Around the World in 80 Days on Electric Powered Vehicles

Electric vehicles from Australia, Germany and Switzerland set off on the “longest and greenest” round-the-world drive to promote emissions free transport. The UN-backed “Zero Race” is organised by Swiss schoolteacher Louis Palmer, who made headlines with his 18-month pioneering world tour in a solar-powered “taxi” two years ago. He wants this race to show that seven billion people on this planet need renewable energy and clean mobility.

AFP report from Geneva (17 August 2010):

Electric vehicles from Australia, Germany and Switzerland set off Monday on the “longest and greenest” round-the-world drive to promote emissions free transport and November’s world climate conference.

The UN-backed “Zero Race” is organised by Swiss schoolteacher Louis Palmer, who made headlines with his 18-month pioneering world tour in a solar-powered “taxi” two years ago, picking up celebrities on the way.

“With this race we want to show that seven billion people on this planet need renewable energy and clean mobility,” said Palmer.

“Petrol is running out and the climate crisis is coming, and we are all running against time.”

A South Korean vehicle failed to reach the start line at the United Nations in Geneva in time after it broke down with “a minor battery problem” some 60 kilometres (37.3 miles) up the road, Palmer said.

It was due to join the other three teams later in the day.

The Zero Race is planning to stop off at the World Climate Conference in Cancun, Mexico, after touring through Europe, Russia, China, Canada and the United States before heading back to Geneva in January 2011.

Each plug-in electric vehicle can travel at least 250 kilometres on a single charge, with 80 days of driving time ahead of them.

They are obliged to consume no more electricity than each team has generated or purchased from clean energy sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric power.

Australian team TREV, run by Jason Jones and his 24-year-old son Nick, an electrical engineer from Adelaide, told AFP the trip through 16 countries would cost them about 400 Australian dollars (360 US dollars) in fuel.

“We’ve already bought the power and put it back in the grid,” 57-year-old Jones senior explained, standing next to their plastic-bodied two-seat three wheeler.

“We thought it just a great way to show what this car is capable of. The future of automotive transport is not a one-and-a-half tonne gas guzzler.”

The vehicles, which also include the Vectrix scooter from Germany and a Swiss Zerotracer two wheeler claiming a top speed of 240 kilometres per hour (150 mph), will be followed by Palmer in a repair van with a trailer.

Palmer said emissions from the the van as well as ship crossings across the Pacific and Atlantic oceans would be carbon offset.

Source: www.google.com

Clean Tech Driving Economies North, But Not Down Under

The first of the big four global accounting firms to set up a practice specifically for cleantech, Ernst & Young’s move highlights a trend for major consultancies to get into sustainability services. Major amounts of capital are flowing into clean energy and clean technology – most notably in Europe, North America and Asia – as governments increasingly want to use the sector as a driver for international competitiveness. When will Australia get the message?

Kai Tabacek for The Guardian (16 August 2010):

Ernst & Young’s (E&Y) announcement that it is launching a dedicated practice to support the UK’s clean technology sector is the latest development to highlight the attractions of the sustainability business for the big consultancies.

While E&Y claims to be the first to set up a practice specifically for cleantech, in recent years PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, KPMG and E&Y have all launched dedicated practices for sustainability and climate change.

Steven Lang, who leads the cleantech division in the UK and Ireland, recently explained the attraction to Business Green: “We’ve seen major amounts of capital flowing into clean energy and clean technology and governments increasingly want to use the sector as a driver for international competitiveness.

“The drivers are there for this to be a major growth area over the next five years.”

The firm expects to increase its revenues from the sector to £100m in the next three to five years. Lang will also lead a recruitment drive to hire 300 cleantech specialists, although the practice will initially employ around 100 people.

At the forefront of the services on offer will be advice on raising capital for cleantech, especially in the area of renewable energy. Some of the firm’s more traditional services like tax advice, auditing and risk assessment will also be turned to the sector.

In addition, E&Y announced last month that it would set up a Global Cleantech Centre of Excellence. Like HSBC’s Climate Change Centre of Excellence, the intention is to provide a platform for professionals in different industries and countries to share their expertise.

In the past 18 months, PwC’s sustainability division in the UK has grown threefold and now employs around 100 staff. In January 2009, it also acquired Sustainable Finance Ltd, a financial advisory firm specialising in environmental risk.

PwC’s sustainability head Malcolm Preston said: “While no sector was immune from the (financial) downturn, client interest and investment remained particularly around carbon issues, reporting and assurance.”

Anne McIvor, founder of Cleantech Investor, says energy legislation has been a major driver for the cleantech sector in the UK. In particular the government’s launch of the feed-in tariff in April this year, which allows people to claim money for generating clean electricity and sell it to the grid.

A survey published last month by Norton Rose and Cleantech Investor found that feed-in tariffs were seen as the biggest financial incentive for investing in cleantech by both investors (53.2%) and cleantech companies (36%). Other incentives included favourable tax treatment, government subsidies and zero interest loans.

The survey showed that 11.4% of respondents felt that the UK offered the best incentives for cleantech investment, second only to Germany and the USA. Energy generation and efficiency also emerged as the sub-sectors most likely to gain from funding in the next 18 months, according to investors.

Of the 466 cleantech professionals questioned, about half were investors, lenders and advisers and the other half came from cleantech companies or were consultants or analysts.

McIvor believes that sourcing early-stage investment, or venture capital, is going to be a particular challenge. Whilst investor confidence is harder to secure for unproven technologies, the amounts of money involved are much smaller than in the later stages of development, such as commercial roll out.

“There will be a lot of advisory work to be done with the small (venture capital) deals rather than the big ones,” McIvor says.

This will be particularly true if the government’s plans for a Green Investment Bank come to fruition

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Green Light for Clean Tech & Energy at the End of the Tunnel?

At the Climate Change and Business Conference in Sydney last week, it became very apparent that Australia was missing the beat when it came to investment in cleantech and clean energy, lacking the right Government stimulus, whereas New Zealand had make its mark with an emissions trading scheme, while China was moving to cut emissions and expand clean energy in leaps and bounds. There’s hope though with the start up of two new ventures, Carbon TradeXchange and Ventura Carbon.

Report from the Climate Change and Business Conference (13 August 2010):

Despite the considerable criticism received around the Copenhagen climate change meeting for not taking on mandatory targets, China is moving ahead rapidly to reduce its emissions.

“China has just recently overtaken the US as the world’s largest consumer”, said Robert Hansor of Lloyds Register Quality Assurance. “Driven by their energy security concerns and a desire to maintain economic competitiveness, China is taking rapid action to reduce emissions.

“The statistics are impressive. In 2009, China manufactured and installed more wind capacity than any other country. They are the largest manufacturer and exporter of solar panels and they have the largest installed hydro capacity of any other country.

“An advantage China has is their ability to rapidly mobilize large amounts of capital. They have a proposed ten year energy development plan that is worth about US$740billion covering renewable energy and energy efficiency,” commented Mr Hansor.

“China does not need international agreement to aggressively implement emissions reduction measures. In fact, it can be argued that the short term absence of a binding climate agreement following Copenhagen gives China a competitive advantage in the race to win the green economy,” added Anthony Hobley, Partner and Head of Global Climate Change and Carbon Finance at Norton Rose LLP.

Mr Hansor and Mr Hobley were speaking at the 6^th Australia-New Zealand Climate Change & Business Conference where over 350 delegates have gathered to look at what business can do now to reduce emissions, and what is needed from government.

Conference Communique from Sydney (12 August  2010):

Australia and New Zealand can cut their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 15% by 2020 in economically beneficial ways, according to business leaders at the 6th Australia-New Zealand Climate Change and Business Conference in Sydney.

But to do so businesses in both countries need a carbon price and a full range of other measures tailored to the specific needs of each sector, speakers from major areas of the economy told the conference.

“Australia can learn from New Zealand’s experience implementing a price on carbon and New Zealand can benefit from Australia’s experience with complementary measures,” said Gary Taylor, chairman of the Climate Change and Business Centre.

“With the right policy mix, Australia could achieve a 25% reduction in emissions from 2000 levels,” Professor John Thwaites, chairman of ClimateWorks Australia, told delegates.

“This is based on our report Charting a low carbon growth plan which analysed 54 emission reduction opportunities across 10 sectors. The report is available at www.climateworksaustralia.org

 “Each sector of the economy, though, has different opportunities and barriers to lowering emissions. Thus, federal, state and local governments must customise their policies and programmes for each sector to meet those needs.

“Business also needs to provide leadership, advocacy for action, low carbon growth plans and strategies to deliver sustainability goods and services,” Professor Thwaites added.

“Australia has very large scope for reducing emissions through energy efficiency,” said Jonathan Jutsen, executive director of Energetics, the major consultant to large businesses on energy and climate change.

“The Australian economy is only about 10% efficient – this means that 90% of the energy in the fuel we dig up is lost in the supply chain and end uses,” said Mr Jutsen.

A similar mix of measures would help New Zealand cut its emissions by the government’s target of 10% to 20% by 2020 from 1990 levels,” said Mr Taylor.

“New Zealand has made a good start by introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme, which is due to include all gases and all sectors. But to invest with confidence in cleaner, more competitive technologies, business needs greater long-term certainty on climate change policy and on allocation of free carbon credits to companies exposed to international trade,” Mr Taylor said.

The urgent need for strong leadership by business and government and closer collaboration between them was a strong theme of the conference. Businesses have opportunities to improve profitably through acting on energy productivity. While a price on carbon will increase the justification for action, government policy changes are required to maximise carbon mitigation.  These will help support a reinvestment program to allow industry to rapidly respond to a low carbon economy.

Murray-Goulburn, the leading Australian dairy processor, can reduce its emissions by 25% by 2020 through efficiency and other measures, Patten Bridge, its general manager of sustainability, told the conference. But the co-op would wants regulations changed to support clean energy initiatives like cogeneration, rather than inhibiting them.

A panel of speakers for six major sectors said the government can accelerate adoption of cleaner, more efficient technology through the right mix of a carbon price and investment incentives, appropriate regulation and standards, simplification of approval processes, removal of barriers, enhancement of information, education and skills and more support for research.

A summary of opportunities and barriers across six major Australian sectors presented at the conference is found in the attached table.

A poll of conference delegates highlighted the wide range of climate change opportunities their businesses are pursuing. For example, 30% are engaged in energy efficiency and 16% in renewable energy, 17% want a cap-and-trade price mechanism and 9% a carbon tax, 20% want incentives, 19% want regulations and 16% funding help. The poll results are attached.

Next August, New Zealand will host the 7^th Australia-New Zealand Climate Change and Business Conference. Delegates will have a chance to hear about New Zealand’s evolving policies on cap-and-trade and other climate initiatives; and New Zealand delegates will hear about Australia’s progress under its next federal government.

Source: www.Climateandbusiness.com

From Climate Spectator (13 August 2010):

Bartercard founder Wayne Sharpe has turned his focus to the carbon markets, and has established two new ventures, Carbon TradeXchange and Ventura Carbon, to tap into the growing industry, reports Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator.

Sharpe, a Gold Coast local who has spent much of the past 10 years in Europe, mostly London, is establishing Carbon TradeXchange as the world’s only exchange that specialises in voluntary markets, which he sees as potentially bigger than the compliance market – particularly with the lack of international and domestic agreements – and certainly more efficient.

Sharpe said he had been looking for opportunities in the carbon market for a year or two, and it became clear that the voluntary market was crying out for an entrepreneurial type and it needed an exchange. He is able to deliver on both. He is looking to headquarter the web-based exchange – which links brokers, project developers and customers – in Australia and has been talking to state representatives in Victoria, NSW and his native Queensland. Ventura Carbon has been established as a sort of green investment bank, specialising in backing start-up companies with new abatement technologies.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Good News: It’s Possible to Save Money & the Environment

A well-designed climate policy could slash greenhouse-gas emissions while putting money in the pockets of most Americans. The bad news: That’s not the policy Congress has been debating. A study in the US by Economists for Equity and Environment (E3 Network) found two basic principles for designing a fair, effective climate policy: We need to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions, and we need to use the resulting revenues wisely.

By Elizabeth A. Stanton & Frank Ackerman in Grist.org (16 August 2010):

With a good climate policy, we could save money and our environment.

Congress is off for its summer vacation, and once again, they left the Capitol without adopting a climate policy. Is it impossible to pass a bill that’s good for both the earth’s climate and the American taxpayer? Or did Congress just drop the ball again?

The good news: A well-designed climate policy could slash greenhouse-gas emissions while putting money in the pockets of most Americans. The bad news: That’s not the policy Congress has been debating.

What would it look like to do climate policy the right way? In a recent study released by Economists for Equity and Environment (E3 Network), we explored the impacts on emissions, and the costs to households throughout the country, under a wide range of scenarios. We found two basic principles for designing a fair, effective climate policy: We need to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions, and we need to use the resulting revenues wisely.

Start with the price: To reach the widely discussed goal of a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, the price of emitting a ton of carbon dioxide in that year should be $75. That’s definitely higher than Congress has been contemplating.

How could anyone afford that? It’s simple. If most of the carbon revenues are refunded to households on an equal per capita basis, then a large majority of Americans will come out ahead. That is, your refund will be larger than the amount you pay for carbon emissions. If 85 percent of carbon revenues are refunded to households, then four-fifths of the country, including a majority in every state, will be better off. That’s a bigger refund than Congress has yet considered.

Under such a policy, you’d pay a lot for carbon emissions, at the gas pump and on your electric bill — but you’d get it all back, and more, in your refund check. You would come out even farther ahead if you save energy, whether by turning off unneeded lights or by buying a more fuel-efficient car. Then you’d pay less but still get the same refund. That’s the point of the plan: the market incentive to reduce emissions.

Now for the not-so-good news: How does this differ from the ever-changing proposals emerging from Washington? Let’s look at three basic questions.

First, is the price on carbon emissions high enough to really reduce emissions? The risks of climate change are real; the laws of physics don’t need 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to make the world grow dangerously warmer.

Reducing emissions is an urgent worldwide priority, but until the largest, richest economy (that would be us) takes the lead, the rest of the world is unlikely to follow.

On this score, all recent legislative proposals have been disappointing. They have ceilings on the price of emissions, typically limiting it to $40 per ton or less in 2020 — roughly half of what’s needed to reach the targeted 20 percent reduction.

Next, who gets the money — or the permits to emit carbon dioxide, which are worth a lot of money? If emission permits are given away to industry, it’s businesses and their stockholders that reap the benefit. If all permits are sold, then the revenues can be refunded to households, as we propose. One recent proposal, the Cantwell-Collins bill, comes closest to our suggested approach, selling all permits and refunding 75 percent of revenues to households. Other leading proposals include large permit giveaways, wait decades to give refunds to most citizens, and divide revenues among many competing uses — some worthy, others pure pork.

The third question is, what else would the policy do to reduce emissions and help build a new, green economy? Investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy can reduce emissions, in concert with price incentives.

These investments should be targeted to the states with the highest per capita emissions — generally those most dependent on coal for electricity generation.

Reducing America’s reliance on coal is essential to the creation of a new, sustainable energy system. On this point the legislative proposals are more mixed; none seek to phase out coal, but most do invest in efficiency and renewables. Under our plan, 15 percent of revenues remain available after the refunds, and we recommend spending much of this money to reduce emissions and create jobs, especially in the highest-emission states.

If Congress adopts a fair, effective policy when it returns in September — one with the right answers to these three questions — we can do our part to fight climate change, put money in the pockets of most Americans, and start building a green economy.

Source: www.grist.org

Temperatures Rise as Sceptics Want Their Day in Court

New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) faced a legal challenge by sceptics group Climate Science Coalition. The coalition has launched high court action over the institute’s climate data, calling for the country’s temperature record to be set aside and for NIWA to produce a “full and accurate” temperature record.

By Brian Williams in the Courier-Mail (17 August 2010):

SCIENTISTS have hit back at climate change sceptics, with a paper affirming the case that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause of warming.

The Australian Academy of Science yesterday went on the front foot to clear up confusion after challenges to warming theories.

It came as New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research faced a legal challenge by sceptics group Climate Science Coalition.

The coalition has launched high court action over the institute’s climate data.

Academy past president Kurt Lambeck said the scientific statement aimed to boost climate change understanding.

The role of CO2 in the atmosphere was well understood and unless greenhouse gas emissions were reduced, an upward trend in global temperatures would continue.

“The available evidence implies that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause (of warming),” Prof Lambeck said. If emissions continued at business-as-usual rates, temperatures would rise significantly.

Records over millions of years showed that a stable climate could not be taken for granted. Measurements over the past 100 years showed that as CO2 levels rose, the Earth also warmed.

Scientists say it is important to have debate on climate change, but spurious attacks were taking up an increasing amount of time to debunk.

In NZ, the coalition’s statement of claim calls for the country’s temperature record to be set aside and for NIWA to produce a “full and accurate” temperature record.

NZ Climate Change Research Institute senior researcher Professor Andy Reisinger said NIWA had checked its records, validated long-term trends with thousands of meteorological stations around the world and answered innumerable queries.

“The coalition has not put forward any clear and consistent scientific arguments against this local or global temperature trend; has not published its views in scientific peer-reviewed journals; has not disclosed its own scientific methods by which it claims to show that there has been a cooling rather than warming; and its members have little credibility,” Prof Reisinger said.

“The High Court action will cost taxpayer money to defend the obvious against the obscure and ridiculous.”

Massey University’s Ralph Sims said he had yet to find a recent peer-reviewed paper authored or co-authored on climate science by coalition commentator Bryan Leyland.

Source: www.heraldsun.com.au

Lucky Last – Breaking the carbon addiction

It is truly unfortunate that during this important election campaign, neither of the two major political parties is offering any real concrete steps to begin the crucial process of de-carbonising the Australian economy, writes Michael Molitor in Climate Spectator.

Despite increasingly robust claims by leading scientists that we are running out of time to lower our carbon emissions, that the cost of responding is rising fast over time, and clear statements from major companies and business leaders that this is the greatest investment opportunity of all time, Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard have both lost the carbon plot.

For Tony and Julia, let me suggest a ten-step plan in order to put Australia at the forefront of the world’s biggest economic growth opportunity and to help ensure that a widespread global carbon correction is avoided.

Although it is easy to bash the Greens for apparently blocking passage of the meaningless and useless emissions trading scheme, upon closer inspection most of their climate change policy proposals fit nicely with the ten point plan outlined here. I want to create real and sustainable wealth in Australia with a robust carbon price – I leave it to you to guess which party will be getting my vote on 21 August. Read More

Breaking the carbon addiction

Michael Molitor in Climate Spectator (17 August 2010):

It is truly unfortunate that during this important election campaign, neither of the two major political parties is offering any real concrete steps to begin the crucial process of de-carbonising the Australian economy.

Despite increasingly robust claims by leading scientists that we are running out of time to lower our carbon emissions, that the cost of responding is rising fast over time, and clear statements from major companies and business leaders that this is the greatest investment opportunity of all time, Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard have both lost the carbon plot.

The default position for both major parties is to do nothing as, in their view, Australia accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions and we are currently making a lot of money exporting carbon-intensive commodities (coking and thermal coal) and products (alumina) with “cheap” coal-fired electricity.

The Prime Minister wants to throw about a billion dollars at connecting renewable energy projects to the grid, and another $100 million at improving the energy efficiency of buildings.  At the same time, the federal government is spending billions to ensure that we can ship more and more coal overseas and continue operating our large and inefficient coal-fired power plants.

Pavan Sukhdev, an international expert in attempting to put a price on nature, recently gave a few public lectures in Australia. His robust thesis is that we are spending the natural capital of the planet faster than it is being regenerated and that these real costs are simply not accounted for on the balance sheets of companies or national economies.  Extending his argument to the Australian economy has staggering ramifications and suggests that we are actually experiencing negative growth.  That is, if you reflect the full cost of the loss of natural capital on our national accounts, Australia’s total GDP is less than zero.

The full cost of coal to Australia, for example, is actually larger than the $1 trillion of GDP that is generated by the Australian economy every year. This imbalance will ultimately be corrected by physical changes in the climate system, large-scale economic corrections, or both.  Ross Garnaut and Lord Stern both caution about the gargantuan scale of the damages that would be associated with either type of correction.  Avoiding this outcome must become the paramount focus of our national government.

For Tony and Julia, let me suggest a ten-step plan in order to put Australia at the forefront of the world’s biggest economic growth opportunity and to help ensure that a widespread global carbon correction is avoided.

Step 1:  Recognise that coal is the world’s most expensive energy carrier. I know this one is difficult, because it means letting go of our large supply of the world’s reserves, but coal has not been commercially viable for decades.  Coal is artificially cheap because its production and use is directly subsidised, as well as its transport. If you price in the full health, social, economic and environmental costs then you quickly realise that coal is the world’s most expensive energy carrier – not the cheapest.  Eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies and force coal companies to bear the full cost of its extraction, use and waste and you will see how fast renewable and distributed energy technologies grow and flourish.

Step 2: Our national energy system is about 10 per cent efficient – only 10 per cent of the energy that passes through the system finds its way to perform useful work. This should be considered a national disgrace and not something we continually celebrate.  Energy regulators have recently approved retail electricity price increases of up to 40 per cent to cover the billions of dollars that will be spent to keep this staggeringly inefficient system operating.  Please note that this investment does not improve the system’s efficiency or expand its capacity, it only allows the old inefficient system to keep running.

Tony Abbott does not want Australians to have to pay for a carbon price through, for example, higher electricity prices, but he has no problem forcing us to pay substantially more for a 19^thCentury energy system relic. Change the focus of the introduction of a carbon price through regulation from one which primarily addresses climate change to one which moves investment into a 21^st Century smart grid-distributed energy system that is more than 40 per cent efficient by 2015.  If we can afford $43 billion for a National Broadband Network then we can certainly afford a similar amount for a National Smart Energy Network.

Step 3: Start the process of a full phase out of all coal-fired power plants in Australia. Premier Brumby wants to spend a few billion dollars buying and quickly retiring the biggest source of carbon emissions in Australia – the Hazelwood brown coal-fired power plant in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley. A robust carbon price would rapidly correct the inflated value of these Victorian-age clunkers and make the buy-out process much cheaper. Raise tax revenue from either a robust carbon tax or a carbon trading scheme (without a large free allocation of permits) and spend the money on retiring the biggest and least efficient coal-fired power plants once their valuations reflect their true costs.  Carbon prices need to start at around $25 per tonne of carbon dioxide in order to sufficiently change the market conditions that keep dirty coal alive. 

Step 4: Everywhere possible, start to fuel switch the remaining coal-fired power plants to burn our abundant supplies of gas. Provide both carbon price relief and other tax relief to power companies who invest in these changes early. The goal should be to eliminate all coal-fired power generation as soon as possible, but no later than 2015. This also means not approving any new coal-fired power plants. Burning gas also produces carbon emissions, but the emissions are reduced almost by half and this helps buy time until zero carbon energy sources are fully commercial.

Step 5:  Invest substantially more public dollars into large-scale renewable energy projects. The Solar Flagships initiative is a good start, but simply not enough.  We also need more diversity in the technology mix so more funds should be available to geothermal and wave energy projects on a scale commensurate with their ability to deliver large-scale de-carbonisation benefits quickly.  Think of these funds as investments into the biggest energy market opportunity in history and a means to quickly make up for the revenue lost from kicking the old business of coal to the kerb.

Step 6:  Recognise that carbon capture and storage is a waste of time and money.  No one working on this technology believes it will be commercially viable on any scale meaningful to the carbon management challenge.  Former climate change opposition spokesman Ian McFarlane made the same statement just before Malcolm Turnbull lost his Liberal Party leadership last year. If the US and China want to spend money on this technology then let them go for it. It does not make sense for Australia to pursue this option when we have so many better choices in front of us.

Step 7:  Move to leverage the massive opportunity around the production and export of sustainable biofuels. We now have an approved drop-in aviation biofuel that is the only option to allow airline travel to remain commercially viable and to achieve the industry’s stated objective of reducing their carbon emissions by half by 2050. Australia is one of a handful of countries that will be able to grow the large quantities of the plants and trees required to meet the global demand for aviation biofuels.  With Asia the region with the largest expected growth in airline travel, we are uniquely positioned to service this growing market opportunity. We need much better rules governing the production and use of biofuels in Australia and appropriate assistance to companies wanting to establish large-scale sustainable biofuel feedstock projects.

Step 8: Take improving energy efficiency seriously and create a national market-based scheme that trades in energy efficiency credits.  Most green policy initiatives never address the scale or timing of the new investment required to achieve environmental objectives. We need a national energy efficiency scheme that is capable of driving a few billion dollars of new investment towards improving how buildings use energy.  If the scheme is not capable of creating new market conditions that make it attractive for this level of annual investment, then it will be a waste of time. This is where most government environmental initiatives fail – they never drive sufficient amounts of new capital to solving the underlying problem. In most cases this does not mean using public treasury dollars – just changes to the tax regulations or a new market-based trading scheme.

Step 9:  Dick Smith is correct; we need a sustainable population policy for Australia. The cheapest way to abate carbon emissions is to have fewer people. We do not need more people to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers or to adequately support our national defence.  Companies that depend on wasteful and meaningless consumption want more people in order to be able to sell more to them.  Let the population slowly rise to 25 million and then move it back down to 20 million by 2020. We will generate more wealth with less people and allow our smaller population to enjoy substantially higher levels of well-being.

Step 10: Pursue fully electric vehicles and battery storage now, before these disruptive technologies force us to make the switch. For more than 90 per cent of Australian drivers, a battery-powered electric vehicle is not only the more environmentally responsible option, it is also going to be much cheaper.  Although our national electricity system is only 10 per cent efficient, petrol vehicles – once you subtract the energy used to move the weight of the vehicle – are only about 1 per cent efficient.  Yes, 99 per cent of the chemical energy in the petrol is lost to heat and other inefficiencies and only 1 per cent gets you to and from the supermarket. This makes your petrol vehicle the worst piece of antiquated technology you own and a very good reason to pursue 21st century electric vehicles.

Although it is easy to bash the Greens for apparently blocking passage of the meaningless and useless emissions trading scheme, upon closer inspection most of their climate change policy proposals fit nicely with the ten point plan outlined here. I want to create real and sustainable wealth in Australia with a robust carbon price – I leave it to you to guess which party will be getting my vote on 21 August.

Michael Molitor is the CEO of CarbonShift Advisory Pty Ltd, a Sydney based consultancy

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Over to Business to Lead

It is always stimulating and ever hopeful when you attend a conference like the latest Climate Change and Business event in Sydney. There’s a wealth of talent, access to brilliant minds, and updates on all the wonderful business of climate change being done here and around the world. Then you come thudding down to earth when you hear politicians talk! Leadership is what’s needed but there’s little sign of that. Business is taking a lead, and there must be more of that. New Zealand has shown that it is possible to get an emissions trading scheme underway and Minister Nick Smith should sit down with his Australian counterparts to show how it’s done. We also hear of all the other policies and plans from offshore which our Government needs to take notice of. Singapore leads the way in its usual enterprising way, for energy efficiency, buildings and transport. Pakistan and Russia continue to take a belting from the weather and we see what impact that is having on their economies and their people. And we wonder whether the latest job Kevin Rudd has been given will make any difference at home or abroad. There’s some encouraging energy news concerning hot rocks, biochar, wind and electricity generation. We see how climate change could boost learning in science for students. Don’t forget to check out Beyond Zero Emissions, Make Poverty History and Walk Against Warming.  It’s all on for young and old. – Ken Hickson

Profile: Dr Nick Smith

New Zealand Minister for the Environment and Climate Change Issues Dr Nick Smith told the Climate Change and Business conference in Sydney that the emissions trading scheme which started 1 July this year is not a complete answer but an important first step on the path to reduce emissions. Also, since the passing of the NZ ETS into law, more than 80% of new consents lodged have been for renewable generation in hydro, wind, geothermal and marine, whereas the bulk of new electricity generation in the last ten years has been from coal, gas and diesel.    

Nick Smith       

Minister for the Environment

Minister for Climate Change Issues

Nick was born and educated in North Canterbury and first stood for public office at the age of 18 for the Rangiora District Council while still at High School. Nick attended Canterbury University where he completed a Civil Engineering degree followed by a PhD in Landslides.

Having joined the National Party as a teenager Nick has held governing positions through all levels of the organisation and has been involved in several campaigns.

Nick entered parliament in 1990 and was the first National MP in Tasman since 1932, then following the MMP reforms in 1996, was elected the first Nelson National MP since 1954. He continues to hold the seat with a comfortable majority. A Minister in the previous National Government he has held the portfolios of Education, Corrections, Conservation, Assoc Minister of Immigration, Treaty Negotiations and Social Welfare.

Nick is deeply involved in his local Nelson community, and particularly enjoys constituent work. Nick is married to Linley, and is the proud father of Hazel and Logan, and stepfather of Samantha and Alexander.

11 August, 2010

Here is an edited version of the speech by Dr Nick Smith to the Australia New Zealand Climate Change and Business Conference, Sydney

NZ’s moderated ETS

The legislation we passed last November gives New Zealand a workable and practical emissions trading scheme.

The economic analysis we commissioned on becoming Government in 2008 clearly concluded that an ETS was the most efficient way for New Zealand to curtail emissions at least cost to the economy.

However, we also identified some real issues with the approach by the previous Government that needed correcting.

The major policy changes we made were in respect to allocations for trade-exposed, emissions intensive industries.

The former rules discriminated against small and medium sized businesses and acted as a disincentive to growth.

It is our view the qualifying limit should be based, not on an absolute level of emissions, but in proportion to a business’ turnover.

These changes mean a far wider group of businesses have been eligible for support – albeit the total allocations to industry have changed little.

We also changed allocations to be production-based. If companies grow, their allocations will increase. If they cut their production, their allocations will drop.

This change reflects the Government’s ambition of wanting the ETS to encourage more efficient production and investment in new technology and not reduced economic activity or result in the exporting of industries offshore.

A further change was in making allocations on an industry average basis. We did not want to reward those with higher emissions and punish those who invested early in improving efficiencies.

The final major challenge to allocations was in slowing down the phase out of industry support. There was no phase out scheduled until 2018 but then at a very aggressive rate of 8% per year.

Our approach of 1.3% per year starting in 2012 generated much more debate than it deserved. The truth is these rates are subject to regular review and it is inevitable they will be altered in response to progress internationally.

The underlying principle for our Government will be to phase out such support in line with our major trading partners.

Other significant changes to the ETS included deferring agriculture’s entry by two years to 2015. The technical difficulties on including agriculture emissions cannot be understated.

We also took a pragmatic view that in the wake of the global recession imposing the full cost of the ETS on households and businesses was not realistic.

However, we did not wish to detract from the full price incentives on the forestry sector that is so important in the New Zealand context.

That is why the scheme provides for only a half obligation during its transitional phase meaning a de facto price for emitters of $12.50 per tonne, while foresters enjoy the full benefit of $25 a tonne price for new plantings.

We also passed a considerable number of amendments to deal with issues such as tree weeds, providing equitable support for the fishing industry and resolving Treaty of Waitangi matters.  

Our final ETS design did not by any means achieve universal acceptance.

I have received strident opposition from both extremes of the political spectrum. Some say the ETS doesn’t do enough; others say it goes too far.

This confirms my view that we have the balance broadly right. It is not a complete answer by any means but is an important first step on the path for New Zealand to reduce emissions.

It is often said that on any journey, however far, the most important and difficult step is the first. We made that step on 1 July and it is a significant achievement.     

It is interesting to reflect today on the implementation. Despite a great deal of pre-introduction hype, 1 July passed with only modest price changes.

Variations in fuel and electricity prices were consistent with Government estimates and small compared to the many other factors that influenced energy prices.

The allocation process is well underway for the fishing, industrial and forestry sectors.

We expect to allocated 11.7 million units worth $290 million to the industrial sector between now and the end of 2012

For the industrial sector the Government is deciding on and issuing allocations in three tranches or groups.

The first group of these will be a number of large, energy intensive companies, performing activities such as aluminium smelting, and the production of paper and packaging.

We have already received a number of applications from these companies and when fully allocated this group will represent more than 80% of the total units expected to be allocated.

Applications for Group two and three, which includes many smaller enterprises, are progressing well – albeit a number of industries have sought a slowing of the timetable to enable accurate data to be collected.

This year there will also be a one off allocation of 700,000 New Zealand Units to fishing quota owners. This is to compensate for the effect of increased fuel costs from the ETS on the value of their quota and is a transitional measure.

The Government received more than 760 applications and I’m pleased to announce that this week, successful applicants will be receiving notice of their provisional allowances of units. 

Some allocations have already occurred in the forestry sector and the New Zealand government estimates that approximately 75 million units will be allocated to this sector in the period to 2012.

This massive allocation reflects the huge importance of forestry to New Zealand in the context of climate change.

It is only through the substantial plantings of the new forestry since 1990 that New Zealand has been able to offset its significant 25% increase in gross emissions.

Without these plantings New Zealand would face a substantial Kyoto deficit.

It is also important to note that quite modest new plantings into the future could play a very important role in reducing New Zealand’s net emissions in coming decades, and the incentives provided by the ETS will play a crucial role in securing these long-term investments.

Now the ETS is implemented there is evidence that the scheme has presented new business opportunities and started to motivate businesses to take positive action against climate change.

Forestry is critical to New Zealand’s long term emissions profile and there are signs the ETS has already started to have a positive impact in this area.

Up until 2009, deforestation was on the increase – with 30,000 hectares lost from 2005 to 2008. However with the positive signals sent by the ETS, this has turned around and in 2009 planted forest area switched from a loss to a gain.  The indications we have received from foresters is that this trend is set to continue.

Some companies have already entered into significant afforestation projects since the legislation for the revised NZ ETS was passed.

For example in February this year, Taupo company Puketapu 3A Incorporation, electricity generator Mighty River Power and the Lake Taupo Protection Trust have made a 2400-hectare forest deal in Taupo that will reduce carbon emissions and nitrate run-off. This deal involves a farm-to-forestry conversion and the subsequent sale of carbon credits from the forests to Mighty River Power.

And it’s not just major players realising these benefits – more than half of the almost 400 voluntary forestry participants in the ETS are for forests of less than 50 hectares.

In response to the ETS, some farmers have started to plant forests on their properties. For farmers who have steep, erosion-prone and largely unproductive land, forestry offers them a chance to boost their returns – both economically and environmentally.

Apart from creating incentives for afforestation, the NZ ETS has also encouraged renewable energy.

The bulk of new electricity generation in the last ten years has been from coal, gas and diesel.  However, since the passing of the NZ ETS into law, more than 80 percent of new consents lodged have been for renewable generation in hydro, wind, geothermal and marine.  

We know that people respond to incentives and the early evidence is indeed encouraging.

For the complete speech and more information on the New Zealand ETS go to the website:

Source: www.beehive.govt.nz

Ideas for a Low Carbon Economy: Australia Hit with Ten of the Best

Australia never managed to get its emissions trading scheme (or CPRS) off the ground, even though our smaller trans-Tasman neighbour New Zealand did. Now both major parties in Australia are being attacked for a lack of strong (or any!) policies on climate change, it would seem alternative ideas are needed. So Graham Readfearn for ABC Environment has scanned the globe for climate policies and come up with ten of the best.

Graham Readfearn on ABC Environment (9 AUG 2010):

Some might say the government and the opposition are lacking for ideas on climate change policy. ABC Environment has 10 good ones they could consider.

THE GOVERNMENT’S proposed emissions trading scheme never quite got off the ground. And with both major parties being attacked for a lack of strong policies on climate change, it would seem alternative ideas were thin on the ground in the party rooms. However, ABC Environment has scanned the globe for climate policies the next Australian Government could steal. Ten of the best are here:

1. Carbon tax – Canada

A carbon tax has been proposed by both Ross Garnaut and the Greens as an interim measure while the details of a trading scheme are nutted out. In 2008 the Canadian province of British Columbia introduced a carbon tax on the burning of fossil fuels which currently stands at $21 per tonne of greenhouse gases but will rise to $32 by 2012. So far, the BC government has collected $906 million, but the tax is revenue neutral. This means all the money collected gets returned to citizens in cuts to other taxes. Although the tax only relates to emissions from burning fossil fuels, the BC Government says it accounts for 77 per cent of the state’s overall greenhouse gas footprint.

2. Climate levy – UK

A similar idea from the UK is their Climate Levy. Four years before the UK joined the rest of Europe in the world’s first emissions trading scheme, the government introduced its Climate Change Levy. The scheme is a business tax on all energy used including natural gas, electricity, petrol and coal. The current charge for electricity use is just less than one cent per kilowatt-hour. Electricity from renewable sources is exempt. Many industries have negotiated discounts to the tax, but these depend on those sectors reaching efficiency targets.

3. Coal tax – India

Why tax everything, when you could just tax the main offender? The Indian government has taken the literal step of taxing burning coal to pay for cleaner ways to generate energy. The Indian Government’s Clean Energy Cess (another word for tax) came into force in July 2010 and places a levy of about $1.20 per tonne on the country’s coal production, estimated to be 570 million tonnes for this current tax year. The revenue will be used to install 20,000 MW of solar power generation by 2022. By comparison, the Australian Government’s Solar Flagships Program will install 1,000 MW of solar power generation.

4. Electric cars – China, USA, UK

Never mind cash for clunkers, how about cash for a shiny new electric car? Late last month, the UK Government announced it would give an $8,700 rebate towards the cost of buying an ultra-low emission car. The US Government already offers a credit of up to $8,300 on the cost of an electric car. In June, the Chinese Government announced a pilot policy in five cities to provide a $9,800 subsidy to anyone buying an electric car. One of the cities included is Shanghai which has a population of close to 20 million with 8.5 million private cars. About seven per cent of Australia’s total carbon footprint comes from passenger road transport.

5. Cleaner cars – France

France’s national bonus-malus policy on new vehicle purchases avoids new-fangled electric cars, and instead encourages the uptake of more fuel-efficient cars. Introduced in late 2007, anyone buying a new vehicle that emits 130 grams of CO2/km or less gets a Government bonus payment. The amount you get ranges from $290 to $7,300 depending on how efficient the vehicle is. Penalty fees kick in for new vehicles which emit 161g of CO2/km or more, starting at $290. For people buying vehicles that emit more than 250g CO2/km, their penalty is $4,000. If Australia had the French scheme, for example, Toyota Prius buyers would get a $1,447 bonus but Holden Commodore customers would be penalised $2,315. In the first year of bonus-malus, sales of greener cars went up by 45 per cent while sales of cars emitting more CO2 dropped by 42 per cent.

6. Green roofs – Canada

From February this year in Toronto, at least 20 per cent of the roofs of most new residential, institutional or commercial buildings must be covered in greenery. The new green roof bylaw came after a report to city planners concluded that if all the city’s available roof space was “greened” the annual financial benefits could be as high as $40 million. Advantages included lower energy consumption, lower urban temperatures, better air quality and big savings on managing storm-water run-off. Australian Federal politicians in Parliament House should be used to the idea as they sit beneath a green roof every day.

7. White roofs – US

So we know about green roofs, but what about white roofs? The US energy secretary Steven Chu has just announced all new or replacement roofs of his department must be lighter and more reflective. Lighter roofs keep buildings cooler, reduce the “urban heat island” effect, cut energy consumption and also radiate less energy into the atmosphere than dark roofs. A recent study found lightening roofs and pavements in big cities in the northern hemisphere could give a one-off saving of 57 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2008, the world’s emissions were 28 billion tonnes.

8. Solar hot water – Spain

Australia has schemes to encourage people to heat their water from the sun, but in Spain (pdf) the government introduced a law requiring minimum amounts of solar hot water. The law, which originated in 2000 in the city of Barcelona, applies to all new and renovated roofs in medium and large buildings. Depending on conditions such as location or the amount of water needed, as much as 70 per cent of hot water must be heated with solar.

9. Feed-in tariff – Germany and others

Feed-in tariffs guarantee a price for renewable energy which is fed into the electricity grid, whether from domestic rooftops or even large scale generators. Australia has seven different state and territory feed-in tariffs but no unifying national tariff. There are 50 other countries that do have a national scheme, including South Africa, UK, Greece, Japan, Czech Republic, India, Kenya, Slovenia, Taiwan, Thailand and Ukraine. The most long-standing and successful scheme is Germany’s (pdf), which analysts say cut 57 million tonnes of emissions in 2008 compared to the eight million tonnes saved through Germany’s role in Europe’s emissions trading scheme.

10. Carbon points – Republic of Korea

Most people have heard of rewards programs where you can gain points when you buy products. In the Republic of Korea the Government has taken the rewards points idea to encourage people to buy climate friendlier products. Launched last year, its “carbon cashbag” scheme covers electrical items such as televisions, DVD players, heaters and air-conditioners. Buying energy efficient models attracts points which can be redeemed on public transport, utility charges or buying other appliances.

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/08/09/2977596.htm

Singapore Builds on Leadership in Energy Efficiency & Transport

Singapore provides another good example (or three!) for Australia to borrow in the climate change action basket. From a recent visit, editor Ken Hickson noticed a strong emphasis on energy efficiency – for transport and buildings – as well as serious attempts to bring about vastly improved waste management and water management processes. Then there’s a lift that generates kinetic energy – one of the features that helped the Asia Square twin tower development in Singapore win a Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design Core & Shell Platinum certification by the US Green Building Council.

Report from The Fifth Estate (11 August 2010):

A twin tower development in Singapore designed by designed by Denton Corker Marshall and Architects 61 has been awarded the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design Core & Shell Platinum certification by the US Green Building Council.

Developed by MPGA and, the “Asia Square” development, of about 185,800 square metres of office space, is expected to consume about 33 per cent less energy than most standard commercial buildings, saving close to 10 million kilowatts per year. It is also expected to save approximately 40 per cent or 65 million litres of water per year as compared to most standard commercial buildings.

Asia Square’s project director Jeremy Choy says that the development’s sustainable features will provide a healthier working environment that will add value to business.

“Asia Square has been designed for long-term sustainability and to create a healthier working environment for tenants to boost employee productivity. This will enable the future tenants of Asia Square to attract and retain high-value, knowledge-based employees. Very simply, what’s better for people will in the long run be better for business.”

A lift that generates kinetic energy is one of the features that helped the Asia Square twin tower development in Singapore win a Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design Core & Shell Platinum certification by the US Green Building Council.

Developed by MPGA and designed by Denton Corker Marshall and Architects 61, the development located in the New Downtown section of Singapore’s Marina Bay will feature about 185,800 square metres (two million square feet) of office space as well as a 280 room hotel.

Still under construction, one of Asia Square’s centrepiece features will be a natural light enhancing 100,000 square foot atrium called “The Cube,” featuring a 16 metre-high ceiling and extensive tree planting to help bring overall temperature down.

In terms of energy savings, Asia Square is expected to consume about 33 per cent less energy than most standard commercial buildings, saving close to 10 million kilowatts per year. It is also expected to save about 40 per cent or 65 million litres of water per year as compared to most standard commercial buildings.

Source: www.thefifthestate.com.au

Report from Singapore from the Energy Efficiency Programme Office (E2PO)

How can we address climate change?

Climate change is a global phenomenon and as an island state, Singapore is not spared from the effects of climate change such as warming temperatures and rising sea levels. NEA has commissioned a vulnerability study in consultation with other government agencies to study the possible effects and impacts of climate change on Singapore.

In Singapore, the primary greenhouse gas from human activities is carbon dioxide that is released when fossil fuels such as oil and gas are burnt to meet our energy needs. Our energy demand is expected to grow in the future due to an expanding economy and a growing population. Much of this growing energy demand could be avoided if we use energy more efficiently instead of increasing energy production. Energy Efficiency is therefore an important strategy to reduce our GHG emissions.

In addition to mitigating climate change, there are many benefits to energy efficiency. Energy efficiency goes a long way towards:

• Enhancing our air quality
  In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, the burning of fossil fuels also generates air pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and particulate matter. By adopting more efficient technologies or practices we can reduce these pollutants, improve our air quality and secure a better quality of life for Singaporeans.
• Increasing our economic competitiveness
  Improving energy efficiency will result in overal cost savings to businesses and consumers. This helps to cushion the impact of rising energy costs. A more energy efficient economy can help Singapore maintain its competitiveness over the long term.
• Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels
  Singapore is almost totally dependent on imported fossil fuels for her energy needs. Prudent use of energy through energy efficiency measures would help to moderate this dependence and defer the need for installing new energy infrastructure.

Energy Efficiency in Singapore

On an economy-wide level, energy consumption per dollar services gross domestic product ($GDP), or energy intensity, is used globally as an indicator of a country’s state of energy efficiency. Singapore’s energy intensity improved by 15% between 1990 and 2005 due to the adoption of better technology in power generation and the more productive use of energy in other sectors.

Energy Efficiency is a cost-effective means of mitigating GHG emissions. Although energy efficiency makes financial sense, energy efficiency measures may not be implemented due to market barriers such as the lack of information and capability.

To drive energy efficiency improvement in Singapore, the Energy Efficiency Programme Office (E²PO) has been established. The E²PO is an multi-agency committee led by the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and comprises the Economic Development Board (EDB), Land Transport Authority (LTA), Building and Construction Authority (BCA), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Infocomm Authority of Singapore (IDA) and the Agency for Science, technology and Research (A*Star). The Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) and Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) are also represented at the committee.

The E²PO has identified the following areas for action in developing a holistic energy efficiency strategy and Masterplan for Singapore:

• Promoting adoption of energy efficient technologies and measures by addressing the market barriers to energy efficiency
• Building capability to drive and sustain energy efficiency efforts and to develop the local knowledge base and expertise in energy management
• Raising awareness to reach out to the public and businesses so as to stimulate energy efficient behaviour and practices
• Supporting research & development to enhance Singapore’s capability in energy efficient technologies

TRANSPORT

Transport solutions can play a critical role in improving the state of energy efficiency of Singapore.  To improve energy efficiency on the move, the E²PO aims to:

• Promote the use of Public Transport

Promoting the use of public transport is a key thrust of LTA’s land transport masterplan.  Public transport is highly energy efficient on a per passenger-trip basis.  Today, the public transport mode share stands at 63% during morning peak hours. LTA intends to increase the public transport mode share to over 70% in the next 10-15 years.  To achieve this, LTA will enhance the public transport infrastructure, improve public transport services and more.

• Promote the use of more energy efficient vehicles

Green Vehicle Rebate:
Green vehicles are more fuel-efficient and emit less air pollutants than their conventional petrol or diesel equivalent. To promote the use of green vehicles, LTA and NEA jointly introduced the Green Vehicle Rebate (GVR).  GVR aims to bring about a change in consumer behaviour to support clean emerging technologies, by narrowing the cost differential between a green vehicle and the conventional equivalent model.

Fuel Economy Label:
The Fuel Economy Labelling Scheme (FELS) for Passenger Vehicles is administered by the Singapore Environment Council and supported by NEA. The main objective of this scheme is to raise consumer awareness of fuel economy in passenger vehicles. By making fuel economy information readily available at point-of-sale, consumers would be able to make a more informed decision when purchasing new vehicles.

Information on all vehicles participating in the Fuel Economy Labelling Scheme for Passenger Vehicles is available at the Fuel Economy Database. Drivers may wish to learn about driving tips for better fuel economy here.

• Ease traffic congestion for better fuel economy

Managing road usage to ease traffic congestion is another key thrust of LTA’s land transport masterplan. Traffic congestion is an issue in virtually every urban city in the world. Fuel economy deteriorates during traffic congestion as vehicle speed slows and longer time is needed to transverse the same distance. LTA will continue to manage road congestion through infrastructure development, refinement of car ownership and usage restraint measures such as the Electronic Pricing (ERP) system.

Source: www.e2singapore.gov.sg, www.app.nea.gov.sg and www.lta.gov.sg