Premium for Green Roofs & Global Common Metric for Green Buildings

According to Sidonie Carpenter, president of Green Roofs Australia, the owners of two outstanding green roofed buildings in Toronto Canada claim they enjoy a 15% premium on their rents and a 15 year waiting list for tenants. Green Roofs Australia holds its national conference in Adelaide next week. Also Alfonso Ponce Alvarez was one of the speakers at the World Green Building Council Congress in Singapore last on his work with the United Nations to develop a common carbon metric and on green building drivers in Europe. The Fifth Estate reports.

For more information on the Green Roofs Australia Conference in Adelaide go to: http://www.icebergevents.com/greenroofsconference2010/

Following is an edited transcript of the interview by Tina Perinotto in The Fifth Estate:

According to Sidonie Carpenter, president of Green Roofs Australia, the owners of two outstanding green roofed buildings in Toronto Canada claim they enjoy a 15 per cent premium on their rents and a 15 year waiting list for tenants.

A look at the websites of these two, www.401richmond.net and www.robertsonbuilding.com makes the claims seems plausible. Certainly Carpenter believes the financial case for green roofs stacks up in more ways than one.

First there is the looming carbon price and the opportunity for “some carbon payback and sequestration opportunities and we start putting a dollar value on that,” Carpenter says.

Next is the very little understood information that a green roof, instead of taking up space where the solar panels might go, will actually enhance the efficiency of photo voltaic panels – by a fairly sizeable margin, in fact.

According to Carpenter when it’s too hot on the roof you get “brown outs” and the solar energy system won’t produce anywhere near as much energy as promised because the system can’t cope with the heat. It works best at between 23-25 degrees Celsius.

“Solar panels work more efficiently over a green roof. You get 25 per cent more efficiency because it reduces the ambient temperature,” she says.

“Even in Hobart it would be over 25 degrees Celsius in summer so you get brown outs.

“In Brisbane even in winter the temperature rises to up to the 30s and on a high rise building in summertime the temperature gets to 70-90 degrees.

“Which is why countries like Germany are leading in photo voltaics. They don’t actually work in very high temperatures on the roof. You’re better off putting them on the ground.”

Carpenter says there is now a lot of research coming out of Germany that combines photo voltaics and green roof analysis because of the benefit of evaporative transpiration, [which is like the cool moist atmosphere that a rainforest creates.]

Green roofs can also help reduce the load on airconditioning of having to cool air of 70 degrees so it can be used inside a building.

So how much do green roofs cost?

To Carpenter that’s a bit like the piece-of-string question. It depends totally on what sort of green roof you want – and that’s anything from a lightweight solution to a full deep-soil garden that requires special structural support. But generally most jobs range between $60 a square metres to $100 a square metre.

There are times, of course, when the project is simply uneconomic. As in her own house, for instance, a “small domestic house, where the quote for the structural steel alone came in at $75,000.”

Did she go ahead?

“No, we did not go ahead with it. It would have meant no bathroom, no kitchen. So we just did a light weight retrofit on the existing roof.”

Another job currently underway at Balmoral in Brisbane may also not see the light of day, because of cost blowout, thanks to a steep site that is difficult to access and requires soil and all other elements to be craned in.

In this case the costs look like blowing out to $2000 a square metre for each of the 60-70 square metre roofs over each of the five dwellings,” Carpenter says. “And the budget is $200,000.”

A green wall, by the way, generally costs between $1200 to $2000. [This might seem pricey but at a recent conference that she spoke at - the 3rd International Urban Design Conference in Canberra - Carpenter expressed mild exasperation that while the cost of structures and maintenance in other parts of a building structure are rarely questioned, the costs and needs for the same in a green roof or green wall were so often viewed as onerous.]

Carpenter says the most expensive green roof in Australia is probably the one over the Victorian desalination plant at Wonthaggi, recently announced in a tender awarded to Fyto Green, at a cost of $4.3 million.

The biggest is undoubtedly over M Central in Sydney’s inner west at Pyrmont, she says.

In the US the Ford motor plant has a 24 acre (9.72 ha) green roof but elsewhere around the globe there are the beginnings of radical experiments – with high-rise farms in Harlem in New York and paddy fields in China.

Carpenter says that there is also great opportunity for large industrial sheds to lower their carbon footprint, especially when so many are occupied by  high profile corporates such as Coles and Woolworths under the spotlight for their high energy use.

“I think that’s where there is opportunity, for companies such as Coles and Woolworths, shipping their goods all over; their food miles are huge, and their carbon foot print is huge.

“They could start to cover their industrial buildings with very lightweight green roofs that produce carbon sequestration. We’d be looking at very shallow soil profiles – they are the ones that would really make a difference -especially with those large industrial estates, where there isn’t a blade of grass to cool the ambient temperature.”

And most, adds Carpenter, could be done for around $100 a sq m.

By Tina Perinotto

14 October 2010 – Alfonso Ponce Alvarez was one of the speakers at the World Green Building Council Congress in Singapore in September.  He spoke with The Fifth Estate on his work with the United Nations to develop a common carbon metric and on green building drivers in Europe.

Following is an edited transcript of the interview.

The Fifth Estate: Please tell us what your work is about

Alfonso Ponce Alvarez: I work for the French Building Research Centre, under the authority of the huge Ministry for Sustainable Development in France, which is the result of a merger between the Ministry for Construction, Transportation and Urban Affairs, the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Social Affairs. So my organisation is placed under the authority of this ministry.  So we are 900 engineers, five different locations in France, one in China.

We do fundamental research on buildings and infrastructures, and we get money from the French Government for that. We do certification of building products, and we run the French National Scheme for Green Buildings, which is called HQE and stands for High Environmental Quality. It’s a government-owned scheme. This is very peculiar.

TFE: What’s peculiar about it?

APA: It is completely public. It’s public sector driven. It’s not driven by industry. We do also testing; we do publications and we help the French Government in drafting all the regulation for buildings in France. And we are heavily involved in European standardisation too.  I’m also a board member of UNEP-SBCI (.The United Nations Environment Programme Sustainable Building & Construction Initiative

TFE: What is happening with green buildings in France and Europe? And what are the drivers?

APA: In Europe we have the European Commission, and we have what we call directives.  So the European Commission issues directives that all member states have to comply with.  But you are free to determine the path you will follow.  You need to get to the point A, but you are free to choose how you get there.  So there is no harmonised reality in Europe; every country is at a different stage.

I can tell you what’s happening in France.  In France we have this regulation called Grenelle de l’Environnement.  Basically, the commitment is all new buildings will consume 50 kilowatt hours per square metre per annum by 2012.

TFE: And what do they produce now?

APA: Today we are more or less about 120 [kwh] in new buildings.  So the first piece of the regulation is 50 kilowatt hours per square metre per annum by 2012.  Positive buildings by 2020.

TFE: What do they mean by positive buildings?

APA: Net zero energy.  So they produce more energy than they use.  In Europe we call that positive buildings.  And in America they call that net zero energy buildings. The idea is they produce more energy than they consume by 2020. This is the French Government, but it’s in line with a directive called 20-20-20 Directive or Energy Package, and that’s a European regulatory framework that says that by 2020 we will reduce by 20 per cent global emissions of carbon in the European Union, and we will use 20 per cent of renewable energy to get that goal.

TFE: On the base of 1990?

APA: On the base of 1990, exactly.

TFE: With this directive, how does that compare with existing buildings?

APA: Well, regulations in Europe are very stringent, more than in the US, because we didn’t have the same attitude towards the petroleum shocks of the ’80s and ’73. So energy efficiency policies have been in place for a long time in Europe. So regulations are quite high already.

TFE: How do European buildings compare with American buildings then?

APA: There is this British report from BRE which shows how a LEED-rated building will perform in the US and in Europe against a BREEAM and…Green Star. They’re basically comparing how a LEED Gold building would perform in Europe against a BREEAM outstanding building in Europe. The result is that you get a higher certification on the LEED in Europe, so you have several buildings that are certified in Europe with LEED, even if they are just complying with the regulation. But that’s normal. It’s because LEED is referring to American standards and different targets and different calculation methodologies, and the standards in the US tend to be lower because of the way you build a building. You use more wood, you know, it’s different, it’s a different reality.

TFE: So a Platinum LEED might equate to what in France?

APA: It’s not that – what we say is – for example, energy; energy will be calculated in this manner: kilowatt hours per square metre per annum. And we will all measure that in the same way. And the same applies for indoor air quality.

TFE: Okay, so it’s not that the actual ratings will harmonise, it’s the actual methodology will be the same, for water, energy, for anything?

APA: Exactly. So the metrics that we will be using will be the same.

TFE: Is there a move to make it the same rating systems so everyone understands what a Five Star is?

APA: Well, that’s more of a political movement. Not today.

TFE: How does it help the fund manager, though?  Because the fund manager wants to know that his or her portfolio of buildings in four different countries with four different rating system, is the same standard. Does this really help them?

APA:    Yeah, it does. It does, because what this guy wants is to actually establish baselines, benchmark his portfolio, the performance of his portfolio with his competitors, and monetarised indicators.

TFE: So he’ll know that a level three on one scale is the same as a level four somewhere else?

APA: Exactly.

TFE: But the market doesn’t understand that?

APA: The market might not understand. It’s a first step, it’s a first step.

TFE: Okay, first step, you’re not going to stop there?

APA: No. It’s a technical step so that this guy will know, will be able to compare the energy performance of his portfolio, even if he has buildings in France, Germany and the UK, because for energy he will know that we are using the same metric.

TFE: How are you organising that?

APA: We decided to partner with the Working Building Council and UNEP-SBCI – United Nations Environment Program – Sustainable Building and Climate Change Initiative. So these people basically took one of the metrics we defined, the carbon metric -  the way we calculate the carbon emissions from buildings. We worked with them, so we worked the metric a little bit, and they endorsed that metric. And that metric was presented by UNEP’s spokesman, Nick Nuttall at the latest COP, COP 15 in Denmark, in Copenhagen. What we’re planning to do now is to extend that collaboration to other metrics. So we have to find six metrics and we’ll want to extend that cooperation to the rest of the metrics that we have to find.

TFE: Can you tell us more about the European and French situation with green buildings?.

APA: Well, you know, France is in a very funny spot, because the involvement of the French Government is huge because of the French traditions. So for example, the HQE rating system is mandatory in several parts of the country, in what we call… business districts, for example.  So if you want to build a skyscraper, for example, in Paris, in La Défense, you have to comply to the HQE scheme. It’s mandatory. It’s the High Environmental Quality. It’s the equivalent of Green Star.   Insurance companies are giving premiums if you use it where it’s not mandatory.

TFE: Why is this?

APA: Because from their perspective it presents a risk-reduction factor. It anticipates regulation, so it’s a way for them to reduce their risk exposure. So they give premiums. You get also an acceleration of your working premium or tax rebates if you use it. So these are the things that the government …it’s highly, highly incentivised.

TFE: What other incentives are there?

APA: The  public policies include tax rebates, and the acceleration of the working permits, so you get your working permit more quickly.

TFE: To start development?

APA: Yes.

TFE: And what about the tenants, the premium tenants, do they want it?

APA:    Yes, landlords because of [the incentive] and tenants because…they would like to display the results.

TFE: What about existing stock?

APA: I am not really familiar with existing stock.  What I know from existing stock is the problem we have with existing stock is we don’t really know if certification is the right tool to incentivise this sector. I mean, certification as a third party verified system. It’s probably more a simple assessment that we need, and what we need is to collect that data from the stock. So physical, functional data, but also financial data. And put that into a database. But the problem is, who owns that database? How can you make sure that the data is confidential

In all the European territory, you have  a directive called the Etiquette- the European Etiquette for Energy, and you have the DPCs…so this is basically that you have to disclose the energy..for all buildings when you sell it and when you rent. And that’s mandatory.

TFE: There’s no minimum performance, or saying you have to improve it?

APA: No. This Energy Etiquette is not really having an impact in the marketplace actually.
The reality in the European Union [on energy] is so diverse. For example, a country like France, people don’t really care about carbon because 85 per cent of our energy comes from nuclear power.  So it’s carbon neutral.

TFE: So why are they making restrictions for new buildings, then?

APA: To be in line with European directives. But carbon is not an issue in France. Water is an issue in Spain, but it’s not an issue in Finland. It’s very… very …like that.

TFE: So what are the big drivers then in France?  Just the European directives, then?

APA: The big drivers in France are, yes, the directives [which are market drivers] just for a segment, the leaders, the 20 per cent more advanced. And that’s pretty much it.

TFE: Alfonso, thank you for that.

The Fifth Estate travelled to Singapore to cover the World Green Building Council Congress, as a guest of the Green Building Council of Australia

Source: http://www.thefifthestate.com.au

Keep on Trucking with Biofuels & Waste to Ethanol

Around the world there’s an increasing use of biofuels not only to decrease emissions from transport, but also to reduce Australia’s trade deficit, improve domestic fuel security with readily available, renewable and sustainable fuels and bring about regional development opportunities around the country. So says Heather Brodie, CEO of the Biofuels Association of Australia on the launch of a biodiesel blend fuelled Volvo truck. Meanwhile, US biofuels company Coskata plans to name a Melbourne-based site for its $400 million waste-to-ethanol plant within the next few months.

Heather Brodie, CEO of the Biofuels Association of Australia, provided an update on all relevant biofuel developments in Australia at the Carbon Expo in a session on Transport Biofuels. Also on show at the Expo in Melbourne was the Volvo 13 litre truck, operating with a biodiesel blend. It was launched in Sydney a few days earlier.

Announcement (8 October 2010):

The Biofuels Association of Australia announced the launch of the BAA Volvo FH 13 litre truck by the Hon Minister Tony Kelly, NSW Minister for Planning, Infrastructure and Lands, today at the International Passenger Terminal at Circular Quay, Sydney.

“The BAA is delighted that the Minister has been able to take time out of his very full schedule to promote the use of biodiesel in Australia by launching this truck on our behalf” said Heather Brodie, CEO of the Biofuels Association of Australia.

“Volvo Trucks is working with the BAA and Ron Finemore Transport to promote to the community how important it is to use increasing blends of biodiesel in our fuel mix” Ms Brodie continued. “Ron Finemore Transport has been using 20% blends of biodiesel for the last three years and has notched up more than 40 million kilometres in their fleet of trucks. This truck will be travelling the length and breadth of the east coast promoting how the average consumer can use biodiesel as well.”

“Around the world we are seeing an increasing use of biofuels not only to decrease our emissions from transport, but also to reduce our trade deficit, improve our domestic fuel security with readily available, renewable and sustainable fuels and bring about regional development opportunities around Australia”.

“Australia’s production of biofuels – both ethanol and biodiesel – continues to come predominantly from by-products and waste streams. This is a fantastic opportunity to promote the local industry and we thank Volvo, Ron Finemore Transport and the Minister for taking part in the program” Ms Brodie said.

Source: www.biofuelsassociation.com.au

Barry Park in Sydney Morning Herald (11 October 2010):

BIOFUELS company Coskata plans to name a Melbourne-based site for its $400 million waste-to-ethanol plant within the next few months.

Wes Bolsen, chief marketing officer of the US-based company that has attracted business partners including car maker GM Holden and the Victorian government, told BusinessDay he expected five potential sites to be whittled down to three within days, with a single site nominated by January.

Mr Bolsen is in Victoria to meet government and a group of companies that are helping the Illinois-based biofuel producer set up a fuel factory that can convert waste products as diverse as household food scraps and old tyres into cheap ethanol that can then be mixed with petrol and used in cars.

The Coskata plant proposed for Melbourne should be able to produce about 250 million litres of ethanol a year from the system, which Mr Bolsen said would help reduce the country’s dependence on mineral oils.

Holden has become the first car maker to offer a vehicle that can run on anything from 100 per cent petrol to E85, a mix of 85 per cent ethanol and 15 per cent petrol.

Mr Bolsen said ”major community engagement” would help determine which of the five sites would be the most appropriate.

”These communities are competing for jobs and growth,” Mr Bolsen said. ”We’re looking for a site around the Melbourne area, and we’ve already had interest from NSW and Queensland.”

Mr Bolsen said the Victorian biofuel plant would take up to three years to build, creating hundreds of construction jobs and ongoing employment from a waste collection process that will source feedstock for the plant within a 50-kilometre radius.

Mr Bolsen said sourcing waste material was proving an easy process, with companies already lining up to offer Coskata waste products to feed into the plant.

He said this waste would normally cost up to $150 a tonne to dispose of and that it would mostly end up as landfill.

Source: www.smh.com.au

Last Word: Conservation as an investment, not a cost

We hear a lot about putting a price on carbon, but what about putting a price on conservation and biodiversity? That’s exactly what the people at The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) have done in the most comprehensive study yet: they have estimated the cash value of ecosystems.

They say the figures show the case for conservation is overwhelming in pure economic terms. One case study found that protecting and replanting mangrove swamps in Vietnam cost $1.1 million – an investment which reduced spending on dyke maintenance by seven times as much each year.

They admit frustration that most mainstream economists are blind to the value of biodiversity. “Conservation has to be seen as an investment and not a cost,” says Rudolf de Groot of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, one of the lead authors of the study. Fred Pearce in the New Scientist has the full report. Read More

Fred Pearce in New Scientist (12 October 2010)

End the carnage decimating the natural world

Invest in lush tropical forests, vibrant coral reefs and clear blue streams, and they will provide a healthy return. That’s the message from a group of environmental economists who for the first time have estimated the cash value of ecosystems.

They say the figures show the case for conservation is overwhelming in pure economic terms. One case study found that protecting and replanting mangrove swamps in Vietnam cost $1.1 million – an investment which reduced spending on dyke maintenance by seven times as much each year.

Yet the scientists behind The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study (TEEB) admit frustration that most mainstream economists are blind to the value of biodiversity. “Conservation has to be seen as an investment and not a cost,” says Rudolf de Groot of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, one of the lead authors of the study.

TEEB was initiated at the 2007 G8 summit, in Germany. “It aims to do for biodiversity what the Stern report did for the economics of climate change,” says de Groot. The group will launch the first part of its work – a report called The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations – at a UN summit on biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, this month.

In it, they use prior studies to calculate cash values for biomes ranging from tropical rainforests to Arctic tundra, based on the services they provide to humanity. Coral reefs come in top, and are valued at up to $1.2 million per hectare per year, mostly reflecting the tourism income they provide. By moderating extreme events like storms, the group estimates each hectare of reef saves $34,000 per year, on average.

But even humble savannah grasslands, which protect water supplies and store carbon, have a calculated annual worth of thousands of dollars per hectare. Each hectare of coastal wetlands, meanwhile, treats dirty water to the tune of $120,000 in avoided costs each year.

The report makes clear that the value of many “ecosystem services” remains difficult to price, however. Its authors speculate that many woodlands have a high value for filtering air pollution, grasslands for pollination and rainforests for climate regulation.

One appendix speculates that, at current prices on carbon offset markets, the carbon tied up in trees and soils of the Amazon rainforest would have a “stock value” of $1.5 to $3 trillion. Many ecosystems also recycle moisture to maintain the water cycle, create soil and perform many other functions vital to life on Earth – something which no ecological economist has yet managed to value.

“For all the ecosystems we investigated, restoration pays,” says de Groot. “For every dollar invested in restoration of forests, wetlands or grasslands, the benefits are between twice and 75 times higher.” Nonetheless, he says, “getting this understanding incorporated into mainstream economics remains a problem”.

The figures are designed to bring politicians up short before a major meeting under the Convention on Biological Diversity from 18 October in Nagoya (see “Promises, promises”, below).

The economists decided not to calculate a single global figure for the planet’s ecosystems. But a rough calculation by New Scientist based on TEEB’s figures for individual biomes puts the cash value of the Earth’s ecosystems at about half a trillion dollars.

This seems far too low, considering that the global economy – much of which is ultimately dependent on biological resources – is valued at around $70 trillion. And lower still, given that by cycling carbon the biosphere acts as a planetary thermostat.

The numbers are therefore most useful as an indicator of the most immediate economic benefits. Including unquantified ecosystem services would considerably raise the figure. After all, as Tim Killeen of Conservation International puts it: “Biodiversity has been the foundation for the world’s economy since the origin of human civilisation.”

The cash value of Earth’s biomes

Values are in dollars per hectare per year. The range represents the different values of biomes of each type around the world, with the top end of each range corresponding to prime locations (Source: TEEB)

Coral reefs (tropical and subtropical): $14 – $1,195,000

Key values: tourism, storm protection, fish nurseries

Coastal wetlands: $2000 – $215,000

Key values: waste purification, fish nurseries, storm protection

Other coastal systems: $248 – $80,000

Key values: tourism, fish nurseries

Inland wetlands: $1000 – $45,000

Key values: natural water reservoirs, waste treatment

Rivers and lakes: $1800 – $13,000

Key values: water supply, waste treatment, tourism

Tropical forests: $91 – $23,000

Key values: climate regulation, gene banks (for medicinal plants, for example), erosion prevention

Temperate and boreal forests: $30 – $4900

Key values: Food, gene banks, watershed protection

Woodlands: $16 – $2000

Key values: timber and other forest products, waste treatment

Grasslands: $300 – $3100

Key values: climate regulation, watershed protection

Promises, promises

In Nagoya, Japan, this month, the world’s governments will agree that they have not kept a promise they made at the World Summit for Sustainable Development at Johannesburg in 2002 to decrease the rate of species loss by 2010.

They are likely to agree a new set of targets for 2020, including stemming the loss of biodiversity, controlling invasive species and conserving at least 10 per cent of all the world’s major biomes.

Diversitas, a group of leading conservation biologists, has already condemned the proposed new targets as vague, unachievable and not based on good science. Georgina Mace of Imperial College London, a leading figure in Diversitas, told New Scientist: “I don’t think the current process or the 2020 targets are really fit for purpose.”

In a letter to Nature earlier this year, Mace, Harold Mooney of Stanford University in California and others from Diversitas said: “The targets continue to mix the biodiversity we value highly and the biodiversity we urgently need to secure the benefits people derive from functioning ecosystems. To resolve competing demands, these different priorities should be made explicit.”

Diversitas proposes distinguishing three conservation aims. Red targets would protect human safety and include conserving mangroves to shield coastlines against storms, maintaining coral reefs to prevent the loss of local fisheries, and preventing deforestation that causes landslides.

Green targets would protect things that societies value – sacred forests or charismatic species like the great whales. Finally, blue targets would protect key ecosystem services, like carbon sinks in forests, soils and permafrost that help maintain the climate.

Source: www.newscientist.com and www.teebweb.org

A river runs through it

Yes, more than 80% of the world‘s population relies on rivers for livelihood and yet they’re in a mess. A classic example of what we humans have done – or not done – to affect our environment and our climate. Action on that front gets the headlines this week, as does discussions in China and action Indonesia to recognise the importance of forests and trees as a means to cut emissions. We can all learn from the mistakes – and well-meaning intentions – of others, like how Europe has attempted to tackle emissions and manage energy. But more attention needs to be on incentives for clean tech and clean energy investment. This applies to Australia, where we are seeing our wave energy innovators go the way of our solar power pioneers – to greener pastures! Australia is showing some leadership in Green IT or is it ICT. Enough to rescue us?  And there’s some good advice on how to get Government aid for environmental projects, as well as news of attempts to innovate and act from unlikely places, like the Sunshine Coast with its Clean Futures event. October in Queensland promises to be fruitful – with a big outing for the Beyond Zero Emissions plan and Guy Pearse’s assault on the Smart State. Before that we have Victoria’s Premier extolling the virtues of his even smarter state and acting as host for the bigger than ever Carbon Expo in Melbourne next week.  For a clean diversion we have algae as automotive fuel, a new Nissan cleaner than ever and bamboo continues to makes a sustainable mark. Sara Phillips looks at the UK controversy over the overly-dramatic film encouraging climate change action. Is this seriously funny? Ken Hickson

Profile: John Brumby

Victoria leads Australia in the carbon/climate change stakes and it is fitting that John Brumby, the State premier should reinforce his commitment to 20% reduction in emissions by 2020 (compared to 2000 levels), when the Federal Government is going after a pathetic 5% reduction. Victoria is also   driving solar energy, energy efficiency measures and planning for the impacts of climate change. It amounts to $10 billion in new investment.  He welcomes all comers – even from Federal Government and other states – to the Carbon Expo which starts in Melbourne on Monday 11 October.

 Message from Victoria Premier to the Carbon Expo:

I welcome you to Melbourne, Victoria, for the Carbon Expo Australasia 2010, which is Australasia’s premier Trade Fair and Carbon Conference. This Expo assists industry to better manage its emissions and allow businesses to exhibit their low-carbon products and services.

Climate change is the greatest challenge of our generation and there has never been a stronger case for action – we know that climate change poses big risks for our economy, our environment and our way of life. Taking action now to cut emissions will not only help our environment but will also create new economic opportunities through the development of new industries, technologies, markets and jobs.

Taking Action for Victoria’s Future, Victoria’s Climate Change White Paper – The Action Plan, strengthens Victoria’s leadership in responding to climate change and creates a climate of new economic opportunity for our State. The Action Plan sets a solid target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 per cent by 2020 (compared to 2000 levels), as well as driving solar energy, energy efficiency measures and planning for the impacts of climate change. These actions not only position Victoria as the leading Australian State in tackling climate change – they will also drive around $10 billion of new investment in the State.

As part of our commitment to act on climate change, the Victorian Government is supporting the growth of Victoria’s carbon market services industry and establishing Victoria as a leading regional centre for carbon market services. Victoria has conducted a feasibility study into a Carbon Market Institute, will continue to publish the Melbourne Carbon Market Services Guide, will establish an export cluster to participate in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, and is developing international trade and investment linkages to assist companies to engage in global carbon markets. In addition, we are establishing the Victorian Carbon Exchange to drive the creation and purchase of Victorian offsets.

I consider Victoria to be well placed to become a leading carbon market services centre in the Asia-Pacific region. We have a concentration of over 100 carbon market businesses and have made significant investment in the clean technology sector. Victoria also has well established business relationships with developing countries eligible to host CDM projects, supported by the Victorian Government’s international business offices.

The Victorian Government is proud to sponsor the Carbon Expo Australasia 2010 which, with your contribution, will lead to the discovery of new carbon business opportunities, and products and services, that will help our region successfully transition to a new low carbon economy.

The Hon John Brumby

PREMIER OF VICTORIA

As momentum builds again for serious national emissions reform, don’t miss the biggest Australian carbon business networking event of 2010 - Carbon Expo Australasia 2010 – starting NEXT MONDAY.  There will be carbon wargames, an Oxford-style debate and doubtless worms.  Direct from the newly established ‘Climate Change Committee’ Australian Climate Change Minister Greg Combet and Professor Ross Garnaut will headline an outstanding conference program that also includes THE global and domestic carbon business leaders.  The Trade Fair features the leading Australian and Asian businesses involved in the business of emissions reductions.  Clean development projects from a dozen Asia-Pacific countries will be featured in the Trade Fair - with project managers looking to do CDM deals. 

Delegates can register here with our online registration form

A NEW version of Expo’s Program can be downloaded here or from Expo’s website at www.carbonexpo.com.au

Expo delegates will hear and interact with international and domestic carbon business leaders to;

• gain the latest insights regarding international climate policy – what will happen at Cancun ?
• understand the likely future of carbon markets – internationally & domestically
• understand the opportunities for Australian business in the Asian Green Revolution
• get a handle on the issues around raising finance for low carbon projects
• get a sense of the scope and likely emphasis for Australia’s role in climate change action
• learn of the likely role of energy efficiency & renewables
• get the latest on the best approaches to carbon reporting & accounting
• hear of the opportunities in forests & reduced deforestation
• get the fair dinkum story on soil carbon opportunities
• hear the opportunities and how big a role transport & biofuels can play in reducing emissions
• learn of the latest science and how it is to be communicated

Should you wish to further clarify any aspects of delegate and/or exhibitor registration, please contact Merrin McAuley at the Expo Secretariat at secretariat@carbonexpo.com.au or on 07 5528 2501

Regards

Michael Whitehead
Director
Carbon Expo Australasia 2010

Moderator – Tony Jones

Keynote – Dr Graeme Pearman, Fellow, Academy of Science; former Chief of Atmospheric Research, CSIRO

• An outline of the latest international climate data and what it means for countries, communities, policy-makers and business sectors

• What does this suggest GHG reduction targets should be?

• Arming society with foresight – why climate scientists must improve the way they communicate their knowledge and what it means

09.30 to 10.30

Plenary

Keynote

address

Welcome and introduction

Moderator – Tony Jones

Robert Purves, Chairman, Environment Business Australia

The Hon Gavin Jennings MLC, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Innovation, Victoria

Opening address – The Hon Greg Combet AM MP, Australian Minister for Climate Change and Energy Effi ciency

Vote of thanks to Minister Combet – Paul Verschuer, Managing Director, Foreign Exchange & Commodities, Carbon, Energy (FX & CCE),

Westpac Institutional Bank

10.30 to 11.00 Morning tea/coffee – in trade fair area

Trade fair walkabout, accompanied by key sponsors, discussion with exhibitors

11.00 to 12.15

Plenary

Keynote

address

and Panel

discussion

International policy progress

Moderator – Tony Jones

An overview of the latest developments and trends in international policy responses to GHG abatement and mitigation. What are the

challenges and opportunities for setting emissions reduction objectives, emerging carbon markets and investment in the low-carbon

economy? This session will consider:

• emerging national and international policy action in the USA, Europe, Asia, Australia & New Zealand

• prospects for meaningful international policy action post-2012

• which way to go? Bilateral, multi-lateral or global?

• why delay national action in Australia? Action is being spearheaded elsewhere and opportunities will be lost

• how to strengthen Australia’s contribution to the Mexico COP?

Keynote address – Peter Young, Chairman, Aldersgate Group (Green Investment Bank), London

Panelists

Dr Hu Tao, Senior Environmental Economist, Policy Research Centre, Ministry of Environmental Protection, People’s Republic of China;

Member, China Carbon Forum Advisory Board

Martijn Wilder, Partner and Head of Global Environmental Markets and Emissions Trading Practice, Baker & McKenzie

Stuart Calman, Director, Climate & Risk, Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand

Joanne Evans, Assistant Secretary, Finance, Markets and Forests Branch, International Division, Australian Department of Climate Change

& Energy Effi ciency

Robert Hill, Chairman, Australian Carbon Trust; Former Australian Environment Minister; Former Australian Ambassador to the UN

Wayne Sharpe, CEO and Founder, Carbon Trade Exchange

Source: www.carbonexpo.com.au

Europe Could Do Better for Investors

Europe, widely regarded as the pace-setter in climate and energy policies, has failed, according to a new report, to provide a strong enough signal to encourage private investment to switch away from carbon-intensive technologies. France, the UK and Germany have become alarmed by the speed of transition taking place in key Asian markets, particularly China, which is able to effect change without a carbon price because it simply drives investment through government mandates and with finance from state-owned banks. Now in Australia with Norton Rose, Anthony Hobley produced research for the IIGCC report.

Avoiding Europe’s mistakes

Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator (5 October 2010):

Europe is widely regarded as the pace-setter in climate and energy policies. It has had an emissions trading scheme for more than five years, it has championed the most ambitious emissions reduction targets, and individual countries have made enormous investments into renewable energy technology.

But a survey has found that, for all its policy initiatives, Europe has failed to provide a strong enough signal to encourage private investment to switch away from carbon-intensive technologies: investment has been deterred not just by a weak price signal from the emissions trading scheme, but by the mish-mash of complimentary policies across the region.

The failure of the EU ETS to deliver a meaningful price on carbon was initially due to a massive over-allocation of allowances, and then because of a slump in industrial production caused by the financial crisis. Now it is thought to lack ambition, particularly in light of the massive shift in capital in Asian countries such as China, South Korea and Japan.

The European carbon price is currently trading at around €15.40 ($A21.80), but even that is insufficient – a price close to €30 or more is considered necessary to drive the scale of change required.

The report, “Shifting private capital”, conducted on behalf of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which represents more than 50 pension funds and other asset managers responsible for some $8 trillion under of investments, suggests that this is only part of the problem: despite having a regional trading scheme, the EU policy on climate and energy is piecemeal, and unless the mix of policies on energy efficiency, renewable energy, grids and fossil fuel subsidies are crafted with a long term vision, then private capital will not come to the party.

And private capital is essential. The report notes that it will need to provide 85 per cent of the hundreds of billions of dollars required to cut greenhouse gas emissions at the scale required to achieve climate goals, but will only do so if low-carbon investments, projects and assets offer sufficiently attractive risk-adjusted returns.

The IIGCC report is designed to increase pressure on the EU to raise its unilateral greenhouse reduction targets, and to encourage it to develop some policy certainty in other areas, particularly on renewables, and to avoid the retrospective cuts in subsidies that are now occurring in Spain, for instance.

But it also has relevance to Australia, which is now embarking on a new process, via the climate committee, to evaluate what models and measures should be adopted to set Australia, belatedly, on its path to emission reductions.

Anthony Hobley, the head of the climate change practice at Norton Rose, which did much of the research for the IIGCC report, says it highlights the pitfalls of a piecemeal approach to legislation: not only is it ineffective, but it doesn’t produce the least cost solution. “This shows the importance of long term signals … so that investors can understand what the economic drivers are.”

EU countries such as France, the UK and Germany have become alarmed by the speed of transition taking place in key Asian markets, particularly China, which is able to effect change without a carbon price because it simply drives investment through government mandates and with finance from state-owned banks.

These three countries, aware that their technologies are in danger of being shunted out of the market by the sheer weight of Chinese capital, have called for a tougher emissions reduction target – a unilateral move to 30 per cent by 2020 from the current target of 20 per cent – to provide a stronger carbon price, greater investment and a quicker transition. This has been fiercely resisted by emissions-intensive industries, who warn of carbon leakage.

Australia will juggle the same considerations: How to provide the incentive for investment in low carbon technologies while offering a shield to those industries waiting for their international competitors to be subject to similar costs. You can see where this might be heading – an interim carbon tax followed by a trading scheme that is able to be adjusted to more ambitious emission reduction targets down the track, or an ETS with a floor price.

The greater challenge will be to square this proposal away with other legislative measures that encourage quick and effective investment in energy efficiency, and can provide the right sort of long-term signals for renewables, while at the same time allowing those subsidies to be eased as the carbon price ramps upwards.
 
The IIGCC wants the EU to make a decision soon on whether to unilaterally set a more ambitious emissions reduction target for 2020, and also wants the EU to set an ambitious medium-term target for 2030 or 2035.

It is also pushing for mid- and long-term targets for increased energy efficiency in the buildings sector; for better coordinated European climate and energy policy; infrastructure development that would facilitate cross-border trade in energy and the development of renewable energy; and the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies.

The research found that 90 per cent of investment managers were deterred from investing in low carbon projects by the lack of long-term policies and by retrospective changes to member states’ climate change guidelines, while grid access and grid infrastructure issues were seen as a deterrent by 45 per cent.

Nearly two thirds of the fund managers said setting tougher targets and sending the carbon price higher would incentivise low-carbon investments, while 50 per cent saw a long-term and detailed roadmap out to 2030, even in the absence of international action, as one of the most important drivers for incentivising a shift in investment sentiment.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Global Approach Needed to Clean Up Rivers

Multiple environmental stressors, such as agricultural runoff, pollution and invasive species, threaten rivers that serve 80% of the world’s population, around 5 billion people, according to a US research paper published in Nature.   Monitoring the world’s fresh water would yield huge returns in terms of avoiding costly conflicts, providing food security, preserving unique life forms and a host of other valuable benefits.

Reported in Earth & Climate (29 September 2010):

 Multiple environmental stressors, such as agricultural runoff, pollution and invasive species, threaten rivers that serve 80 percent of the world’s population, around 5 billion people, according to researchers from The City College (CCNY) of The City University of New York (CUNY), University of Wisconsin and seven other institutions.

These same stressors endanger the biodiversity of 65 percent of the world’s river habitats and put thousands of aquatic wildlife species at risk. The findings, reported in the September 30 issue of Nature, come from the first global-scale initiative to quantify the impact of these stressors on humans and riverine biodiversity. The research team produced a series of maps documenting the impact using a computer-based framework they developed.

“We can no longer look at human water security and biodiversity threats independently,” said the corresponding author, Dr. Charles J. Vörösmarty, director of the CUNY Environmental CrossRoads Initiative and professor of civil engineering in The Grove School of Engineering at CCNY. “We need to link the two. The systematic framework we’ve created allows us to look at the human and biodiversity domains on an equal playing field.” The framework offers a tool for prioritizing policy and management responses to a global water crisis.

Many stressors threaten human water security and biodiversity through similar pathways, but influence water systems in distinct ways. For example, reservoirs convey few negative effects on human water supply but they significantly challenge aquatic biodiversity by impeding migration routes and changing water flow regimes.

Understanding and responding to the myriad threats to water security requires new methods to make diagnoses and to act on these findings. “As is the case with preventive medicine, our study demonstrates that diagnosing and then limiting threats at their local source, rather than through costly remedies and rehabilitation, is a more effective and sensible approach to assure global water security for both humans and aquatic biodiversity, ” notes Professor Vörösmarty.

“We’ve integrated maps of 23 different stressors and merged them into a single index,” said study co-leader Dr. Peter McIntyre, assistant professor of zoology, University of Wisconsin. “In the past, policymakers and researchers have been plagued by dealing with one problem at a time. A richer and more meaningful picture emerges when all threats are considered simultaneously.”

Among the stressors analyzed were the effects of pollution, dams and reservoirs, water overuse, agricultural runoff, loss of wetlands and introduction of invasive species. The authors said their findings are “conservative,” since there is insufficient information to account for additional stressors like pharmaceutical compounds and mining wastes.

High incident threat levels to human water security were found in developed and developing nations around the world. Affected areas include much of the United States, virtually all of Europe and large portions of Central Asia, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and eastern China.

“We uncovered a broad management principal operating at the global scale,” Professor Vörösmarty said. “In the industrialized world, we tend to compromise our surface waters and then try to fix problems by throwing trillions of dollars at the issues. We can afford to do that in rich countries, but poor countries can’t afford to do it.”

The researchers noted that causes of degradation of many of the developing world’s most threatened rivers bear striking similarities to those of rivers in similar condition in wealthy countries. However, going down the path of instituting highly engineered solutions practiced traditionally by industrialized nations, which emphasize treatment of the symptoms rather than protection of resources, may prove too costly for poorer countries.

There are many more cost-effective solutions, they point out. For example, engineers, can re-work dam operating rules to achieve economic benefits while simultaneously providing water releases downstream that preserve habitat and biodiversity.

With the high price tag for bringing water quality and supply in the developing countries to levels found in industrialized economies, Professor Vörösmarty argues that a more economical approach is called for. A strategy called integrated water resource management, which balances the needs of humans and nature, would best meet the dual challenge of establishing human water security and preserving biodiversity in the developing world.

It would be more cost effective, he contends, to ensure that river systems are not impaired in the first place. This could be accomplished through better land use management, better irrigation techniques and emphasis on protecting ecosystems. Healthy ecosystems provide many valuable, and free, services to society by providing clean water, flood control, and food supplies. The value of such freshwater services is in the trillions of dollars per year.

One of the project’s goals is to support international protocols to be used for water system protection since rivers maintain unique biotic resources and provide critical water supplies to people. An international approach is critical since more than 250 river basins cross international borders.

“It is absolutely essential to have information and tools that can be shared across nations,” Professor Vörösmarty stressed. “Our knowledge of these systems is progressively worsening as nations fail to invest in basic monitoring, true for both water quantity and quality. How can we craft protocols on biodiversity protection and human water security without good information?

“Monitoring the world’s fresh water would yield huge returns in terms of avoiding costly conflicts, providing food security, preserving unique life forms and a host of other valuable benefits. These benefits would cost pennies on the dollar.”

Source: www.esciencenews.com

Saving Forests May Fast Track Climate Resolutions

As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) delegates meet this week in Tianjin, China to iron out technical issues and overcome differences between developed and developing nations, the real news may be coming from the parallel discussions on avoided deforestation. And from Indonesia comes the report that a major avoided deforestation project, led by Carbon Conservation’s Dorjee Sun, is going ahead to save 15,600 hectares of rainforest.

Report from Steve Zwick in Eco system Marketplace (4 October 2010):

Most Parties to the UN Climate-Change Convention agree that we can slow climate change in the short term by saving tropical rainforests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).  They don’t, however, agree on how to finance that reduction in a fair and equitable way.  The REDD+ Partnership is supposed to unveil its proposals this week at Climate-Change talks in China.

Negotiators from all 194 Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are meeting this week in Tianjin, China.  It’s the last major meeting before year-end talks in Cancun, and officially they’re trying to iron out technical issues and overcome differences between developed and developing nations.

The real news, however, may be coming from the REDD+ Partnership, which is meeting in a parallel track in close cooperation with the UNFCCC.

The Two Official Tracks

Differences between developed and developing nations were institutionalized in 2006, at talks in Bali, which split negotiations into two tracks.  One track, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex 1 Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), focuses on tweaking the existing Kyoto Protocol.  The other, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) , focuses on creating a completely new protocol to replace Kyoto once it expires in 2012. 

The two tracks were supposed to converge in Copenhagen, but each has instead taken on a life of its own.  Generally speaking, developing countries support the AWG-KP, under which they have no obligations, while developed countries support the AWG-LCA, which aims to bring  developing countries into the process.

Because Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) was not included in the Kyoto Protocol, its role in policy is discussed in the AWG-LCA, which formed a “subsidiary body”, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), to discuss the technical aspects of REDD.  Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrial countries can write off emissions captured through Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) against their industrial emissions.  Because LULUCF is covered by the Kyoto Protocol, talks take place in the AWG-KP track.

The Copenhagen Accord recognized the need to create funding mechanisms for REDD+, a contentious concept that combines REDD with biodiversity protection and safeguards for local livelihoods.  By some definitions, REDD+ also incorporates aspects of LULUCF.

The REDD+ Partnership

As negotiations stalled, Norway took the lead in establishing the REDD+ Partnership, which aims to develop funding mechanisms that will complement evolving UN procedures.  In June, the Partnership released its interim partnership agreement, and co-chairs Junya Nakano of Japan and Federica Bietta of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations told Ecosystem Marketplace that they would spend the summer developing financing schemes and working on a plan that incorporates the needs of indigenous people.

Since then, however, details have been hard to come by, and scores of indigenous rights groups say they’ve been excluded from the process, while a Partnership spokesperson says it’s the groups that have shunned the process.

Either way, the Partnership is holding its own meeting parallel to formal negotiations this week, and promises to address critics before the event wraps up on Saturday.

Indeed, as the week progresses, it’s likely that more attention will focus on the REDD Partnership proceedings than on formal negotiations – even as UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres spoke of a growing convergence between the two tracks, but seemed intent on tempering enthusiasm.

“The agreements that can be reached in Cancun may not be exhaustive in their details,” she said.  “But as a balanced package they must be comprehensive in their scope and they can deliver strong results in the short term as well as set the stage for long term commitments to address climate change in an effective and fair manner.”

Steve Zwick is the Managing Editor of Ecosystem Marketplace. 

Source: www.ecosystemmarketplace.com

Radio Australia report (6 October 2010):

One of Indonesia’s most notorious logging companies has teamed up with a Time Magazine environmental hero to set up a carbon reserve on the island of Sumatra. Asia Pulp and Paper will join forces with Carbon Conservation, a company headed by Dorjee Sun, whose campaign to save Indonesian forests was the subject of the documentary ‘The Burning Season’. But some environment groups say the Kampar Carbon Reserve is all part of an ongoing process of ‘greenwashing’ at APP.

Presenter: Liam Cochrane
Speakers: Dorjee Sun, chief executive officer, Carbon Conservation; Aditya Bayunanda, coordinator for World Wildlife Fund, Indonesia Pulp & Paper

COCHRANE: For years, Asia Pulp and Paper has been seen as one of the environmental bad guys in Indonesia.

Greenpeace has been sharply critical of its logging operations, and the paper produced by APP was taken off the shelves at Woolworths, Staples and Office Depot because they thought APP’s claims of sustainability were dubious.

At the other end of the spectrum is Dorjee Sun, the charismatic environmental crusader who started the company Carbon Conservation as a vehicle to protect Indonesian forests.

Together, the unlikely partners have announced a plan to protect a 15,000 hectare area of peat forest in Riau province of Sumatra.

The forest was set to be cleared, drained and planted with fast growing timbers for pulping into paper products.

But Dorjee Sun has encouraged APP to rethink its approach.

SUN: They’ve made the commitment, working with us, to stop the logging and stop the plantation development. And in exchange, protect it and develop the local community for preservation rather than exploitation. And that creates carbon credits from protecting that carbon, which we trade to create the financial transaction.

COCHRANE: The idea is that major carbon emitters – that’s big companies in the developed world – should buy carbon credits, based on the amount of carbon that would have been lost if forests had been cleared and burned.

Europe already has a UN sanctioned carbon credit market that sells a one carbon credit – which is equal to one tonne of CO2 emissions – for around US$17.

Other carbon trades operate on a voluntary basis with much cheaper carbon credits – sometimes just US$2 per tonne.

Dorjee Sun says the Kampar Carbon Reserve has value beyond just trees.

SUN: The area that we’re protecting has tigers, it has tapirs, it has a lot of endangered plant species. So, to us, we’re hoping to be able to sell it for an amount obviously much higher, as high as possible, because the more money we get into the project, the more resources we have to protect that land.

COCHRANE: The project is billed as the world’s first privately funded carbon reserve initiative and a test of the concept’s financial viability.

But it has also attracted scepticism.

Aditya Bayunanda is the Indonesia Pulp & Paper coordinator for World Wildlife Fund.

He says the project might just be part of an ongoing public relations campaign to improve the environmental reputation of APP.

BAYUNANDA: This could be part of a greenwashing [at] APP because at the same time they’re opening natural forest and draining peat lands with an area that is larger than the area they set aside for this carbon reserve.

COCHRANE: Mr Bayunanda says many companies in Australia, the US and Europe have boycotted APP products because of their environmental record.

But other buyers do still source their paper from APP.

BAYUNANDA: Markets that are insensitive, or not yet sensitive to environmental issues, are still open to do business with them, mostly maybe in China, India, those other countries where environment issues are not yet mainstream.

COCHRANE: Dorjee Sun acknowledges there were, initially, deep doubts within his company about working with APP.

SUN: What we realised, from a pragmatic perspective, is that if you want to change the economy, there’s no denying you have to engage, you have to change the biggest multinationals, the biggest companies in the world. And if you want to change the multinationals, you have to work with them. You can’t just yell at them alone.

COCHRANE: He says he has great respect for the work done by Greenpeace and WWF, but wants to try a different approach.

SUN: In these circumstances, you need to get the poacher, to know the ways of the poacher, to become the protector.

Source: www.radioaustralia.net.au

The Great Australian Wave: Goodbye to Clean Energy Innovators

Renewable energy advocates say wave power could experience the same brain drain that hit the Australian solar industry over the past decade. Australian scientists and their solar technologies left for California and China, driven away by a lack of research and development support. Now the Clean Energy Council says young innovative wave energy companies have missed out on Federal Government renewable energy funding and are heading overseas.

Bronwyn Herbert reported for ABC PM programme (4 October 2010): 

MARK COLVIN: Renewable energy advocates say wave power could experience the same brain drain that hit the Australian solar industry over the past decade.

Australian scientists and their solar technologies left for California and China during that time – driven away by a lack of research and development support.

Now the Clean Energy Council says young innovative wave energy companies have missed out on Federal Government renewable energy funding and are having to head overseas.

Bronwyn Herbert reports.

BRONWYN HERBERT: The CSIRO recently produced a wave atlas that found if just 10 per cent of the energy generated from waves along Australia’s southern coast line were harnessed, it could meet half the nation’s current electricity consumption.

TOM DENNISS: The coasts that border the Southern Ocean are pretty much the best in the world for wave resource. With a resource like that it makes it that much easier to be commercially viable, too, if initial funding to get things built is available.

It’s a little bit of a mismatch. Australia has got a great resource, but not necessarily a good program for fostering these technologies.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Australian wave energy companies say they’ve missed out on local funding and have to head offshore for support.

Dr Tom Denniss is the chief technology officer at Ocean Linx.

TOM DENNISS: We almost have to rely on overseas money if it’s not forthcoming here because there’s no way we can get these technologies fully commercialised without actually putting full scale projects in the water. And those projects cost money and we really need to implement them where that money is available.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Carnegie Wave Power faces similar challenges.

The Perth-based company has just signed a three year agreement with Ireland’s Sustainable Energy Authority to test its technology over there.

A company spokesman says they would like to develop their technology domestically, but the Australian Government isn’t providing a lot of incentives.

Matthew Warren is the chief executive of the Clean Energy Council.

MATTHEW WARREN: It’s a real threat. There are other economies in the world – in Ireland, in the USA – that are already offering very attractive mechanisms and schemes to develop technologies. And companies like Carnegie have a responsibility to their shareholders. If they can’t develop in Australia, they’ll develop where they can develop. 

So that threat is real and the problem is, we need to get the strategy in place in time to prevent losing some of our critical IP, because if a company like Carnegie goes offshore, that sends a very bad signal to investors and other technology developers in that space, in that when you get through all the hard bits and when you’re getting close to succeeding, that’s when you have to start leaving.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Renewable energy advocates say wave power could experience the same sort of brain drain that has hit the Australian solar industry over the past decade.

Successful solar company Ausra – led by the former Sydney University Professor David Mills – went to California for funding.

Suntech was another company to migrate offshore, and it’s now one of the world’s biggest solar companies, based in China.

The Federal Government’s Energy Minister Martin Ferguson last year launched the $300 million Renewable Energy Demonstration Program at Carnegie’s pilot plant but that company eventually missed out on funding, as did Ocean Linx.

Tom Denniss again.

TOM DENNISS: There was one wave energy company that did receive quite a substantial grant for $66 million. That company is actually US-based, although the project that they would be developing is in Australia. 

If the handful of Australian companies were to have shared that money I think it would have been enough for all of us to have really made some substantial progress in the development of all our technologies.

BRONWYN HERBERT: The Federal Minister for Resources and Energy Martin Ferguson was unavailable to speak with PM.

In a statement a department spokeswoman says funding under the program was based on merit and the advice of the renewable energy committee.

MARK COLVIN: Bronwyn Herbert

Source: www.abc.net.au

ICT Boost for Sustainability, Economy & Efficiency

Boosting the economy by between $35 to $80 billion. Cutting Australia’s carbon emissions by 116 Mega tonnes (annually).Creating up to 70,000 jobs. Three critical advantages identified in the  Information Communication Technology (ICT) White Paper just released, which shows how substantial economic benefits, increased efficiency and improved sustainability can be achieved.

29 September 2010

The Australian Information Industry Association today released a White Paper examining the critical role that technology will play in the reduction of CO2 emissions and the development of a low-carbon economy. The Paper, ICT’s Role in the Low Carbon Economy, was released in Sydney.

“AIIA believes there is a pressing need to focus on the economic benefits of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) as we examine the case for high-speed broadband in Australia,” said AIIA CEO Ian Birks.

“This White Paper consolidates a wide range of leading research into the application of technology to a low carbon economy.”

“Green technology will play a huge role in the return we make on any investment in broadband not only economically, but also in the delivery of environmental benefits,” Mr Birks said.

The report, ICT’s Role in the Low Carbon Economy, provides a series of recommendations to the Australian government for the development of a policy framework to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint.  It identifies five major areas of focus for government activity, then examines the net benefits of Green IT to seven key economic sectors and provides key recommendations in each area.

“Transitioning to a low carbon economy is a national priority and becoming increasingly important across both the public and business sectors,” continued Mr Birks.  “However the ICT sector has only played a marginal role in this debate up until the present time. ICT will have a critical role to play in delivering the right outcomes and will be central to conversations that seriously examine the low carbon economy in the future.”

The technologies outlined in the whitepaper can assist the government in meeting the commitment of a five per cent carbon emission reduction by 2020 and could, by the same deadline, bring about huge net benefits, in terms of Australian economic, environmental and social factors including:

-           Boosting the economy by between $35 to $80 billion

-           Cutting Australia’s carbon emissions by 116 Mega tonnes (annually)

-           Creating up to 70,000 jobs

“With a specific focus on sustainability and use of ICT to drive efficiency gains, a number of studies cited in this paper show how substantial economic benefits can accrue to an economy through the usage of ICT to improve sustainability,” concluded Mr Birks.

This Paper represents an increasing focus by AIIA and our members of the reality of the economic and social benefits that a digital economy in Australia will deliver. It joins the AIIA Green IT eBook – now with over 30,000 downloads – as a leading resource for the abatement of greenhouse emissions through technology.

Additional information about this White Paper

Over the last two years a number of significant research papers have been published, in Australia and internationally, that clearly identify the role ICT can play in reducing an economy’s carbon footprint. AIIA has identified over 30 reports from 20 different organisations that address these issues. These go far beyond a reduction in ICT’s own carbon emissions, which constitute around 2.7 per cent of Australia’s total[i]. Far more important is ICT’s enabling effect – its ability to reduce carbon emissions in other industries through greater efficiencies in their operations.

This White Paper references six of these reports, and draws less extensively on many others. It is also based on extensive input from key stakeholders in the Australian ICT industry – suppliers, users and consultants, putting the role of ICT and sustainability in an Australian context. The overall message is clear and consistent. Without ICT, it will be impossible to achieve the carbon emissions reductions Australia needs to achieve to prevent, or at worst mitigate, the consequences of climate change.

Where ICT Can Have the Greatest Effect

AIIA believes there are seven key areas where the intelligent application of ICT can make significant enabling contributions to reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and improving the country’s social and economic fabric. While we acknowledge there are other areas, the potential enabling effects relating to these seven areas will provide the highest and quickest return on investment:

•                  Green ICT. The ICT industry ‘s products need to be sustainably designed and, in many cases, managed to impact less on the environment.

•                  Energy Production and Distribution. Smart grids and smart metering will become increasingly important as energy costs increase over time.

•                  Transport and Logistics. Supply Chain Management (SCM) has long been a target for ICT-enabled efficiencies, particularly in facilitating open communication channels between each of the different transportation networks using a standardised platform.

•                  Building Management Systems. Inefficient heating and cooling systems of commercial, industrial and domestic buildings is one of the key areas of potential improvement in this area.

•                  Industrial Processes. Additional efficiency gains are now available through advanced process control initiatives, utilising intelligent ICT analytics to provide real-time feedback for maximising overall equipment effectiveness.

•                  Health. ICT-enabled improvements in health care, often called “e-health”, are an obvious area of improvement, through the use of such technologies as remote diagnostics and electronic patient records. Reducing travel, emergency department visits, and hospital admissions, maximising the usage of ICT will contribute to a more environmentally friendly and sustainable health industry.

•                  Education. Offering the ability to deliver, assess, and monitor educational training in a more efficient and effective manner, ICT provides the education industry with the ability to provide a more sustainable model for meeting the growing challenges of the industry.

About AIIA:

The Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) is the nation’s peak industry body for the technology sector. AIIA sets the strategic direction of the industry, influences public policy and provides members with productivity tools, advisory services and market intelligence to accelerate their business growth.

AIIA member companies employ 100,000 Australians, generate combined annual revenues of more than $40 billion and export more than $2 billion in goods and services each year.

Source: www.aiia.com and www.connectionresearch.com.au