Green Light Changes in Europe for Urban Mobility and Liveability

In the United States, there has been much more of a tendency to adapt cities to accommodate driving, says Peder Jensen, head of the Energy and Transport Group at the European Environment Agency.  But in Europe there has been more movement to make cities more liveable for people, to get cities relatively free of cars.

By Elisabeth Rosenthal in New York Times (26 June 2011):

Zurich – Cities including Vienna to Munich and Copenhagen have closed vast swaths of streets to car traffic. Barcelona and Paris have had car lanes eroded by popular bike-sharing programs. Drivers in London and Stockholm pay hefty congestion charges just for entering the heart of the city. And over the past two years, dozens of German cities have joined a national network of “environmental zones” where only cars with low carbon dioxide emissions may enter.

Likeminded cities welcome new shopping malls and apartment buildings but severely restrict the allowable number of parking spaces. On-street parking is vanishing. In recent years, even former car capitals like Munich have evolved into “walkers’ paradises,” said Lee Schipper, a senior research engineer at Stanford University who specializes in sustainable transportation.

“In the United States, there has been much more of a tendency to adapt cities to accommodate driving,” said Peder Jensen, head of the Energy and Transport Group at the European Environment Agency. “Here there has been more movement to make cities more livable for people, to get cities relatively free of cars.”

To that end, the municipal Traffic Planning Department here in Zurich has been working overtime in recent years to torment drivers. Closely spaced red lights have been added on roads into town, causing delays and angst for commuters. Pedestrian underpasses that once allowed traffic to flow freely across major intersections have been removed. Operators in the city’s ever expanding tram system can turn traffic lights in their favor as they approach, forcing cars to halt.

Around Löwenplatz, one of Zurich’s busiest squares, cars are now banned on many blocks. Where permitted, their speed is limited to a snail’s pace so that crosswalks and crossing signs can be removed entirely, giving people on foot the right to cross anywhere they like at any time.

As he stood watching a few cars inch through a mass of bicycles and pedestrians, the city’s chief traffic planner, Andy Fellmann, smiled. “Driving is a stop-and-go experience,” he said. “That’s what we like! Our goal is to reconquer public space for pedestrians, not to make it easy for drivers.”

While some American cities — notably San Francisco, which has “pedestrianized” parts of Market Street — have made similar efforts, they are still the exception in the United States, where it has been difficult to get people to imagine a life where cars are not entrenched, Dr. Schipper said.

Europe’s cities generally have stronger incentives to act. Built for the most part before the advent of cars, their narrow roads are poor at handling heavy traffic. Public transportation is generally better in Europe than in the United States, and gas often costs over $8 a gallon, contributing to driving costs that are two to three times greater per mile than in the United States, Dr. Schipper said.

What is more, European Union countries probably cannot meet a commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions unless they curb driving. The United States never ratified that pact.

Globally, emissions from transportation continue a relentless rise, with half of them coming from personal cars. Yet an important impulse behind Europe’s traffic reforms will be familiar to mayors in Los Angeles and Vienna alike: to make cities more inviting, with cleaner air and less traffic.

Michael Kodransky, global research manager at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy in New York, which works with cities to reduce transport emissions, said that Europe was previously “on the same trajectory as the United States, with more people wanting to own more cars.” But in the past decade, there had been “a conscious shift in thinking, and firm policy,” he said. And it is having an effect.

After two decades of car ownership, Hans Von Matt, 52, who works in the insurance industry, sold his vehicle and now gets around Zurich by tram or bicycle, using a car-sharing service for trips out of the city. Carless households have increased from 40 to 45 percent in the last decade, and car owners use their vehicles less, city statistics show.

“There were big fights over whether to close this road or not — but now it is closed, and people got used to it,” he said, alighting from his bicycle on Limmatquai, a riverside pedestrian zone lined with cafes that used to be two lanes of gridlock. Each major road closing has to be approved in a referendum.

Today 91 percent of the delegates to the Swiss Parliament take the tram to work.

Still, there is grumbling. “There are all these zones where you can only drive 20 or 30 kilometers per hour [about 12 to 18 miles an hour], which is rather stressful,” Thomas Rickli, a consultant, said as he parked his Jaguar in a lot at the edge of town. “It’s useless.”

Urban planners generally agree that a rise in car commuting is not desirable for cities anywhere.

Mr. Fellmann calculated that a person using a car took up 115 cubic meters (roughly 4,000 cubic feet) of urban space in Zurich while a pedestrian took three. “So it’s not really fair to everyone else if you take the car,” he said.

European cities also realized they could not meet increasingly strict World Health Organization guidelines for fine-particulate air pollution if cars continued to reign. Many American cities are likewise in “nonattainment” of their Clean Air Act requirements, but that fact “is just accepted here,” said Mr. Kodransky of the New York-based transportation institute.

It often takes extreme measures to get people out of their cars, and providing good public transportation is a crucial first step. One novel strategy in Europe is intentionally making it harder and more costly to park. “Parking is everywhere in the United States, but it’s disappearing from the urban space in Europe,” said Mr. Kodransky, whose recent report “Europe’s Parking U-Turn” surveys the shift.

Sihl City, a new Zurich mall, is three times the size of Brooklyn’s Atlantic Mall but has only half the number of parking spaces, and as a result, 70 percent of visitors get there by public transport, Mr. Kodransky said.

In Copenhagen, Mr. Jensen, at the European Environment Agency, said that his office building had more than 150 spaces for bicycles and only one for a car, to accommodate a disabled person.

While many building codes in Europe cap the number of parking spaces in new buildings to discourage car ownership, American codes conversely tend to stipulate a minimum number. New apartment complexes built along the light rail line in Denver devote their bottom eight floors to parking, making it “too easy” to get in the car rather than take advantage of rail transit, Mr. Kodransky said.

While Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has generated controversy in New York by “pedestrianizing” a few areas like Times Square, many European cities have already closed vast areas to car traffic. Store owners in Zurich had worried that the closings would mean a drop in business, but that fear has proved unfounded, Mr. Fellmann said, because pedestrian traffic increased 30 to 40 percent where cars were banned.

With politicians and most citizens still largely behind them, Zurich’s planners continue their traffic-taming quest, shortening the green-light periods and lengthening the red with the goal that pedestrians wait no more than 20 seconds to cross.

“We would never synchronize green lights for cars with our philosophy,” said Pio Marzolini, a city official. “When I’m in other cities, I feel like I’m always waiting to cross a street. I can’t get used to the idea that I am worth less than a car.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

Electric Car Test Run & Sustainable Funding Flagged

The Energy Market Authority (EMA) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) flagged off nine battery-powered cars: four Smart two-seaters from Daimler and five Mitsubishi iMiEVs, the first test fleet which will eventually have about 90 vehicles, comprising 25 iMiEVs and 20 Smarts, plus an assortment of models from Renault, Nissan and possibly other manufacturers. And the Government has committed S$400 million to spearhead research and development for a sustainable Singapore, with three-quarters of the amount to go towards energy solutions.

By Christopher Tan, Senior Correspondent, Straits Times (26 June 2011):

A long-awaited trial to test the durability, running cost and long-term performance of all-electric cars here was plugged in and switched on yesterday.

That was when the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) flagged off nine battery-powered cars: four Smart two-seaters from Daimler and five Mitsubishi iMiEVs.

All in, the EV (electric vehicle) test fleet will have about 90 vehicles, comprising 25 iMiEVs and 20 Smarts, plus an assortment of models from Renault, Nissan and possibly other manufacturers.

Most of these cars will be arriving from next month to next year.

The $20 million, three-year trial is open only to companies and organisations, not individuals.

For now, the cars will juice up at five charging stations set up by Bosch. It will expand its network as more such vehicles arrive.

Cost-wise, it is just as well that this test is a restricted one. Despite the tax-free status of the electric test fleet, the all-in costs – compared to those for similar-size petrol-driven cars – will not appeal to common folk, even if they are environmentally conscious.

First off, the cars are costly, even without the taxes and levies that conventional cars attract here. A Mitsubishi iMiEV test car, for instance, is around $90,000 – about the price of a slightly bigger petrol-driven Honda Jazz.

The Smart two-seater, which is not for sale, leases for $1,400 a month. The rate is similar to that of a full-size Korean family sedan.

Next, unlike most cars here, electric cars are not entitled to any scrap rebate.

Also, there is a $1,600-a-year special fee that users have to pay, which is more than the road tax of many mid-size cars.

As for running costs, a flat monthly charge of $180 is levied for using Bosch’s electric stations; that is equivalent to what many small petrol cars incur monthly at the pumps.

Insurance rates are also slightly higher than the coverage for normal cars.

Still, the LTA and EMA seemed optimistic at yesterday’s flag-off. LTA chief executive Chew Hock Yong said: ‘We are encouraged by the support of the business community for this test-bed.’

Firms that signed up for the cars are Clean Mobility Singapore, Daimler South East Asia, GP Batteries, Mitsubishi Corp, Mitsubishi Electric Asia, Mitsubishi Elevator Asia, Senoko Energy Supply, and Vestas Asia Pacific Wind Technology.

The LTA and the Ministry of Manpower also signed up.

EMA chief executive Chee Hong Tat said: ‘The purpose of the electric vehicle test-bed is to gain a better understanding of EV technologies, business models and user preferences which will give us more information to determine the feasibility of using EVs in Singapore.’

At the end of the three years, the Government will decide if it is worthwhile to incentivise the use of EVs, and if so, how sizeable its incentives should be.

Observers feel that electric vehicles are non-starters without government carrots, as they cost twice the price of normal cars or more.

Motorist Shreejit Changaroth, 54, added that makers of electric vehicles need to overcome two other hurdles: their range and charging time.

Right now, most can cover only 200km or less on a full recharge, which takes around eight hours at a normal charging point and 45 minutes at a high-voltage quick-charger.

‘I often clock over 100km a day,’ the engineer said. ‘I come home late, and sometimes, I even forget to charge my cellphone.’

Most drivers here clock less than 60km a day. But the main proposition of electric cars is their relative ‘greenness’.

The EMA reckons electric cars charged by electricity generated from natural gas power stations (as is the case in Singapore) will account for 66 per cent less carbon dioxide than petrol equivalents.

After all, electric motors are more efficient than fossil fuel-driven engines.

Source: www.app.nccs.gov.sg

By Vimita Mohandas for Today (28 June 2011):

In the search for urban sustainability here, energy resilience looks set to be the key focus.

Of the S$400 million the Government has committed to spearhead research and development for a sustainable Singapore, three-quarters of the amount will go towards energy solutions that can be deployed within 20 years.

The announcement yesterday at the inaugural Urban Sustainability R&D Congress highlighted five priority areas of sustainable urban living, urban mobility, green building, urban ecology and food.

Already, projects could soon be underway to meet Singapore’s future food demands, with proposals now under evaluation by the National Research Foundation under a S$50-million programme set aside for this.

Another S$50 million will come from the National Development Ministry, which is doubling its research fund to cover other aspects of urban sustainability for the nearer term.

But long-term cost competitive energy solutions that can improve efficiency, reduce carbon emissions and increase energy options will get the most resources.

And yesterday’s R&D congress kicks off a new platform for government, research institutes and the private sector to discuss which R&D responses can best overcome Singapore’s urban sustainability challenges.

Some 800 participants, including from 12 government agencies, participated yesterday.

Opening the congress, Minister of State (National Development) Tan Chuan-Jin said space constraint was another key challenge.

“Every year, we have many young Singaporeans going into the workforce, setting up families. We need to house them and we need to find a creative way to organize ourselves from an infrastructural perspective,” he told reporters.

“But it’s not just the building space, it’s really about the living space — how do you integrate everything together.”

The set-up of the congress will allow for collaboration on some specific projects, such as Punggol Eco-Town, CleanTech Park, Jurong Lake District and Marina Bay.

These “living labs” present different opportunities: Punggol is a residential test-bed, CleanTech Park is an industrial test-bed, while Marina Bay and Jurong Lake District are mixed-use settings.

And as these sites undergo development, the Government wants companies and researchers to focus on applying cutting- edge technologies that can come onstream in the near term.

“The next chapter of the Singapore Story must be about us confronting these challenges with the same human ingenuity as we did before,” said Brigadier-General (NS) Tan.

“Because there are few city states in the world that will feel the pressures of urbanization more keenly than us, Singapore cannot rely on ready solutions from others and must lead the way to find innovative solutions.”

To recognise and support such efforts, he presented the Minister for National Development R&D awards yesterday for three technological innovations.

The Housing and Development Board’s Treelodge@Punggol and the Building and Construction Authority’s Zero Energy Building received the Distinguished Award, while the Vertical Farming project by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority won the Merit Award.

Source: www.app.nccs.gov.sg

Leadership for a Sustainable & Clean Technlogy Future

Singapore will host the World Leadership Conference 2011 and the CleanTechnology Investment Conference from 13-15 July in Singapore, taking action to move towards a green sustainable future for Planet Earth. Key speakers include Park Young-Woo, Regional Director, UNEP and TV/film star Denise Keller, advisor to the Climate Project in Asia. ABC Carbon’s Ken Hickson will also be on hand to conduct a seminar.  Read More

Clean Technology Investment World Asia is strategic platform that brings together private equity, venture & corporate venture capitalists, clean technology innovators, financiers & fund players investors to identify investment opportunities, raise capital, access licensing rights to new innovative technologies and form strategic partnerships in Asia. See www.terrapinn.com

The World Leadership Conference 2011 is a platform for youth all over Asia Pacific to come together to learn, voice out and take action to move towards a green sustainable future for Planet Earth.

One of the key speakers is Park Young-Woo, Regional Director, UNEP. He has served as the UNEP’s Regional Director of the Regional Office  for Asia and the Pacific since 2008. He has a PhD in Natural Resource and  Environmental Economics from Iowa State University and holds a Master’s degree in  Economics from Southern Illinois University. Prior to joining the UNEP, he was the  President of the Business Institute of Sustainable Development of the Korean  Chamber of Commerce and Industry, before being appointed as the Director-General  of International Cooperation in the Ministry of Environment of Korea. Mr Park has served in a number of environmental committees including the Presidential  Commission on Sustainable Development. He has also headed the Industrial  Environment Department at the Hyundai Institute of Eco-Management.

Another keynote speaker who will be on the platform at the World leadership Conference: Denise Keller, The Climate Project Council Advisor (Youth)

Denise Keller shot to fame after winning Ford Model of the World Singapore in 2000. Subsequently, she appeared on the covers of the international editions of Vogue, Elle, and Harper’s Bazaar, amongst other magazines. Ms Keller then served as one of MTV Asia’s VJs, a position which she held on to for almost a decade. She has hosted numerous award-winning television programmes including ‘Passage to Malaysia’, which earned many nominations and won the Best Lifestyle Program award at the 2010 Asia TV Awards. Ms Keller has been an ambassador for several brands including Longines, Olay, Shiseido, and Nokia. She is an advisory council member for The Climate Project, a non-profit social enterprise led by former US Vice-President Al Gore.

And our very own Ken Hickson, Chairman and CEO of Sustain Ability Showcase Asia; Director ABC Carbon, editor of abc carbon express and author of The ABC of Carbon.

For the full programme and details of the World leadership conference go to the website: www.worldleadershipconference.org

by Feng Zengkun The Strait Times (10 June 2011):  

Student leaders step up to organise top events

YOUNG people here are stepping up and taking charge of organising nationwide events.

Last month, the Biomedical Engineering Society’s (BES) 5th Scientific Meeting was organised entirely by Nanyang Technological University (NTU) students. Next month’s World Leadership Conference for the environment is also being put together by student volunteers from schools nationwide.

The events are likely to be organised by student volunteers in the future. The Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) and Science Centre Singapore are also accepting applications for their weekly programme, called the Singapore Academy of Young Engineers and Scientists, which will eventually be directed by student leaders.

Students say taking charge of these events has many benefits. Miss Pansy Wang, 22, co-chair of the BES event’s student committee, said she met many industry professionals and made valuable contacts in the course of planning the conference. ‘You put your name out there, and it’s almost like a job interview even before you graduate,’ she said.

Miss Dianne Goh, 22, part of the World Leadership Conference team, said her fellow students’ and her tender years have led many professionals to offer their network of friends and free advice.

‘There’s a lot of goodwill because we’re putting time and effort into these events even though we don’t have many resources or contacts,’ she said.

Mr James Hosking, 37, managing director of green website Eco-Business, has met the team three times since they started planning the conference.

‘Their initial document for sponsors was seven pages long. I took away a lot of words, added charts and helped them cut it down to five pages,’ he said.

Students can also learn from the hard-won experience of those who have gone before them, said Mr Cai Li, 25, a student at the National University of Singapore and a member of the World Leadership Conference committee.

With plans to set up his own green business selling recycled plastic T-shirts, Mr Cai said he was struck by the words of the owner of an organic-clothing company, who is a guest speaker at the conference.

‘He said it’s not enough that the product is green. It also has to be value for money or people won’t buy it,’ Mr Cai said.

Students The Straits Time spoke to said organising the conference has given them a clearer sense of the working world and its meetings and conferences. Another bonus was learning how to manage large sums of money. For the BES conference, the students were given a budget of $12,000. The World Leadership Conference budget is $100,000.

To allay the concerns of sponsors and advisers, the students had to draw up a detailed budget of where the money would go.

‘We borrowed everything we could, right down to tables, chairs and poster boards,’ said Miss Leow Jiamin, 22, co-chair of the BES conference.

Paper fliers were adapted to digital copies that could be broadcast on campus televisions. A committee member also learnt programming languages to create and maintain the conference’s website.

‘The students were creative and made every dollar count,’ said Dr Sierin Lim, 34, an assistant professor of bioengineering at NTU and the students’ adviser.

Experts The Straits Times spoke to said having student organisers benefited the events.

Dr Lim said students are better at getting their peers to participate in the conferences.

Two months after the NTU team approached student groups and teachers in schools here, more than 200 people signed up for the conference, double the number in the previous conference.

Miss Leow said this is partly because students are more comfortable confiding their worries to peers. She said the committee was initially puzzled by the lack of submissions from junior colleges for the oral presentation section of the conference.

It was only after they went to the schools that they found the students had little experience in public speaking, which ‘made them shy about giving oral presentations’.

Miss Goh also noted that professionals were often more willing to help or participate because her team is not affiliated with any political or corporate body. ‘There’s less baggage and distrust when it comes to student organisations,’ she said.

Scientists who attended the BES conference last month said the students did a good job.

Professor Jackie Ying, a guest speaker from A*Star, said the conference was indistinguishable from one organised by professionals.

NTU’s Dr Lim said the organising committee of the BES conference is likely to be rotated among tertiary institutions here in the future, but students from other schools would be welcome to volunteer.

For the student committee of the World Leadership Conference, the event next month will be the culmination of their labours.

‘I’m sleeping at 2am every day and checking my phone every other minute,’ said Miss Goh. ‘But I don’t resent a single moment of it.’

Source www.biotechsingapore.com  and www.worldleadershipconference.org

Back to the Future: On Track for a Green Corridor

 In Singapore, the Malaysian Railway service has been stopped in its tracks! But many hope the tracks deserve to be kept not only as a green belt, but also a moving museum. Everyone, especially those who grew up spoilt by the comforts of today’s MRT, needs a glimpse into how we used to travel, and how, as commuters, we got to where we are today. To keep a perspective of where we are headed, we need to keep looking out the windows of our rides, both past and present, says the Straits Times Eisen Teo.

By Eisen Teo, The Straits Times, 25 Jun 2011.

If Singapore’s MRT system is a symbol of a thriving young nation, the elder railway system is its cranky grandparent.

Yet this cantankerous relic was Singapore’s brave new world in 1903, just as the MRT would be eight decades later.

Both were firsts. Before they rolled out, this nation had never before had a vehicle carry so many passengers (and goods) as far or as fast. The history of both systems, too, has become a part of this nation’s narrative.

The tale begins with the older railway, constructed between 1900 and 1902 to foster greater commerce between the port of Singapore and the vast agricultural and mining hinterland of Malaya – both of them then colonies of the British.

Its completed tracks spanned the breadth of the country, starting at Tank Road near Fort Canning Hill, passing the shophouses of Orchard Road and Cairnhill and through the forests of Bukit Timah, before terminating at Woodlands.

In length, its tracks matched the longest roads in Singapore then, and the locomotives – nicknamed ‘iron horses’ – promised speeds of up to 50kmh, faster than any vehicle in Singapore at the time. (The first car, imported in 1896, clocked only 30kmh tops.)

Today, however, it has long outlived its purpose. It gave way to the MRT on Nov 7, 1987, which opened with five stations over 6km of track.

Then, 120,000 people bought first-day tickets. I was three.

I have grown as the MRT has matured, and it today boasts 79 stations over about 130km of track. Ridership breached the two-million-a-day mark last year, and the system is still growing.

It represents what we want of 21st-century Singapore – fast, clean, efficient, precision-timed. We moan when a train stalls or pulls into the station a minute late, as if it is a crime because our lives hinge on how well it runs.

On the flip side, the railway train is a reminder of what Singapore once was, still invisibly tethering us to our northern neighbour years after the painful childbirth that was our independence.

As a population mainly made of MRT commuters, we cannot imagine getting around our island via other means.

As I compare the two systems, I cannot help feeling an unspoken link with our ancestors, railway passengers from decades past who saw the tracks as their main link to loved ones up north.

Much of the Singapore segment of that railway will soon be gone. Next Friday, following an agreement between the governments of Malaysia and Singapore, operations to and from the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, built in 1932 to replace the Tank Road terminus, will cease.

The southern terminus of Malaysia’s main railway operator will be shifted to Woodlands, just shy of the Causeway.

The rustic rail

For millennials, the loss of that bit of our transport heritage could be more than just a closure of these aged tracks.

After a lifetime of riding the MRT, taking the railway can be a jarring, otherworldly experience, as I found out earlier this week when I boarded it for a ride from Tanjong Pagar to Segamat, Johor.

I wanted to pay my dues, especially as a history buff, before Tanjong Pagar ceased operations.

As I stepped into the cavernous hall of the station with its beautiful murals, my first thought was: Wow, it’s really hot. No swanky air-conditioned hangout, just a stifling stillness. The air was thick with humidity, and each breath came tinged with a faint but persistent smell of sweat and unwashed clothes.

At the ticket counter stood a queue of more than 40 Singaporeans, Malaysians and tourists waiting patiently. Nowhere was there the mad rush of the daily MRT commute; harrying these languid ticket officials, the general consensus seemed, would get you nowhere.

My train pulled out of the station half an hour behind schedule, enough time for me to contemplate the station’s departure gate – literally a metal gate – and a platform floor smooth from nearly 80 years of polishing by untold numbers of shoes. Everyone waited for the train to move, accepting the tardiness as a given.

My world-weary train, at least, promised no more than it could deliver. It was a contraption that was ancient, loud, rumbling, rickety and dirty.

Upon the suggestion of a friend, I opened a carriage door while the train was at full throttle and stuck my head out. The feeling of wind and dust in my face as the world rushed by was priceless. While a conductor immediately turned up to tell us to shut the door, we just waited until he walked off before doing it again.

Even the train and station officials seemed to have stepped out of a poetic page from history – the rhythms of their waved flags and blown whistles at every stop were an almost orchestral display compared with the regulated automation of the MRT.

Outside the train was a different world, too. In the half-hour it took to rumble from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands, I observed narrow strips of land on either side of the tracks, still undeveloped and laced with lalang. While rides on the MRT depict the present and future of my country, rides on the granddaddy of trains took me back into its past.

Any conservation of the tracks between Tanjong Pagar and Woodlands surely would be a way of paying homage to the Singapore we all came from, the same way we might honour the contributions of our grandparents to this nation.

The tracks deserve to be kept not only as a green belt, but also a moving museum. Everyone, especially those who grew up spoilt by the comforts of today’s MRT, needs a glimpse into how we used to travel, and how, as commuters, we got to where we are today.

To keep a perspective of where we are headed, we need to keep looking out the windows of our rides, both past and present.

Source: www.thegreencorridor.org

The Biofuels Association of Australia (BAA) has congratulated all sides of the Australian parliament for working together to ensure the passage of the four Alternative Fuels Bills, allowing for alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel to play a growing role in Australia’s transition towards low emission fuels and domestic energy security. BAA says this recognises that locally produced, environmentally sustainable and economically viable transport fuels will be necessary in order to meet fuel demands in the future.

Release from BAA 21 June 2011:

The Biofuels Association of Australia has congratulated all sides of the Australian parliament for working together to ensure the passage of the four Alternative Fuels Bills.

“This legislation brings about the certainty for industry which has been absent for some time” said Heather Brodie, CEO of the BAA.  “The bipartisan support for the passage of the biofuels bills is welcomed and results in assurance for legislation which was first announced back in 2004”.

“Reflecting extensive negotiations with stakeholders, the Greens, the Coalition and crossbench MPs alike, this legislation will ensure that alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel play a growing role in Australia’s transition towards low emission fuels and domestic energy security.

The legislation sees the current taxation arrangements for ethanol and biodiesel continue for the next ten years with a review of the grant arrangements after 30 June 2021.  The Government will also consider the emissions of alternative fuels as part of its consideration of fuel under a carbon price.

“Importantly as well the legislation reflects the Government’s support of the BAA’s plans to introduce sustainability certification processes for the industry” said Ms Brodie.  “Establishing sustainability criteria for biofuels will provide reassurance for users of alternative fuels that the biofuels they purchase will continue to be produced using sustainable practices which do not contribute to food security concerns or result in other adverse impacts”. 

Through both self-regulatory mechanisms and a more formal process with Standards Australia and the International Standards Organisation (ISO) the industry believes that this work will provide the most robust and practical sustainability criteria, consistent with international standards, which ensures consumer confidence in the biofuels industry.

“We need to recognise that locally produced, environmentally sustainable and economically viable transport fuels will be necessary in order to meet fuel demands in the future” Ms Brodie said.

The Biofuels Association of Australia Incorporated is the peak industry body representing ethanol and biodiesel producers, feedstock suppliers, technology providers, independent and major oil companies, equipment manufacturers, mining and construction companies and others.

The Alternative Fuels Summit will be held in Brisbane, Australia from 29 – 31 August this year.

Source: www.biofuelsassociation.com.au

“Deplorable” Debate on Climate Action, so Who is to Blame?

 There is a striking contrast between the ease with which the international community and the corporate sector accepted the argument that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer, although their volume as a percentage of the atmosphere is tiny compared to CO2 and methane, and the combination of fury, hysteria and mendacity against evidence of global warming.

The central difference is that in the case of CFCs every chemical company was convinced that there were economic advantages in getting in first with an alternative propellant (HFCs), while to much of the fossil fuel industries the global warming issue is a fight to the death.

In Australia, the quality of public debate – Ross Garnaut, Will Steffen, David Karoly, Tim Flannery aside – has been deplorable: soporific on one side and hysterical on the other, ugly, dumb and bullying, marked by a ”Gotcha!” approach in sections of the media, with relentless emphasis on fear, the short term, vested interests and a mindless populism. At a government level, failure to explain a very strong case has been a cause of profound disquiet under the Rudd/Gillard prime ministerships.

There has been some hesitancy by both Kevin Rudd and the present prime minister to acknowledge that as the world’s highest per capita emitter of CO2 and a huge coal exporter, Australia should be leading international debate on the climate change problem. There has been an obvious unwillingness to even utter the ”C” word – ”coal”. We rarely talk about the moral dimension of reducing our energy footprint, nor do we promote energy efficiency.

Barry Jones, a former minister for science (1983-90), and a Fellow of all four of Australia’s learned academies, speaks his mind. Read More

Barry Jones  in The Age and National Times (1 July 2011):

Labor has not explained the climate change problem with conviction.

The science behind the climate change controversy – despite recent hysterical attacks on scientific integrity – is robust, and not particularly recent. And yet, despite the heat (without depth) of the controversy about the proposed carbon tax, politicians on both sides fail to address the scientific evidence for human contribution to climate change. They say ”I believe” or ”I reject” without examination or analysis. There has been a spectacular failure to distinguish between genuine expertise and strongly held opinions, and an excessive deference to vested interests.

In 1824, the French mathematician Joseph Fourier anticipated what we came to call ”the greenhouse effect”, arguing that surface heat on Earth was maintained by the atmosphere – otherwise the planet’s orbit was too remote from the sun for a temperature that could support life.

In 1859, the Irish physicist John Tyndall identified the role of water vapour, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) as key factors in maintaining temperature despite their tiny percentage of the total atmosphere.

In 1896, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius named ”the greenhouse effect” and calculated the relationship between changes in CO2 levels and atmospheric temperature with astonishing accuracy.

In 1925, the prodigious American statistician Alfred James Lotka (1880-1949) described what we now call ”anthropogenic climate change”, a century after Fourier’s work.

Economically, we are living on our capital; biologically, we are changing radically the complexion of our share in the carbon cycle by throwing into the atmosphere, from coal fires and metallurgical furnaces, 10 times as much carbon dioxide as in the natural process of breathing.

Lotka referred to ”the present regime of ‘evaporating’ our coal mines . . . into the air”. World population has increased by 350 per cent since Lotka wrote, and per capita fuel usage has increased exponentially.

Each tonne of coal produces three tonnes of CO2 on burning. At present, the consumer pays for the coal but takes no responsibility for the cost of disposing of the exponentially increased residue. As Sir Nicholas (later Lord) Stern argued in his review for the British government, The Economics of Climate Change (2006), this is treated as a ”free good” by the purchaser/user, a spectacular market failure. The downstream impact of consumption of coal and oil, dug up and put into the air, is a long-term contribution to atmospheric pollution taking decades (perhaps centuries – the issue is deeply controversial) to disperse.

There is a striking contrast between the ease with which the international community and the corporate sector accepted the argument that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer, although their volume as a percentage of the atmosphere is tiny compared to CO2 and methane, and the combination of fury, hysteria and mendacity against evidence of global warming. The central difference is that in the case of CFCs every chemical company was convinced that there were economic advantages in getting in first with an alternative propellant (HFCs), while to much of the fossil fuel industries the global warming issue is a fight to the death.

Scientists arguing for the mainstream view have been subject to strong attack (even, it is reported, death threats) by denialists/confusionists who assert that they are quasi-religious zealots who are missionaries for a green religion. In reality, it was the denialist/ confusionist position to rely on faith, the conviction that there were many complex reasons for climate change but only one could be confidently rejected: the role of human activity.

The basic attack was on scientific research and scientific method, and the illusion was created that scientists are corrupt while lobbyists are pure. One of the false assertions is that scientists who take the mainstream position are rewarded while dissenters are punished (similar to Galileo and the Inquisition). In the past decade in the United States and Australia, the contrary was true.

Oddly, denialists rarely refer to observed phenomena (disappearance of Arctic ice, thinning of Greenland’s glaciers, fractures at the edge of the West Antarctic ice shelf, ocean acidification, thawing of Siberian tundra, changes in bird migration, earlier flowering of plants) – and there is generally no analysis of risk, either.

In Australia, the quality of public debate – Ross Garnaut, Will Steffen, David Karoly, Tim Flannery aside – has been deplorable: soporific on one side and hysterical on the other, ugly, dumb and bullying, marked by a ”Gotcha!” approach in sections of the media, with relentless emphasis on fear, the short term, vested interests and a mindless populism. At a government level, failure to explain a very strong case has been a cause of profound disquiet under the Rudd/Gillard prime ministerships.

There has been some hesitancy by both Kevin Rudd and the present prime minister to acknowledge that as the world’s highest per capita emitter of CO2 and a huge coal exporter, Australia should be leading international debate on the climate change problem. There has been an obvious unwillingness to even utter the ”C” word – ”coal”. We rarely talk about the moral dimension of reducing our energy footprint, nor do we promote energy efficiency.

These subjects may have been thoroughly examined in the Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change. I hope so, but the issues need to be explained, with conviction, to the community generally. The failure of the opposition (Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull excepted) to play a meaningful role in discussions on mitigating climate change is a profound historic misjudgment.

W.B. Yeats was right: ”The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.” (The Second Coming, 1919.)

Barry Jones was minister for science 1983-90 and is a Fellow of all four of Australia’s learned academies.

Source: www.theage.com.au

100 Global Sustain Ability Leaders

The search is on globally for 100 Sustain Ability Leaders. This initiative was announced by abc carbon express earlier this month and we are calling for support and nominations from “sustain ability partners” whether they be in NGOs, Governments, Universities, media, centres of excellence in sustainability and/or like-minded businesses. We call on all readers to send in their nominations, along with a brief description of the person, including why you think he or she qualifies for this leadership listing. It’s easy – just send a reply to this newsletter email. The deadline for nominations has been extended to 31^st July 2011. This is an expansion of our previous ABC Carbon 50 into a new international award. Many of the people we might think are deserving of recognition have been reported in this newsletter and we are sure our readers around the globe know and recognise many more. As we have said before: Think sustain ability (two words) and think leadership (one big word)!  We will present our list of winners in our 150^th issue due out mid-August. This issue presents a wide selection of news and views, as expected. Extreme weather and the climate change link, along with investing in the risks and opportunities of climate change. Progress – or not – in world talks for an agreement and progress of sorts in Australia on carbon farming, if not carbon tax. Reports from the business world going green and alerts for three major events in Singapore – water, clean tech and leadership. There’s more on energy efficiency, solar, wind, as well as clean energy research centres, including the Earth Observatory. And Jessica Cheam tells us how to keep climate change in the news. So make your contribution and send in your nomination for 100 Global Sustain Ability Leaders 2011. – Ken Hickson

Profile: Dr Fatih Birol

International Energy Agency Chief Economist warns that given the current status quo of international climate policy and efforts, the “door to 2°C may be closing” soon, as it assumes vigorous implementation of emission reduction pledges to 2020 and much stronger action thereafter. Dr Fatih Birol said in Singapore that energy related CO2 emissions need to peak before 2020 and this is not happening. And all major emitters have to move, if not, the problem will not be solved.

IEA Chief Economist offers a look at our energy future

June 21, 2011 by Eugene Tay in Green Business Times  

Filed under Strategy and Leaders

Leave a Comment

The era of cheap oil is over, and policies fall short of what is needed for a secure and sustainable energy future, says Dr Fatih Birol, Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency, in his lecture titled “A Glimpse into the Energy Fututre” at today’s EMA Distinguished Speaker Programme. This lecture is jointly organised by the Energy Market Authority and the Energy Studies Institute.

Era of cheap oil is over

Dr Birol shares that the era of cheap oil is over because of structural changes, and there is growing risk that the upturn in oil prices could undermine economic recovery.

On the demand side, strong growth from the transportation sector due to booming demand for mobility in emerging economies drives up oil use. The global car fleet continue to surge as more people in China and other emerging economies buy a car.

On the supply side, oil production becomes less crude. Global fossil fuel production reached 96 mb/d in 2035 on the back of rising output of natural gas liquids and unconventional oil, as crude oil production plateaus.

There is now more oil from fewer producers. The MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) would account for 90% of net global increase in oil production in 2020, and if current unrest defers investment, it could have implications for global energy security.

Oil prices is reaching a danger zone, and rising oil prices pose inflationary risks. High oil prices also represent significant redistribution of wealth from oil importers to oil exporters, and the impacts differ across OECD, emerging economies and less developed countries.

OECD spending on oil imports will be higher than 2008, if oil prices remain at current levels through 2011, and will present a serious risk to derail global economic recovery.

Stronger penetration of natural gas

Dr Birol shares that stronger penetration of natural gas could have profound implications for global energy markets. The majority of global natural gas production will continue to come from conventional sources but unconventional gas becomes increasingly important.

Natural gas can enhance the security of fuel supply. Global natural gas resources exceed 250 years of current production, while in each region, resources exceed 75 years of current consumption. Natural gas are also dispersed in many countries, unlike oil.

However, challenges remain in shale gas production due to environmental problems. The process need large volumes of water to fracture rocks, and uses chemicals that lead to the contamination of water.

The good news is that the challenges can be fixed with existing technologies, the government putting in the right regulations, and companies using the best technology.

The growing liquefied natural gas (LNG) production also enhances supply security and market flexibility. Australia is becoming the leading LNG supplier, followed by Qatar. Singapore could also become the regional hub for LNG.

Coal and renewable energy

Dr Birol explains that coal would remain the backbone of global electricity generation. The drop in coal-fired generation in OECD countries is offset by big increases elsewhere, especially in China, where 600 GW of new capacity exceeds the current capacity of US, EU and Japan.

Renewables would enter mainstream as the use of renewable energy triples between 2008 and 2035, but only if there is enough government support. Government support remains as the key driver, rising from $57 billion in 2009 to $205 billion in 2035, but higher fossil fuel prices and declining investment costs also spur the growth of renewable energy.

China

Dr Birol believes that China will be instrumental in shaping all energy markets. China would become the market leader in low-carbon technologies, given the sheer scale of China’s market. Its push to expand the role of low carbon technologies is poised to play a key role in driving down costs, to the benefit of all countries. If China becomes the low-carbon technology champion, this would have impacts on current champions in Europe and US.

Door to 2°C may be closing

Dr Birol warns that given the current status quo of international climate policy and efforts, the “door to 2°C may be closing” soon. The 2°C scenario assumes vigorous implementation of the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreement pledges to 2020 and much stronger action thereafter. In this scenario, energy related CO2 emissions need to peak before 2020. This does not seem to be happening. In addition, all major emitters have to move, if not, the problem would not be solved.

Nuclear energy

Dr Birol shares that lower nuclear use would have implications for fuel mix, pushing up demand for coal, natural gas and renewables, and have a corresponding knock-on effect on energy prices. The implication for CO2 is that the growth in emissions from the power sector in 2008-2035 would be almost 30% higher in a lower nuclear case.

Dr Birol concludes that existing and announced policies can make a difference, but fall well short of what is needed for a secure and sustainable energy future. Energy and geopolitics will also be more and more interwoven.

Source: www.greenbusinesstimes.com

Dr Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the International  Energy Agency (IEA), today addressed a 350-strong audience of energy players at the second instalment of the EMA’s Distinguished Speaker Programme (DSP).  The first DSP took place on 29 April, with Tenaga Nasional Bhd Chairman, Tan Sri Leo Moggie,speaking on “The Dynamics of the Electricity Industry”.

Speaking on the theme, “A Glimpse into the Energy Future”, Dr Birol began by highlightingthe major structural shift in energy demand from OECD countries such as the US, Japan, Korea and Australia, to non-OECD countries particularly China, India and the Middle East. In fact, the Chief Economist quipped that today’s global energy demand is being driven by five countries and/or region, namely China, China, China, and then India and the Middle East. This, he said, could have substantial energy implications for global energy mix and security.

Announcing that the era of cheap oil is over, Dr Birol revealed how there has been structural changes in oil markets. For example, he shared how the vast majority of demand for oil is being driven by transportation, as opposed to power generation. Unlike power generation, cars, planes and automobiles can run on only oil and this results in rigid demand, said the Chief Economist.  He continued by saying that demand for oil-dependent vehicles is only going to increase, putting pressure on depleting oil resources and the need to find alternative fuel choices for vehicles.  He added that oil resources also lie in areas of increasing geo-political uncertainty, which can impact the security of oil supply.

On the other hand, Dr Birol said the picture for gas is much more positive in terms of both the amount of resources available and security of supply.  IEA, which had recently published the report “Are We Entering A Golden Age of Gas”, projected that  global resources of natural gas will exceed 250 years of current production. In each region, resources will exceed 75 years of current consumption.   Dr Birol also highlighted that the other major advantage of gas lies in its dispersion, which means gas is not confined to or concentrated in any one region.  

Later, Dr Birol would tell audiences during the Q&A session that the Golden Age of Gas must be met by golden standards. For countries to clear the hurdles to gas, particularly to shale gas where its production has caused environmental concerns, governments would need to put the right regulations in place, while companies would have to use the right technology.  Dr Birol also commented that with the upcoming LNG terminal due to come online in 2013, Singapore is well-placed to be an LNG hub for the region.

Turning to coal, Dr Birol reminded all that the fossil fuel is currently the backbone of the global electricity generation industry. He shared that half the world’s electricity generation comes from coal, while the other half is made up of oil, gas and renewables combined.  With electricity generation increasingly fuelled by gas, which is the cleanest fossil fuel, he highlighted that this would have a positive impact on climate change and carbon emissions.  Nevertheless, this by itself is insufficient to limit the average global temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

In fact, this is a topic close to his heart, and Dr Birol shared his disappointment that an agreement was not reached in Copenhagen.  While the Cancun Agreement does commit countries to reducing emissions, he put this into perspective by highlighting the current debate regarding cutting European emissions to either 20 or 30 percent, which really works out to roughly two weeks of Chinese emissions.

Given the current status quo of the international climate policy and efforts, Dr Birol feared that the “door to 2 degrees Celsius may be closing” soon.

The good news is that every government Dr Birol has encountered is pushing forward a strong renewables programme.  He explained that government support is essential as the cost of renewables can be prohibitive. Again, he sees China emerging as the main driving force behind renewables and low carbon technology, in particular solar, wind, nuclear and electric cars.  The Chief Economist said China’s dominance of the market will positively impact clean technologies by providing the necessary scale to lower costs, but added the caveat that this could also have a converse impact on current cleantech companies.

The Fukushima tragedy has also had an impact on the global energy landscape, with nuclear’s generation share expected to drop to 10 percent in 2035, from 14 percent today. This, he said, will leave a gap that must be filled by coal, gas or renewables, which in turn will result in almost 30 percent greater higher emissions from 2008-2035.

In summing up, Dr Birol felt that energy and geopolitics will become increasingly interwoven, with an impact on supply security.  While existing and upcoming policies can make a difference, they fall well short of what is needed for a secure and sustainable energy future.  The volatility and upturn in oil prices in particular, could undermine global economic recovery.  Against this bleak backdrop, Dr Birol said a stronger penetration of natural gas could have profound and potentially positive implications for global energy markets, with China continuing to be instrumental in shaping our energy future.

Source:  www.siew.sg

China Gets More of the Same: Extreme Weather

We all know that it is unwise to attribute major weather events – like the current devastating floods in China – to climate change, but the trend is there for all to see. More extreme weather events, more often. Bill McKibben says it’s because the atmosphere is 4% more wet than 40 years ago because warm air holds more water than cold air. That means more deluge and downpour in wet areas and more dryness in dry areas. So we’re seeing more destructive mega floods and storms, increasing thunderstorms, and increasing lightning strikes.”

ZHUJI, China by Reuters (19 June 2011):

 Torrential rain across southern and eastern China which has killed more than 100 people and triggered the evacuation of half a million has left large areas of farmland devastated as food prices surge, state media said on Sunday.

Weeks of rainstorms in the stricken province of Zhejiang in the Yangtze delta have caused nearly 5 billion yuan (447 million pounds) of damage, reducing vegetable production by 20 percent and pushing prices in the provincial capital of Hangzhou up by as much as 40 percent, Xinhua said.

China is hit by flooding and drought every year.

The rain is expected to continue for the next two days, stretching from the financial hub of Shanghai in the east to rural Yunnan on China’s southwestern border.

Villagers on the outskirts of the city of Zhuji in Zhejiang returned to their homes on Sunday as flood waters began to recede.

“Right now, I am just clearing up the things in my store,” said 37-year-old shop owner Peng Gao. “It’s not about whether the floods will come again. If we don’t clear the things, we will not be able to use them again.”

Two towns were flooded and thousands were evacuated following the breach of two dykes in Zhuji on Thursday.

China has mobilised troops across the region to rescue stricken farmers and distribute food, but some villagers said the local government could have done more to prevent the flooding.

“When it first started, the breach (in the flood protection dyke) was not that huge — we could have easily fixed it,” said 22-year old villager Shou Qiongdan.

“But the government did not do anything. None of the local officials tried to salvage the situation. That’s why we have such huge economic losses and so many people being affected by the flooding.”

In neighbouring Jiangsu province, the city of Suzhou was hit by more than 200 mm of rainfall on Friday night, and water at the Tai Lake had already exceeded flood alert levels, the China News Service said.

In central China’s Hubei, two people were killed after the Yangtze river and its tributaries burst their banks, with as many as 3 million people affected, Xinhua said in a separate report. Further downstream in Anhui province, three died and another 120,000 were evacuated as a result of floods.

In southwest China’s Sichuan province, five people were killed and another seven remain missing after a water diversion tunnel was flooded on Friday, the China News Service said. ($1 = 6.471 yuan)

Source: www.uk.reuters.com

By Dahr Jamail Al-Jazeera (23 June 2011):

Severe weather events are wracking the planet, and experts warn of even greater consequences to come

The rate of ice loss in two of Greenland’s largest glaciers has increased so much in the last 10 years that the amount of melted water would be enough to completely fill Lake Erie, one of the five Great Lakes in North America.

West Texas is currently undergoing its worst drought since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, leaving wheat and cotton crops in the state in an extremely dire situation due to lack of soil moisture, as wildfires continue to burn.

Central China recently experienced its worst drought in more than 50 years. Regional authorities have declared more than 1,300 lakes “dead”, meaning they are out of use for both irrigation and drinking water supply.

Floods have struck Eastern and Southern China, killing at least 52 and forcing the evacuation of hundreds of thousands, followed by severe flooding that again hit Eastern China, displacing or otherwise affecting five million people.

Meanwhile in Europe, crops in the northwest are suffering the driest weather in decades.

Scientific research confirms that, so far, humankind has raised the Earth’s temperature, and the aforementioned events are a sign of what is to come.

“If you had a satellite view of the planet in the summer, there is about 40 per cent less ice in the Arctic than when Apollo 8 [in 1968] first sent back those photos [of Earth],” Bill McKibben, world renowned environmentalist and fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences told Al Jazeera, “Oceans are 30 per cent more acidic than they were 40 years ago. The atmosphere is four per cent more wet than 40 years ago because warm air holds more water than cold air. That means more deluge and downpour in wet areas and more dryness in dry areas. So we’re seeing more destructive mega floods and storms, increasing thunderstorms, and increasing lightning strikes.”

So far human greenhouse gas emissions have raised the temperature of the planet by one degree Celsius.

“Climatologists tell us unless we get off gas, coal, and oil, that number will be four to five degrees before the end of this century,” said McKibben, “If one degree is enough to melt the Arctic, we’d be best not to hit four degrees.”

Climate change is bad for you

Brian Schwartz is a professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“Increasing temperatures cause direct health effects related to heat; there will be more common events like the 30,000 to 50,000 persons who died in Europe in 2003 due to the heat wave there,” Professor Schwartz told Al Jazeera, “Increasing temperatures also cause more air pollution, due to photochemical reactions that increase with higher temperatures. This will cause more morbidity and mortality from pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases.”

Schwartz, who is also the co-director of the Programme on Global Sustainability and Health, said that lack of clean water, a phenomenon that is also a product of climate change, will lead to increases in morbidity and mortality from a variety of water-borne diseases.

In addition, vector-borne diseases, diseases in which the pathogenic microorganism is transmitted from an infected individual to another individual by an arthropod or other agent, will change in their distribution as the climate changes.

“Populations will be on the move as food and water production is threatened; these so-called environmental refugees, that the world has already seen, suffer a variety of increased health risks,” added Schwartz, “How climate change affects economies and sociopolitical systems will contribute to other physical and mental health stresses for populations.”

Professor Cindy Parker co-directs the Programme on Global Environmental Sustainability and Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and is the Associate Director of the Johns Hopkins Environment, Energy, Sustainability, and Health Institute.

Like Professor Schwartz, she also sees an increase in vector-borne diseases as climate change progresses.

“Infectious diseases carried by insects, like malaria, Lyme disease, Dengue fever, these are all expected to worsen,” Parker told Al Jazeera, “These diseases will likely worsen, like malaria, at higher elevations in virgin populations who’ve not developed resistance to these diseases, so there will be greater effect on these populations.”

She believes that diseases that have yet to arise will begin to develop as the planet continues warming. “The biggest threat is the disease we’re not yet expecting, but that will develop and we’ll be ill equipped to handle.”

Parker fears other far-reaching health impacts resulting from our heating up of the planet.

“Everything that affects our environment affects our health,” Parker said, “As fancy as our technology is, we still cannot live without clean water, air, and food, and we rely on our environment for these.”

This fact is primarily why she believes that climate change is the most health-damaging problem humanity has ever faced.

Parker cited Hurricane Katrina that struck New Orleans in 2005, killing nearly 2,000 and pegged as the costliest natural disaster in US history, as a weather warning example.

“If you look at the health impacts on the Gulf of Mexico’s population that was impacted by the storm, mental health illnesses are much worse than the rest of country, chronic illnesses are greater, mostly because trauma has great effects on our psyches and physical bodies,” she explained, “But also because prior to Katrina there were seven hospitals in New Orleans, and now there are 2.5 hospitals operating. Those that were lost didn’t come back. They are gone.”

Hurricane Katrina also caused job loss, which led to loss of health insurance, which led to peoples’ health indicators worsening.

“Homelessness is a big contributor, and these problems are still going on, people have not recovered,” Parker continued, “And with extreme weather events around the world, there are these huge health effects which persist.”

Parker is concerned about what the future has in store for us if climate change continues unabated, as it currently appears to be doing, given that most governments continue to fail to implement an actionable plan to avert it.

“People think technology is going to save us from climate change, but there is no technology on the horizon that will allow us to adapt ourselves out of this mess,” Parker said, “We can physiologically adapt to higher temperatures, but all that adaptation is not going to save us unless we also get the climate stabilised.”

“If this continues unabated this planet will not be habitable by the species that are on it, including humans,” she concluded, “It will be a very different planet. One that is not very conducive to human life.”

“The rule of thumb is that every degree increase in temperature decreases the wheat harvest by 10 per cent,” said McKibben, speaking about the effect climate change has on global food production, “Food cost has increased between 70 and 80 per cent in the last year for basic grains. For millions around the world, they are already affected by not having enough.”

McKibben is deeply concerned about what he sees when he looks into the future of what we should expect with climate change.

“We’re going to keep seeing increased amounts of these extreme kinds of droughts, floods, and storms,” he said, “Everything that happens that isn’t volcanic or tectonic draws its power from the sun and we are getting more of everything by amping up the sun’s power in the atmosphere by adding more CO2.”

Ryerson sees a bleak future for water-starved countries like Saudi Arabia.

“Saudi Arabia has announced that the water they’ve been depending on, their underground aquifer for crops and drinking, will be gone by 2020,” he explained, “They are dependent on imports, and can pay for it now, but in the future when oil declines, that country faces a serious issue of sustainability.”

He is also concerned about increasing biodiversity loss.

“The key issue is the large populations of plants and animals that make the planet inhabitable,” Ryerson explained, “We need oxygen to breathe and water to drink. A three billion year evolution of plants and animals have made the planet habitable, and we are systematically destroying this biodiversity by plowing, cutting, and burning areas.”

Ryerson believes ongoing demand for products and the encroachment on wilderness areas this causes “will make life on the planet much more difficult. All of this together means the future of humanity, even with assumed innovation, has some very serious concerns. None of these problems are made easier by adding more people. The only way to achieve sustainability is to hold population growth, and have it decline.”

McKibben says everybody should be adopting an emergency response geared towards ending our reliance on fossil fuels.

“This will only be done if we charge carbon for the damage it does in the atmosphere,” he said, “The power of the fossil fuel companies is the power to keep us from doing that. As long as our governments won’t stand up to that industry, I’m afraid we’ve got a long road ahead of us.”

Source: www.countercurrents.org

How to Make a Carbon Tax More Appealing

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is preparing to deliver relief to nine out of 10 households in Australia in a popular move to help win support for the planned Carbon Tax, which aims to “punish the polluters” and help the country achieve a 5% emissions reduction target. Maybe the approved Carbon Farming Initiative, applauded by Sustainable Business Australia, among others, will go towards restoring the country’s reputation.

16 June 2011

Sustainable Business Australia greatly applauds the breaking news that the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 has been passed through the House of Representatives.

Today the Parliament of Australia has taken a decisive step towards de-carbonising the Australian economy by providing a framework for the sale of carbon credits on domestic and international markets. The scheme utilises the unique role of farmers, landholders and indigenous communities across Australia, enabling them to reduce carbon emissions and develop new income streams. 

SBA has been a vocal and strong supporter of the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). We look forward to advancing the opportunities created by the introduction of the legislation through the work of the market-leading SBA Bio-CCS Group.

GILLARD GOVERNMENT’S CARBON FARMING INITIATIVE A WIN FOR FARMERS

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, welcomed the passage of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 through the House of Representatives today, describing it as a win for farmers, a win for Indigenous Australia and a win for the environment.

The Carbon Farming Initiative is a key part of the Gillard Government’s climate change agenda. Under the Initiative, the Federal Government will help facilitate the sale of carbon credits on domestic and international markets, opening up new income streams for farmers and landholders across regional Australia.

Mr Combet said the Bill passed the House of Representatives today with support from the crossbenches, despite a bizarre eleventh hour decision by the Opposition to oppose the legislation.

“This is an important step towards delivering a carbon offset scheme in Australia. We will now work to secure this Bill’s passage through the Senate so that farmers and landholders can start reaping financial rewards from acting to tackle climate change,” Mr Combet said.

“We’ve consulted widely on developing this Initiative, with farmers, with Indigenous groups, with business and industry, and today’s vote is recognition of that work and the significant benefits this Initiative willbring to our economy and to our environment”.

Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mark Dreyfus, joined the Minister in welcoming the passage of the legislation through the House, saying the Opposition’s attempt to indefinitely delay the Bill has stripped them of all credibility on the issue of climate change.

“The Opposition’s been blowing hot and cold on the Carbon Farming Initiative, first calling on all sides of politics to ‘embrace’ the proposal, and now at the eleventh hour capitulating to the views of the Nationals and walking away from that commitment,” Mr Dreyfus said.

“Given that the Opposition’s so-called ‘direct action plan’ has been entirely discredited as ineffective, expensive and unworkable, the Opposition should now get behind the genuine, lasting action that will be delivered under the Gillard Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative”.

The Government will now work to secure the passage of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 through the Senate to enable the Carbon Farming Initiative to commence later this year.

Sustainable Business Australia is the peak body for the low carbon and environmental goods and services sector. We are also a think tank focusing on ‘new markets, new industries and new jobs’

Source: www.sba.asn.au/sba/news.asp

7 million homes to get carbon tax relief

Samantha Maiden From: Herald Sun June 26, 2011

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is preparing to deliver relief to nine out of 10 households in Australia.

PARENTS earning up to $128,000 with three children will secure tax cuts and a boost to welfare payments under Julia Gillard’s carbon tax compensation plan.

But some dual-income families earning much more will also secure relief because they can double-dip with family assistance and tax cuts.

The Sunday Herald Sun can reveal the Prime Minister is preparing to deliver relief to nine out of 10 households in Australia as she prepares for a head-to-head battle with Tony Abbott on family tax cuts.

In the first significant detail of her tax plan, the Prime Minister has confirmed more than seven million households – 90 per cent – will secure some assistance. Most will be fully compensated.

Almost two million parents will secure increased payments under Family Tax Benefit A, which cuts out for families earning $100,000 for one child or up to $128,000 with three children.

But Mr Abbott is promising to deliver tax cuts without a carbon tax if he wins the 2013 election, labelling the Prime Minister’s plan “a con”.

Though the Gillard Government is yet to confirm the carbon tax price, the expected impost of about $20 a tonne would hit households by $500 a year or $10 a week.

But the Prime Minister told the Sunday Herald Sun most low to middle-income households would be fully compensated from July 1 next year and would not be worse off as result of the tax.

“These tax cuts and payment increases will be aimed at those who need them most – pensioners, low-income earners and middle-income earners,” she said.

“Not everybody will agree with our package. I get that. But I will be explaining exactly what help Australians get – and how they will get it.”

The Sunday Herald Sun understands that under the compensation plan being finalised:

FAMILIES who already qualify for Family Tax Benefit A will secure a boost to family payments.

DUAL-INCOME families where both parents work will be able to “double-dip”, claiming tax cuts and family payment increases.

PENSIONERS will secure up-front compensation – estimated to be about $500 a year for singles or $760 for couples.

WORKERS earning more than $150,000 a year, who will also be hit by flood tax from July 1, will largely bear the cost of the carbon tax without taxpayer-funded relief.

Mr Abbott also yesterday outlined his plan to deliver relief to families, describing middle-income families with children as “Australia’s new poor”.

“Voters are not mugs,” he said. “They know that a tax reduction to compensate for a tax increase is not a cut but a con.”

In a speech to the Liberal Party’s annual conference in Canberra, Mr Abbott said he wanted to simplify the family benefit payments system.

He said he would pay for his own planned tax cuts by cutting spending and improving productivity.

Source: www.heraldsun.com.au