most of all is a carbon price, to give a clear market signal of the viability of renewable energy. Without it, investment in low-CO2-emissions power sources does not make sense. As Ross Paul, chief investment officer at specialist renewable energy and cleantech investment firm Bakers Investment Group,  puts it, renewable energy investors have to “stump up both faith and cash”.

“Without a carbon price, renewable energy is still considered a bit on the speculative side”, says Paul.

“Not having a carbon price makes them a little less attractive.”

Regulatory support is a big driver of renewable energy and cleantech investment, says Paul. “The RSPT has scared off investors, particularly if resources are part of the supply chain. With all that’s happening in Europe, post-GFC it is another piece of bad news that investors didn’t need.

“The question will be the degree to which government will continue — either at state or federal level — to try to meet on a voluntary basis or even a legislative basis, any renewable targets,” he says.

In the Budget delivered in May, the federal Government recommitted to its mandatory renewable energy target (MRET), which seeks to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s energy consumption by 2020 is derived from renewable sources. Combined with the 15,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) of renewable energy already available, the MRET aims for Australia to produce 60,000 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The Government also used money saved by the shift of the CPRS to the backburner to announce a new fund, the $652 million Renewable Energy Future Fund, to develop renewable energy. The fund will be used to support renewable energy projects such as wind and solar power, as well as to encourage households to reduce their energy use.

Local renewable energy companies have to use the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) market as the closest proxy for a carbon price. The REC market requiresenergy retailers such as AGL Energy and Origin Energy to buy enough RECs to ensure they meet the federal government’s 20 per cent target. Each REC represents one megawatt-hour of electricity: a wind farm, for example, will generate RECs over the life of the project.

But complicating the REC market is the fact that to encourage the installation of rooftop solar power, the federal Government gave households five RECs upfront for every MWh of electricity they generate. In 2009, the REC market was over-supplied — mainly from this source — with 15 million RECs generated compared with 8.1 MWh of RECs required.

From $50 in May 2009, the spot REC price fell under $30 by October 2009, but after a review of the REC market by the Government in November 2009, the price has recovered to $45.

A low REC price works against the large-scale renewable energy producers — for example, wind projects — which rely on the REC price to be high enough to compensate for the higher cost of generating renewable energy. If the price of the RECs doesn’t rise, investment in large-scale renewable energy projects could be jeopardised.

Andy Gracey, portfolio manager at Australian Ethical Investments, says the comeback in the REC price has been welcome, but there is a long way to go. “If you’re a renewable energy producer, say a wind power producer, for one megawatt hour of wind production, you get the ‘black’ price — the price that the grid in a particular state will pay for buying your electricity — plus an additional $45 credit for that megawatt hour, that is, the REC. The ‘black plus green’ return — the total return per hour that the wind producers are getting — is up at about $100 per MWh.

“The problem is that on a global scale, Australia has a relatively low wholesale power price, at about $40 per MWh. I think wind really needs a price of $120 a megawatt hour to make some kind of sense from an investment point of view — to make economic returns on wind,” says Gracey.

He says the REC price has actually recovered from that flooding of the markets. “That side of the market is good: we’d like it to improve more, but overall, we need it to be higher. The feeling was that as we progressed down this regime, the value of the RECs would go up.

“On the one hand, the cost of buying a wind turbine is falling: so from that perspective, the economics of renewables is getting better. But at the moment, the ‘black plus green’ return is not enough, and I don’t think you’re going to see a lot of new wind projects at these levels.

“The Government definitely wants to encourage this, but in terms of what happened at Copenhagen, and the subsequent decision to delay the ETS, they are definitely setbacks,” says Gracey.

In another Budget announcement, the Government announced the eight projects that will be invited to participate in the second stage of assessment for the first round one of the $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program. The two winners will be announced in the first half of 2011.

Gracey says Infigen Energy, Australia’s largest wind-energy developer, surprised the stock market by being named on the Solar Flagships Program shortlist. Infigen is teaming with US company Suntech Power, the world’s leading producer of crystalline silicon solar PV (photo-voltaic) modules, to generate up to 195MW of solar PV power generation capacity at three Australian sites.

In April, Infigen scrapped an attempt to sell its US wind farms, after a much-anticipated auction of the assets failed to entice attractive bids.

The market had hoped the wind farms would fetch about $1.5 billion, as it is the biggest independent wind portfolio in the US, but a weak market for renewable energy forced the abandonment of the sale.

“A couple of months ago I would have described Infigen as the Australian market’s stand-out renewables stock, but then it failed to sell the US windfarms,” says Gracey.

“It’s Australia’s biggest ‘pure’ renewables play, but it’s fair to say that the market is scratching its head about a wind play going into solar.’

“Infigen has bounced 11 per cent since the Budget . . .

“At least Infigen is saying ‘we know wind, we understand the intermittency of renewable energy, the volatility of not supplying electricity constantly to the grid.’

“They obviously see solar PV as an opportunity, they’ve got the experience, and if the government is footing a fair chunk of the capital bill, why not?” Gracey says.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Oil Spill Out of Control in Gulf of Mexico

A blistering attack on the oil industry for the over-confidence that led them to have no emergency plans in place to deal with the disastrous out of control oil spill and a spirited call for President Obama   “to stop believing these bumbling masters of industry and do what we know we need to do –  decrease our dependence on fossil fuel”. Cameron Scott makes the call and even The Australian says “the nature of the disaster demonstrates that deeper sea drilling requires more stringent safety and disaster recovery standards”.

The Thin Green Line: Cameron Scott brings you dispatches from the environmental battlefield, in association with the San Francisco Chronicle.

Occupational hazard of being a green blogger: Last night, after listening to a lot of analysis yesterday about whether Obama was taking the oil spill seriously, I was tossing and turning while writing a letter to him in my head. I’m including it below, and I’ve also put it up as a petition on Care2 http://www.thepetitionsite.com/7/ask-president-obama-to-ban-offshore-drilling – if you want to sign on.

Dear President Obama:

I am writing to ask you to make sure that another devastating offshore oil spill never happens again. You can do it. All you have to do is tighten the permitting process for offshore drilling and permanently ban any expansion of it.

It’s rare that a president gets such a golden opportunity to change the course of history. The scale of the spill invites you to make strong policy decisions. That opportunity is the one good thing about it — please don’t let it go to waste. What better argument for green energy and energy efficiency is there? People who might not ordinarily see the need — say, Louisiana shrimpers — are primed to make a change.

I know you’ve said we need the oil. Supporters of drilling threaten high prices at the pump if we don’t increase domestic production. But economists say offshore drilling is likely to have no effect on gas prices. And the effect it has on the environment is anything but negligible, as NASA’s photos of the spill from space make clear. Add in the cost in dollars of the spill and the lives lost and oil doesn’t look like such a great deal anymore.

Offshore drilling, according to the most aggressive estimates put out by the industry, could produce 10 percent of what the country uses after a 20-year ramp-up period. Why don’t we use that time to reduce demand by 10 percent or more? The United States is an energy hog. There are so many easy ways for us to reduce our use. And climate change demands that we do so. Be a leader, and show Americans how to make these small sacrifices. Be a good executive and create the combination of carrots and sticks that will make them do it.

Backing offshore drilling is inconsistent with the leadership we need you to show on climate change. Only an opportunistic politician — not a leader — talks from both sides of his mouth. Only an opportunistic politician puts his head in the sand about an impending disaster, hoping that his successor will be left holding the bag. Americans want leadership; that’s why we elected you.

You may agree with those who say that something like this will never happen again. But those same people never thought it would happen this time. And it was their blasé over-confidence that led them to have no emergency plans in place. It’s time to stop believing these bumbling masters of industry and do what we know we need to do: decrease our dependence on fossil fuel.

Source: www.sfgate.com

Editorial in The Australian (31 May 2010):

SO freely is the word “catastrophe” bandied around in environmental debate that its impact has been blunted. It is the only appropriate term, however, to describe the 70 to 110 million litres of oil that have poured into the Gulf of Mexico since April 20, when an explosion tore through the Deepwater Horizon rig 80km off shore. Eleven workers were killed.

Now that BP has abandoned its failed “top kill” operation to plug the rupture, pressure is increasing on Barack Obama to do more than wring his hands as he laments that the disaster is “as enraging as it is heartbreaking”. The US President has visited the disaster scene twice, but might come to regret spending the Memorial Day weekend relaxing in Chicago as the crisis unfolded. Already he has admitted he should have pushed BP sooner to disclose the full extent of the spill and that he was wrong to expect that oil companies were better prepared for such worst-case scenarios.

Much remains to be discovered about why the disaster occurred. Investigations by the Wall Street Journal have uncovered a breakdown in the chain of command aboard the rig as flames spread rapidly and terrified workers leapt into the dark, oil-coated sea. Reportedly, personnel on the bridge were in disarray. Friction and a delay in issuing a distress signal to the outside world suggest they were ill-prepared for an emergency evacuation.

Mr Obama has put Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, in charge of scientists working with BP officials and has stepped up clean up efforts. But with 12,000 to 19,000 barrels of crude oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico each day, a more effective strategy is needed. The only sure solution is to build a relief well more than 4km under the sea floor, an operation that would take months. So far, Mr Obama has stopped short of hiring another oil company with experience in deepwater drilling to take over operations.

The commission of inquiry established to investigate the disaster will have important lessons for all energy-producing nations, including Australia, where major new offshore liquefied natural gas projects are under way.

No technology is absolutely fool-proof, but the nature of the disaster demonstrates that deeper sea drilling requires more stringent safety and disaster recovery standards than those currently in place.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Rising Corporate Commitment to Energy Efficiency

Even as climate policy stalls in the US and elsewhere, 70% of corporate executives globally plan to increase spending on climate change initiatives between 2010 and 2012, according to a new survey by accountancy firm Ernst & Young. What’s behind this?  Energy costs, consumer sentiment and stakeholder expectations are drivers for implementing change, with 82% planning to invest in energy efficiency in the next year.

By BC Upham on Triple Pundit (26 May 2010):

Even as climate policy stalls in the US and elsewhere, 70 percent of corporate executives globally plan to increase spending on climate change initiatives between 2010 and 2012, according to a new survey by accountancy firm Ernst & Young

The international survey, which polled 300 executives at companies with revenues of $1 billion or more, indicates the degree to which concerns about climate change have percolated into corporate culture.

“Corporate leaders are not letting the lack of global standards and regulations slow their climate change investments” said Steve Starbuck, Americas Climate Change and Sustainability Services Leader at Ernst & Young. ”Other market drivers, such as equity analysts’ growing interest in climate change performance, are prompting a further need to act and be more transparent.”

Two thirds of respondents said their company had instituted a climate change program, with a further 16 percent planning to do so in the near future. Ninety percent said climate change policy is dictated by C-suite executives or board members.

Nearly 50 percent said their company planned to spend between .5 and 5 percent of revenue annually on climate change initiatives. The survey report points out that at a company with $1 billion in revenue, that amounts to $5 – 50 million a year. Executives reported that energy costs, consumer sentiment and stakeholder expectations are drivers for implementing climate change initiatives at their firms.

As for what companies plan to spend on, energy efficiency is at the top of the list. Eighty-two percent plan to invest in energy efficiency in the next year. Energy efficiency is not exclusively a global warming issue, of course. But 65 percent also plan to invest in new products or services because of climate change, and 63 percent transparency in corporate reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.

Thirty-six percent of respondents said they were “working directly with our suppliers and expect them to reduce their carbon footprint.”

The survey, titled “Action Amid Uncertainty: The Business Response to Climate Change,” comes as chances for a comprehensive climate and energy bill in Congress are slim (despite — or perhaps because of — the Gulf spill). Australians also recently shelved plans for a cap-and-trade system there. In the UK, global warming programs have been cut due to fiscal belt-tightening.

Source: www.triplepundit.com and www.ey.com