IT & Data Centres Supreme: Dell is Number One Green Company

Based on their strong Environmental Impact, plus Reputation score, and excellent Green Policies, Dell was the No. 1 US company in NEWSWEEK’s 2010 Green Rankings. Others in the top ten were Nike, IBM, Intel, Adobe, Yahoo, Applied Materials, Sprint Nextel, Johnson & Johnson, & Hewlett Packard. Meanwhile Queensland’s Strategic Directions a its Partnership with AFCOM®, the world’s leading data centre association. 

By David Bicknell for ComputerWeekly (27 October 2010):

My previous post listed the Top 5 rankings both in the US and globally from Newsweek’s research. Here are Newsweek’s profiles of its Top 10 greenest US companies.

No 10. Nike

Nike stands out for its particularly strong commitment to handling environmental issues in its supply chain. The company has a number of programs in place for evaluating and improving the environmental footprint of its suppliers, including checks on chemical toxicity, water use, and carbon emissions. Nike is also progressing toward carbon neutrality itself and aims to achieve it for company-owned facilities and business travel by 2015. The company has worked to improve its own environmental performance through increased efficiency and use of renewable energy. For instance, it has reduced energy use substantially at some of its facilities by installing energy efficient lighting and HVAC systems, and its headquarters in Belgium and the Netherlands currently run on 100 percent renewable energy (the Belgium facility actually produces more energy than it uses). Nike is also investing in new teleconferencing equipment to cut down on business travel. Nike had a Reputation Survey score of 97.39 (based on a survey of academics, sustainability experts, and CEOs).

No 9. Yahoo

Yahoo. This Internet giant encourages its 600 million worldwide users to be environmentally aware. Its Yahoo Green site is the top destination on the Internet for green lifestyle tips. The company has also supported and worked on related initiatives, including its “Be a Better Planet” program and its annual Earth Day Web site. Yahoo is also a leader in improving the efficiency of its data centres. Its efforts include purchasing energy from renewable sources, such as hydroelectric facilities, and locating new data centres in cooler climates to reduce AC needs. Its new data centre in Lockport, N.Y., which monitors the Yahoo infrastructure, consumes 40 percent less energy and uses 95 percent less water than conventional data centres. The water saved is enough to provide drinking water for 200,000 people for a year.

No 8. Applied Materials

This supplier of manufacturing systems and services to the global semiconductor industry made great strides in reducing CO2 emissions and water use last year, cutting each by 21 percent and 18 percent, respectively, compared to 2006 levels. Both those reductions exceeded Applied Materials’ greening goals, but Applied also acknowledges 2009 was an “unusual” year and says it is reviewing internal data to try to maintain and improve on those numbers. The company also has programs for reducing the hazardous waste it generates and the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) it emits as part of its manufacturing. It has also made significant strides in reducing solid waste sent to landfills by nearly 90 percent.

No 7. Adobe.

Three areas on which Adobe has focused are their office building operations, their waste management program, and their product packaging. The company currently has four buildings that are LEED certified by the U.S. Green Building Council at the Platinum (highest) level, making Adobe a world leader in this area. Employees at the company’s headquarters in San Jose, Calif., also actively recycle and compost, diverting up to 97 percent of the site’s solid waste from landfill. Lastly, Adobe launched an environmentally sensitive redesign of its software packaging based on an evaluation of its packaging materials, production, use, and disposal. The firm’s overall Green Rankings green score came in at 94.15.

No 6. Sprint Nextel

Sprint Nextel was the first U.S.-based wireless provider to announce a target for reducing its absolute greenhouse-gas emissions. The goal: reduce emissions by 15 percent between 2007 and 2017 by improving energy efficiency within its networks, and by using renewable energy sources, such as hydrogen fuel cells, to replace backup generators at its cell towers. The company boasts a portfolio of three environmentally friendly phones, which is unusual in the industry. It also has a well-known product-recycling program in which customers can return their old cell phones, batteries, and accessories, regardless of brand, to Sprint for free using a postage-paid label. In some cases, Sprint will even buy back old equipment. Their aim is to recycle 99 percent of products; as of 2009 they were recycling nearly half.

No 5. Intel

Intel’s efforts to reduce waste and to mitigate its use and release of toxics are notable. It has high recycling rates for both hazardous and non-hazardous waste and is working to find suitable alternatives for toxic components in its products. Intel also has a strong commitment to energy efficiency. The company ties a portion of its employees’ compensation to reaching environmental goals, and its Intel Core and Atom chips are among its greenest products. The corporation has been the Environmental Protection Agency’s largest green power purchaser among Fortune 500 companies for the past three years, with almost half its U.S. energy coming from renewable sources. NEWSWEEK’s Rankings gave them an environmental impact score of 95.74.

No 4. Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson stands out among its competitors for its climate-change policies, with clear goals and deadlines for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. This includes the reduction of baseline 1990 CO2 emission levels by 7 percent by 2010—, goal the company surpassed with a 16 percent absolute reduction. Between 2005 and 2009, the company also reduced nonhazardous waste by 32 percent and hazardous waste by 32 percent, exceeding its goal of 10 percent. Similar goals in paper, packaging, and energy efficiency have been met or improved on through steps like the company’s largest installation of solar panels at a New Jersey site. As a result, a comprehensive assessment of their environmental initiatives earned them a Green Policies score of 98.86 in our rankings.

No 3. IBM.

This global technology manufacturer has a strong program for reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions and also offers products and consulting services to help clients make their businesses greener. IBM set out in the 1990s to reduce its own consumption of electricity and water, and between 1990 and 2000 cut its energy use by 5.1 billion kilowatt hours, enough to power a medium-size town. The company’s newest venture, its Sustainability Management System technology, aims to help clients operate their commercial buildings more efficiently. The product was a home-grown solution, allowing an IBM semiconductor factory in Burlington, Vt., to cut water usage (a key ingredient in chip-making) by 30 percent. The company has also participated in a pilot program to reduce Stockholm’s traffic congestion, which resulted in a 14 percent drop in emissions from road traffic in the inner city. IBM is working with London, Singapore, and Brisbane to address their traffic-management and congestion challenges. For its overall excellent scores, IBM ranked No. 3 on the U.S. list and No. 1 on the Global ranking.

No 2. Hewlett Packard

HP has long been an industry leader in environmental issues. The company dates its commitment to the philosophy of its founders, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, who believed technology can improve society. One of its most notable programs aims to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and use renewable energy. In 2008, HP began reporting greenhouse gases associated with its supply chain, making it the first major tech company to do so. It is also working to reduce the energy use of its products. If all the printers, PCs, and servers shipped in 2005 (all models, all brands, globally) were recycled and replaced with new HP energy-efficient models, the company estimates customers could save more than $10.4 billion in energy costs and avoid the release of more than 40 million metric tons of CO2 in the first year. That’s equivalent to shutting down 10 coal plants for an entire year. In addition to a strong Environmental Impact Score (90.60), the company did very well in our Reputation Score, making it a close second to Dell.

No 1. Dell

Dell has built its sustainability strategy over the years by setting a series of ambitious goals, several of which it has already met. In 2008, the company announced it would reduce its total emissions by 40 percent by 2015. It is well on the way to achieving that goal. Many of Dell’s efforts are also focused on reducing the environmental impact of its products at all stages of their life cycles, from design to disposal. The company’s laptops and desktops are now built to use 25 percent less energy than comparable systems made in 2005. That effort, among others, has saved its customers more than $5 billion in energy costs over the past few years. The company has also used 7.2 million pounds of post-consumer recycled plastic to build new computers–the equivalent of recycling 263 million water bottles. Dell also has one of the tech industry’s most comprehensive recycling programs. The company takes back and recycles any of its products for free, and will also take back competitors’ products at no cost with the purchase of new Dell computers or peripherals. Consumers can also mail back old equipment, Dell will pick up items at their homes, or they can drop them off at more than 2,000 Goodwill or 1,500 Staples locations. Based on their strong Environmental Impact score, Reputation score, and excellent Green Policies score, Dell was the No. 1 company in NEWSWEEK’s 2010 Green Rankings.

Source: www.computerweekly.com

MEDIA RELEASE

Strategic Directions announces Partnership with AFCOM®, the world’s leading data centre association 

Strategic Directions Group joins a small, elite group of international Companies as a Strategic Partner with AFCOM, providing thought leadership, education and solutions to the data centre industry.

As a leading designer and planner of best practice data centre facilities, Strategic Directions is committed to the development of alternate energy options and has undertaken significant research into the use of energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, gas, geothermal and hydro.  The company will share its knowledge and findings with the wider data centre community, given the growing financial and social implications of “data centre greening” around the world.

The partnership follows the appointment of Strategic Directions Director Mike Andrea to AFCOM’s Data Centre Institute Board of Directors earlier this year.

Strategic Directions will help with the establishment of AFCOM Chapters throughout the Asia Pacific Region, by highlighting the strong End-User focus and the vendor independent nature of the international AFCOM Forum.

ABOUT US:

The Strategic Directions Group are ICT Master Planners and Strategists, providing vendor independent strategic advice to Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies and ASX Companies.

The Company maintains Practices dedicated to ICT Strategy, Telecommunications and Networking, Project Governance, and Data Centre design and planning.

Strategic Directions were the ICT Master Planners for Greater Springfield, outside Brisbane, Queensland, Australia..

 Source: www.strategicdirections.com.au

ABOUT AFCOM:

AFCOM is a leading association supporting the educational and professional development needs of data centre professionals around the globe. Established in 1980, AFCOM currently boasts more than 4,000 members and 40 chapters worldwide, and provides data centre professionals with unique networking opportunities and educational forums and resources through its annual Data Centre World Conferences, published magazines, regional chapters, research and hotline services, and industry alliances.

Source: www.afcom.com

New Tool from Singapore to Measure Biodiversity for Cities

Why is it important to protect our biodiversity? It is important because it is a source of our food and medicine.During the past 50 years, we have lost 20 per cent of the land suitable for agriculture, 90 per cent of the large commercial fisheries and one-third of our forests. That’s the word from Singapore’s Tommy Koh and Ahmed Djoghlaf. Meanwhile, Singapore has provided a new global tool for cities to measure biodiversity as a contribution to the conservation movement.

Chanel News Asia Report (30 October 2010):     

SINGAPORE: A newly endorsed self-assessment tool for cities to measure biodiversity is Singapore’s contribution to the biodiversity conservation movement, said Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan.

The Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity was developed by various experts in Singapore.

It was formally endorsed on Friday as a biodiversity measurement tool for cities, at the 10th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya.

Mr Mah, who is in Nagoya for the conference, said the index would help cities and local authorities measure the progress of their biodiversity conservation effort over time.

“Cities and governments around the world are well aware of the importance of biodiversity conservation and its impact on social and economic development,” he said.

“Singapore is a good case study in illustrating how economic development and greenery and biodiversity conservation can be mutually reinforcing.”

The Singapore Index uses a “report card” scoring system where cities can carry out their own assessment, allocate points for a diversity of 23 indicators, before coming up with an overall quantitative score.

The information can help cities make better decisions on how to prioritise their biodiversity conservation initiatives.

It would also evaluate cities’ progress in reducing the rate of biodiversity loss.

Mr Mah said the index endorsement was an excellent closure to the International Year of Biodiversity 2010.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

Ahmed Djoghlaf & Tommy Koh in The Straits Times (22 November 2010):

THE Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992, gave birth to three conventions: the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Convention to Combat Desertification.

The Conference of Parties of the United Nations FCCC, held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December last year, ended in chaos and with very modest results.

In sharp contrast, the Conference of Parties of the CBD, held in October in Nagoya, Japan, was harmonious and productive.

Why is it important to protect our biodiversity? It is important because it is a source of our food and medicine.

During the past 50 years, we have lost 20 per cent of the land suitable for agriculture, 90 per cent of the large commercial fisheries and one-third of our forests.

As former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has written: ‘Human health depends, to a larger extent than we might imagine, on the health of other species and on the healthy functioning of other ecosystems.’

Destroy the ecosystems and we will eventually threaten life on Earth.

The third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook, issued in May and based on information from 120 national reports submitted by parties, demonstrated that we continue to lose biodiversity at an unprecedented rate.

The report confirmed that the rate of extinction is today up to 1,000 times higher than the natural rate of extinction. It also warned that irreversible degradation may take place if ecosystems are pushed beyond certain tipping points, leading to the widespread loss of ecosystem services that we depend on greatly. It also predicted that the status of biodiversity for years to come will be determined by actions in the next couple of decades.

This sense of urgency motivated the 18,650 participants attending the Biodiversity Summit in Nagoya.

Indeed, the 193 parties to the CBD and their partners adopted several historic decisions that will permit the community of nations to meet the unprecedented challenges of the continued loss of biodiversity compounded by climate change.

Governments agreed on a package of measures that will ensure the ecosystems of the planet will continue to sustain human well-being into the future.

First, a new 10-year strategic plan containing ambitious targets was adopted with the engagement of all stakeholders, including the business community.

This plan integrates the findings of the study of the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. It contains the means of implementation and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. The plan has been adopted as the overarching biodiversity framework for the whole UN system. It will be translated, within two years, into national strategies and an action plan. Parties will also be requested to implement the plan at the local level.

Second, the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing was a historic achievement.

It is a major contribution to the achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals, by implementing the third objective of the convention: ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources.

The protocol also proposes the creation of a global multilateral mechanism that will operate in transboundary areas or situations where prior informed consent cannot be obtained. It is expected to come into force by 2012, with support from the Global Environment Facility.

Third, the provision of financial resources is crucial to the implementation of the Nagoya biodiversity compact.

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced US$2 billion (S$2.6 billion) in financing and Minister of Environment Ryu Matsumoto announced the establishment of a Japan Biodiversity Fund. Additional financial resources were announced by France, the European Union and Norway.

Fourth, one of the most important initiatives adopted in Nagoya was a multi-year plan of action on cities and biodiversity adopted by the representatives of 650 municipalities, including 200 mayors, at the first Summit on Cities and Biodiversity.

The plan was submitted and adopted by the Conference of the Parties, thus establishing a strong partnership between ministers and the local authorities.

In adopting the plan, the participants endorsed the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity. This tool was specially designed to monitor and assess the status of biodiversity in urban areas. It was developed at the initiative of Singapore, in partnership with the secretariat of the convention, and was test-bedded on 34 cities before its submission to the summit.

The World Cities Summit and the Mayors’ Forum, held biennially in Singapore, will provide a unique opportunity to implement this new partnership at the service of the biodiversity agenda and the future of humanity.

Indeed, the battle for life on Earth will be won and lost in the cities of tomorrow, because the majority of humankind now live in urban, rather than rural, areas.

Ahmed Djoghlaf is the executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity and Tommy Koh is the chairman of the Earth Summit’s main committee and preparatory committee.

Source: www.yahoo.com

Will There Be Another Year of the Tiger?

The World Wide Fund for Nature and other experts say only about 3200 tigers remain in the wild, a dramatic plunge from an estimated 100,000 a century ago. James Leape, director general of WWF, told the meeting in St Petersburg that if the proper protective measures aren’t taken, tigers may disappear by 2022, the next Chinese calendar year of the tiger.

By Irina Titova in St Petersburg in The Australian (22 November 22, 2010):

WILD tigers could become extinct in 12 years if countries where they still roam fail to take quick action to protect their habitats and step up the fight against poaching, global wildlife experts told a “tiger summit”.

The World Wildlife Fund and other experts say only about 3200 tigers remain in the wild, a dramatic plunge from an estimated 100,000 a century ago.

James Leape, director general of the World Wildlife Fund, told the meeting in St Petersburg that if the proper protective measures aren’t taken, tigers may disappear by 2022, the next Chinese calendar year of the tiger.

Their habitat is being destroyed by forest cutting and construction, and they are a valuable trophy for poachers who want their skins and body parts prized in Chinese traditional medicine.

The summit approved a wide-ranging program with the goal of doubling the world’s tiger population in the wild by 2022 backed by governments of the 13 countries that still have tiger populations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam and Russia.

The Global Tiger Recovery Program estimates the countries will need about $US350 million ($355 million) in outside funding in the first five years of the 12-year plan. The summit will be seeking donor commitments to help governments finance conservation measures.

“For most people tigers are one of the wonders of the world,” Mr Leape said.

“In the end, the tigers are the inspiration and the flagship for much broader efforts to conserve forests and grasslands.”

The program aims to protect tiger habitats, eradicate poaching, smuggling, and illegal trade of tigers and their parts, and also create incentives for local communities to engage them in helping protect the big cats.

The summit, which runs through Wednesday, is hosted by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has used encounters with tigers and other wild animals to bolster his image. It’s driven by the Global Tiger Initiative which was launched two years ago by World Bank President Robert Zoellick.

Mr Leape said that along with a stronger action against poaching, it’s necessary to set up specialised reserves for tigers and restore and conserve forests outside them to let tigers expand.

“And you have to find a way to make it work for the local communities so that they would be partners in tigers conservation and benefit from them,” Mr Leape said.

“To save tigers you need to save the forests, grasslands and lots of other species,” he added.

“But at the same time you are also conserving the foundations of the societies who live there. Their economy depends very much on the food, water and materials they get from those forests.”

About 30 per cent of the program’s cost would go toward suppressing the poaching of tigers and of the animals they prey on.

Russia’s Natural Resources Minister Yuri Trutnev said that Russia and China will create a protected area for tigers alongside their border and pool resources to combat poaching.

Mr Leape said that for some of the nations involved outside financing would be essential to fulfill the goals. Three of the nine tiger subspecies – the Bali, Javan, and Caspian – already have become extinct in the past 70 years.

Much has been done recently to try to save tigers, but conservation groups say their numbers and habitats have continued to fall, by 40 per cent in the past decade alone. In part, that decline is because conservation efforts have been increasingly diverse and often aimed at improving habitats outside protected areas where tigers can breed, according to a study published in September in the Popular Library of Science Biology journal.

Mr Putin has done much to draw attention to tigers’ plight. During a visit to a wildlife preserve in 2008, he shot a female tiger with a tranquiliser gun and helped place a transmitter around her neck as part of a program to track the rare cats.

Later in the year, Mr Putin was given a two-month-old female Siberian tiger for his birthday. State television showed him at his home gently petting the cub, which was curled up in a wicker basket with a tiger-print cushion.

The tiger now lives in a zoo in southern Russia.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Nothing is Beyond Mathew Wright’s Imagination & Energy

Young Environmentalist of the Year, Matthew Wright, reflects on his plan for the future of electricity in Australia that led to him being awarded the prestigious prize, in this article which appeared on the ABC Environment portal. He’s the man behind the Beyond Zero Emission plan to transform Australia’s stationery energy to be totally renewable by 2020. He has steered launches of the plan in Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane. Next up is Adelaide on 3 December.  

ABC Environment (27 October 2010):

By Matthew Wright

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY has been moving at a snail’s pace for the last few years. But for all the false starts, we can look to 2011 knowing that the seeds for progress have been planted.

In 2010, Beyond Zero Emissions, the volunteer-led group I helped found, published the Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy plan, a detailed blueprint for transforming Australia’s stationary energy sector to 100 per cent renewable sources by 2020. It took around 12 months worth of pro bono work by engineers, scientists and postgraduate university students from all around Australia to complete the research that no Australian government or organisation has been prepared to investigate. The result is a truly innovative collaboration the likes of which has never been seen before in Australia.

At the annual Banksia awards recently, Beyond Zero Emissions and our partner, the University of Melbourne Energy Institute, were awarded the Mercedes Benz Environmental Research Award for our efforts.The Zero Carbon Australia – Stationary Energy plan is quite simply a game changer. The proposal presents a credible and pragmatic way for our government and private sector to transform the Australian economy from one reliant on climate-changing fossil fuels to one powered by Australia’s abundant renewable energy resources using commercially available technology.

Using detailed modelling, our researchers show how a 60/40 mix of large-scale solar thermal power plants with storage and wind farms can provide the bulk of Australia’s energy needs without wrecking our climate or our economy. The construction of a national energy grid will allow for geographically dispersed solar and wind power installations, with our existing hydroelectric capacity and small amount of biomass used for backup generation. We demonstrate that both cost and variability can be readily addressed, and expose as myth the frequent argument that we need coal, gas or nuclear power to provide ‘baseload’ electricity.

One could be excused for thinking that transforming our national energy system in a decade is an impossible task. This was the initial position of many on the plan’s team. Through conducting our research however, it became clear that implementing the proposed infrastructure in ten years is well within the capability of Australia’s existing industrial and economic capacity. We have the skills, the can-do spirit, and the Aussie ingenuity to get the job done. What we don’t have is leadership from our government and business community.

The overwhelming response to the Zero Carbon Australia plan tells us that the public is hungry for action on climate change and that they have an appetite for a visionary nation-building renewable energy agenda. Over one thousand people braved bad weather for launches in Melbourne and Sydney. And every week, our inboxes are filled with messages of support and requests to join the Beyond Zero Emissions team. After the success of the Stationary Energy plan and new volunteers on board, we will develop transition plans for buildings, transport, steel, cement and other industrial sectors.

Cross-party support on climate change policies has been elusive. But our plan has managed to gain support from across the political spectrum. In June, Liberal Senator Judith Troeth, Greens Senator Christine Milne and independent Senator Nick Xenophon jointly hosted the parliamentary launch of the plan. Since then former Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has joined former NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr to praise the plan at an event at the Sydney Town Hall.

Not only do politicians support the Zero Carbon Australia initiative, but so do leading academics, energy experts, business people, and community leaders. The former Australian of the Year Professor Tim Flannery described the plan as “an ambitious, technically feasible plan that should be looked at seriously”.

As just one among many Australians that wants action on climate change, I hope the Gillard government and its newly established Climate Change Committee take Tim Flannery’s advice to take a serious look at the Zero Carbon Australia plan. Credible climate policies will account for our findings. To paraphrase the Prime Minister’s oft-used phrase during the 2010 election campaign, it’s the only way to move Australia forward on the critical challenges of climate change and energy security.

Matthew Wright is Executive Director of Beyond Zero Emissions and the 2010 Environment Minister’s Young Environmentalist of the Year.

BZE is coming to Adelaide!

Come along to hear about the ground-breaking plan for 100% renewable energy within a decade.

Friday, December 3
6:00pm for a 6.30pm start
Elder Hall, Adelaide University, North Tce, Adelaide

An Unsustainable Winning Streak

As Australia claims the most medals at the New Delhi Commonwealth Games, it gets a far less illustrious global ranking among the 10 most unsustainable countries on the planet. The study, commissioned by WWF, measures the amount of natural resources needed to sustain a person’s lifestyle, including energy, transport, food and infrastructure. Australia ranked eighth in the study and those with a worse footprint are the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Denmark, Belgium, the United States, Estonia and Canada. In contrast, we heard positive things from Climate Change Minister Greg Combet at the Carbon Expo in Melbourne, which we attended this week and also heard from China’s eloquent carbon supremo Dr Hu Tao. We also picked up good news from Climate Friendly, the Energy Efficiency Council, ACF, Intelligent Pathways & Carbon Conscious. Off to a promising start is the Carbon Market Institute, MBD with its algae bio-sequestration and the Biofuels Association of Australia. Greenroofs tops off things in style with its national conference coming up, Portugal shows its plans for an eco-city and Singapore – where we have also just visited again – offers some good advice on planning sustainable urban centres, even with butterflies rampant in Orchard Road. And back to the top theme: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) say we’re paying for it with the earth. Conservation is an investment, not a cost! – Ken Hickson

Profile: Dr Hu Tao

One of China’s experts on the low carbon economy says the reason for China’s success is that the country’s leadership has a clear concept – to lead the next industrial revolution. “If the leadership says it’s good to be green, then the country will be green.” Dr Hu Tao told delegates at the Carbon Expo in Melbourne during the week that China’s next five year plan will demonstrate the country’s ongoing commitment to significantly reduce all greenhouse gas emissions, as well as other pollutants and attain (or exceed) the target of 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2010.

Ken Hickson had the pleasure of listening to the very eloquent and well informed Dr Hu Tao as he spoke at the Carbon Expo in Melbourne and also met him personally, however briefly.

Dr Hu told delegates that even if the global agreement on climate change action falters at Cancun, Mexico in coming weeks, he knows that China will maintain its commitment to reducing emissions significantly and moving rapidly to a low carbon economy.

He spent some time at the conference going over the achievements on the current five year plan when China has met most of its targets for pollution reduction.

 He was also keen to point out that China is making a major contribution internationally to a switch to renewable energy. At this stage, he says, China has 77.5% of the global market for solar thermal. Its wind power investment – at home and abroad – is also growing very fast.

An important meeting is taking place in Beijing in the next week to finalise the next five year plan. Although he could not be so presumptuous as predicting what was in the plan, he went on to say China was still committed to have 15% of the energy coming from renewable sources by 2020. It was well on the way.

China would continue to address pollution problems from other pollutants, as well as “the carbon intensity” issue. He considered it likely that there would be a carbon and resources tax at some stage, but considered it advisable to put the “tax on at the beginning” to thereby keep costs down.

China has already established three carbon exchanges to deal with the voluntary market and the country was willing to work in with other exchanges around the world.

China would continue to have a mix of policies which incorporate both the “carrot and the stick”.

He said that China is not going to miss out on the green economic revolution. It was determined to create a strong domestic market, for renewable energy for example, as well as continue to grow production of products for the global market.

Dr Hu also pointed out that China and Australia must continue to explore opportunities to work together. He noted some areas where China was ready, willing and able to gain from the expertise and innovations from Australia: clean coal technology, water and sewage treatment, natural gas production and higher education.

Source: www.abccarbon.com

China ploughs ahead

This from Giles Parkinson reporting from the Melbourne conference in the Climate Spectator (13 October 2010):

Underlying that sense of urgency were comments from Dr Hu Tao, senior economist at the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection, who noted that his country has set a 15 per cent renewable energy target by 2020, but may actually achieve it as early as 2014.

“The reason for this success is that the leadership has a clear concept – to lead the next industrial revolution,” Hu Tao said. “Autocracy is another competitive advantage of China. We don’t have too much debates … if the leadership says it’s good to be green, then the country will be green.”

Tao found it deeply ironic that China was facing a complaint instigated by the US steelworkers union, which filed a 5,800 page petition calling on the Obama Administration to go to the World Trade Organisation alleging China has ignored international trade agreements to help its clean energy sector.

As Hu Tao noted, the country the US once accused of not doing enough to combat climate change may now be sued because it is investing too much in the low-carbon economy.

Hu Tao also noted that China was likely to place a price on carbon in the next five years, it was just a matter of finding the right mechanism. The country did not oppose a price set by a trading mechanism, but the difficulty lay in defining a cap – should it be on absolute emissions, or per capita emissions. “Trading itself poses no problems,” he said. “China looks like the seller of an emissions quota, but in the future it might be a buyer.”

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Hu Tao, China Carbon Forum special adviser, supported Greg Combet’s view on a carbon price, saying it would help to increase Australia ‘s energy efficiency.

China has pledged to cut energy intensity by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels and has made great efforts to achieve the target, Hu told Xinhua in an interview.

“China has dedicated one third of its stimulus package to the development of a high speed rail-network, irrigation systems and renewable energy. China became the world’s second largest producer of wind power last year and is gradually becoming a major supplier of renewable energy technology.”

Hu believes China and Australia can work together in a bid to help reduce global emissions.

“Australia is actively involved in a range of initiatives on technology and policy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Australia and China can play a constructive role to work together with other countries for climate change global solution,” he said.

Source: www.chinacarbon.info

Biography

His business card says he’s special advisor to the China Carbon Forum, but Dr Hu Tao is much more than that. He is Senior Environmental Economist of Policy Research Center, Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) of China.

He is also the Chief Expert of the Trade and Environment Expert Group for the WTO New Round Negotiation for the MEP. He is also the member of UN Steering Committee of Sustainable Production and Consumption and provides environmental policy consulting services for World Bank, Asian Development Bank and the Global Environmental Facility.

Dr. Hu also serves as Visiting Professor for the Chinese Flagship programme at the University of Oregon, USA. His research topics cover environmental economics, policies and governance, environmental and natural resources economics, globalization, trade and environment issue, and climate change issue.

Earlier in October there was a report from the Xinhua news services, particularly noting China’s advances in wind energy:

By Wu Qi

BEIJING, Oct. 2 (Xinhua) — Wang Wenqi was mocked as a fantasist when he set out plans to create China’s wind power capital in Dabancheng, a small and nondescript town in northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.

That was the 1980s. Almost 30 years on, the town, planted between the regional capital, Urumqi, and the Turpan Basin, is a vast expanse of “white forests.”

More than 300 howling wind turbines stretch for some 80 kilometers, feeding Urumqi with constant clean electricity.

Wang, 80, recalls the early 1980s, when, as director of the Xinjiang Irrigation Works and Hydropower Research Institute, he had to remain steadfast in the face of overwhelming doubt.

Some of Wang’ s colleagues said he was out of his mind, regarding what he was doing was mission impossible, and “only creatures on the moon could think of.”

Wang was unfazed and in November 1986, he was heading the newly established Xinjiang Wind Energy Institute with two turbines transported from Denmark to a pilot field near Chaiwobao Lake in Dabancheng.

In October 1989, Wang bought another 13 wind turbines from Denmark with a donation of 3.2 million U.S. dollars from the Danish government, and set out to make Dabancheng a landmark in China’ s wind power industry.

“This project is the seed in a sense,” says Yu Wuming, Wang’s successor. “In China, almost everyone developing wind power has visited Dabancheng, and almost every place developing wind power has been supervised by Xinjiang engineers.”

Dabancheng Wind Farm now has a combined generating capacity of 500MW. Though not the largest in installed capacity, it is home to most of China’s complete range of turbines, from the earliest and smallest 20kW to the latest 3MW turbines, produced by enterprises at home and abroad.

UNLOCKING THE GRID

However, no turbines have been installed at Dabancheng for eight years.

Though one of the earliest to tap wind power, Xinjiang has failed to raise significantly the proportion of wind power in its total energy mix. The region has been overtaken by latecomers Inner Mongolia, and Jilin, Liaoning and Heilongjiang provinces, which have more local consumers.

“This is exceptional, compared with the wind power boom across the country,” says Yu.

Despite official support, the expansion of clean energy is still plagued with problems.

Few wind farms are commercially viable, and most rely on government subsidies. The China Electricity Council says more than a quarter of the country’s wind turbines were still not connected to the grid at the end of last year.

But the government is moving to rectify this blockage in order to meet far-sighted goals to reduce pollution and expand clean and sustainable energy forms.

In early 2005,the government promulgated the Renewable Energy Law, which offered support for wind power projects through electricity tariffs.

Since then, the generating capacity of China’s wind farms has more than doubled each year. According to the China Wind Energy Association (CWEA), China overtook Germany as a country with the second largest installed wind power capacity, after the United States, last year.

ENERGY TARGETS

In September 2009, Chinese President Hu Jintao pledged at the UN Climate Change Summit in New York to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15 percent by 2020. And in November, Premier Wen Jiabao said at a meeting of the State Council that China would reduce the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP in 2020 by 40 to 45 percent, compared with the level of 2005.

Qin Haiyan, secretary general of the CWEA, says the government plans to build seven 10GW-level wind farms by 2020, totaling 90GW, to account for 78 percent of the country’s installed wind power capacity.

Development of other clean energy sources, including solar, bio-mass and nuclear energy, has also accelerated.

Zhang Guobao, director of National Energy Bureau (NEB), cites, as an example, the government’s approval for a pilot solar-powered town in Turpan basin.

In June, China decided to build its first low carbon emission pilot town in the Yujiabao financial quarter of north China’ s Tianjin City.

“Developing clean energy, including wind, solar and nuclear power, will be a new growth point in our economy,” says Zhang. “They are the main direction to adjust our energy structure, cope with global climate change, and ensure energy security.”

COAL ADDICTION

Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China’s energy supply has been dominated by coal, followed by oil, natural gas and renewable energies.

China is the world’s second largest energy consumer after the United States. In 2009, it consumed 2.146 billion tonnes of standard oil, averaging 1.61 tonnes per person, a fifth of the average level of the United States.

China is also a leading energy producer, supplying over 90 percent of its consumed energy.

Although it is developing faster than anywhere else in the world, China’s clean energy accounts for only about 8 percent of its primary energy consumption. Fossil fuels will dominate for a long time to come.

Coal constitutes more than 70 percent of China’s energy mix, far higher than the world average of 29.2 percent. China’s coal consumption per unit of GDP is 15 times that of Japan and 8.7 times that of the United States.

The heavy reliance on coal is attributed to its price. Coal-generated electricity generally costs about half the price of wind power, industry officials say.

The use of coal means more carbon dioxide emissions, seriously challenging China’s ability to cope with climate change, though its per capita greenhouse gas emissions were only 5.5 tonnes last year, less than one third those of the United States.

POWERING THE FUTURE

In July, the NEB submitted a draft of the Emerging Energy Industrial Development Program (2011-2020) to the State Council for approval. It lays out plans for the next decade, including an investment of 5 trillion yuan in new and clean traditional energies.

“This program is about utilizing clean energy sources such as nuclear, wind, solar and bio-mass energy,” says Jiang Bing, director of programming and development at the NEB.

“It also covers upgrading traditional energy sources, like clean coal, smart grids, distributed power consumption, and vehicle-based new energies,” he says.

“Our priority rests with three types of non-fossil fuels — nuclear, hydropower; and wind, solar and bio-mass energy.

By 2015, Jiang says, hydropower and nuclear power will account for almost 9 percent of the primary energy consumption. Wind power, solar energy and bio-mass energy will make up about 2.6 percent. Natural gas will compose 8.3 percent.”

“In contrast, coal consumption will drop from the present 70 percent to about 63 percent.”

On Sept.8, the State Council approved the Decision to Speed up Cultivating and Developing Strategic Emerging Industries. It listed seven industrial sectors for policy support, including energy conservation and new energies.

Tao Gang, vice-president of Sinovel, China’s largest wind turbine producer, says it, like other businesses in the wind, nuclear, solar and bio-mass energy sectors, will enjoy greater opportunities under the policy.

“The State Council has defined the strategic position of clean energy industries,” says Tao. “This will ensure long-term stability of policies essential to clean energy businesses.”

In Dabangcheng, Wang Wenqi’s long stalled dream is about to be re-energized, when it becomes home to four of the five new wind farms planned for Xinjiang this year.

Xinjiang will have 165 units of 1.5MW turbines installed, capable of feeding clean electric power to 625,000 households a year.

Source: www.news.xinhuanet.com

Garnaut Lifts the Lead Veil of Ignorance

Professor Ross Garnaut, author of the impressive Garnaut Report two years ago, is back on deck as a key Australian Government advisor on setting a price on carbon. He told the Carbon Expo audience he was “frankly shocked” at how persistent the ignorance in Australia is of developments in other Asia Pacific countries, particularly China, in moving towards a low carbon economy and renewable energy. “It is as if a lead veil had been inserted around the brains of most Australians and made them impervious to information – that’s not secret information – about what is going on other countries.”

From Climate Spectator (13 October 2010):

After delivering a speech at the conclusion of Carbon Expo in Melbourne on Wednesday, Professor Ross Garnaut answered questions from the audience and then from Climate Spectator editor Giles Parkinson. This is an edited transcript, in which Garnaut says:

– That the update of his 2008 review of climate change will include looking at the changes in the “international regime”, as well as what individual countries – especially China, India and Indonesia – are doing to adapt;

– That it’s as if Australians have been considering climate change from behind a “lead veil”, making them impervious to what is going on other countries;

– That the atmosphere in the parliamentary committee is a very positive one and has a strong commitment to getting a good result;

– That the policy focus of the parliamentary committee is on a carbon price, and then looking at what the rest of the world is doing on emissions reductions and the implication of that on Australia’s effort.

Moderator: Could you say something about how you unlock institutional investment here in Australia. This morning we had some presentations from China, Indonesia and India and it looked like there was a real risk that Australia had been left behind by its major trading partners in Asia, and particularly China where the speaker Dr Hu Tao said that they lost the industrial revolution, they’ve missed out on the IT boom, but China has decided it’s definitely not going to miss out on the Green Revolution.

Ross Garnaut: Yes. One of the updated papers that I’ll be doing will be looking at what’s been happening to the international regime – and we do have an international regime, but it’s not exactly the regime that we would have anticipated a few years ago. And then what individual countries, the major ones, are doing. And the primary focus will be on China, India and Indonesia and especially on China.

It is impressive how quickly things are changing in each of those countries, but especially in China and I am frankly shocked at how persistent the ignorance in Australia is of that. It is as if a lead veil had been inserted around the brains of most Australians and made them impervious to information that’s not secret information about what is going on other countries. And I think a very important part of the Australian discussion over the next year has to be directed at corroding that lead shield.

M: You mentioned among the papers that you will be touching on are agricultural land use opportunities. Will you be looking at opportunities to actually support the development of bio-sequestration and unlocking them to be included in market mechanisms? There is quite a lot happening internationally and it really matches some of the land management profiles here in Australia. So, have you been looking at that or are you still looking at compliance, type and emissions trading activities?

RG: Yes. Well, at this stage I can’t say very much about the exact approach I’ll take to some of those things because I’m still thinking it through, but for Australia and for a number of the developing countries in particular, certainly for Indonesia and Brazil, the opportunities … through bio sequestration are very large and mitigation that does not efficiently have those opportunities obviously will be inadequate, so we’ll give it a lot of thought both to the results of work that’s been done in the last couple of years on the nature and extent of the opportunity and on how to unlock that.

M: I would just wonder about the mode of communication. You produced an extraordinarily elegant overview of the need and the importance of the challenge, but the sad reality is the people who make decisions didn’t read it and grubby politics with half truths blocked the passage of the carbon price. So, given that, presenting more of the same isn’t going to effect the necessary change and I just wonder whether you reflect on the mode of communication of delivery and whether we need alternative tactics.

RG: I don’t think I would have saddled up for another ride if I had thought it would be exactly the same as last time. I think the atmosphere in the parliamentary committee is a very positive one. Obviously everyone’s got different perspectives, but my assessment is a quite strong commitment to getting a good result and… that’s one that’s changed. Another thing that changes is the composition of the parliament. If it does turn out that that multi party committee comes to a view, that something’s desirable, then the group that’s represented in that committee can carry both houses of parliament and that is a new situation. It’s a new reality that all the other political actors in Australia have to take into account.

I think that the political economy of the last episode, the CPRS discussion was gruesome, … and I think a lot of the participants in that process have reflected on the process, so I’ve got a lot of links into business and I know that some important participants in the business discussion feel that they didn’t do justice to the interests even of their companies let alone of the national economy in the last discussion and so I think that a lot of elements of business will start with a greater sensitivity to … what’s desirable in the longer term and for the national economy rather than seeking to influence things in terms of very short term objectives of their own enterprises. So I think that a fair bit of learning has gone on as a result of well frankly the failure of the last effort. I hope that that learning will be influential.

M: One of the themes that we’ve seen through the conference has been the notion that any uncertainty about policy or a regulatory market would be significantly magnified in the investment community. Given this new political world, are you able to comment on that?

RG: Well, I don’t think you ever have complete certainty about policy, especially in advance of policy being implemented. My own view is, and actually has always been, that difficult policy changes are bound to be controversial while they’re being debated. What you have to hope for is that they’re especially well designed, so that once they’re in place most people accept that they achieve very good purposes and so I’d like to see the focus on stability after something’s legislated rather than to have excessive ambitions for consensus, comprehensive consensus before legislation. These are big changes that are necessary in Australia. They’re bound to have elements of controversy. If we design things well and they’re legislated, the reasonable expectation is that there’ll be such strong support for the last of the event that it won’t be in anyone’s political interest to disrupt them.

M: Professor, one of the great obstacles in the CPRS debate was the support of industry and one of the biggest qualms that many affected industries had was in the level of compensation and I note that a number of parties have referred to the… your recommendations of compensation only to the level of lost competitiveness. Is that something that you’re planning to look at, the level of compensation to affect the party?

RG: Oh, what I would hope is that we can have a good discussion about the principles that should apply, so that questions of compensation can be based on application of principles rather than crude political bargaining and I think if that’s the approach, there’s a much better chance of a sound result.

Giles Parkinson: What is the deadline for report, your update?

RG: Well, I’ll be seeking to bring out papers on particular issues in a timely way as the work goes on and including having a couple done by the December meeting of the multi party committee, but I would expect to have all of the basic work done by March and then in the couple of months after that pull it all together in a final report, but the new material should be all in the public arena by March.

GP: Ok, then and the ones that are coming out by December, which ones are you starting on first?

RG: Oh, I’m still working through the work program.

GP: You talked about the shield of lead that has descended over Australia. What do you think has been the cause of that?

RG: It is a puzzle. It’s more severe within Australia than even in the United States, which is the other country that finds itself looking inward rather than outward at what the rest of the world is doing. Maybe it’s the result of the emissions intensive industries playing a particularly large role in this economy and that by osmosis and by influence is affecting perceptions, information. I can’t think of other explanations because generally Australians are reasonably well informed about the rest of the world.

GP: The inference from your comments about the absence of inaction in the world stage… we heard about what’s happening in China and India and Indonesia. That suggests that one of your main justifications for recommending a 5 per cent target last time in the international context …..

RG: Well, the 5 per cent is what we would do if there was no international agreement and no international action, yes.

GP: But there is obviously international action, so I guess the inference would be that Australia probably should be aiming higher than 5 per cent.

RG: Yes, probably. But that’s a separate question from the carbon price that is necessary and I don’t want to get two separate issues mixed up. The policy focus of the parliamentary committee is on a carbon price. Separately I will be forming views on what the rest of the world is doing and the implication of that for a comparable and proportionate emissions reduction effort from Australia.

GP: But they are related anyway because I think the committee is looking at how to create a carbon price and I guess if a market price was to be the recommendation, then you need to have a cap and the cap has to reflect a target.

RG: Oh, we haven’t gone that far at this stage.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Carbon Price Cheapest Way to Reduce Pollution

Australia’s Climate Change Minister Greg Combet admitted that “the carbon intensity of our national electricity supply is one of the highest in the world. To deliver one kilowatt of electricity to a household, we emit about 1kg of carbon pollution”. He says the responsible path is to take measured steps towards reduced dependence on carbon pollution and putting a price on carbon pollution tilts the economic balance in favour of low pollution options. “A carbon price mechanism is the cheapest way to reduce carbon pollution”.

Speech by Australian Minister of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Greg Combet at Carbon Expo in Melbourne, as published in The Australian (13 October 2010):

LABOR has a proud record of initiating tough reforms, whether it was the Fisher government’s battle to set up the Commonwealth Bank, Curtin’s introduction of uniform taxation or the visionary reforms of the Hawke-Keating governments.

The government accepts that climate change is real and that human activity is contributing significantly to it through carbon pollution, and that if emissions continue to grow without restraint, our climate could change in ways that present grave risks to our economy, environment and way of life. The only responsible course is to reduce the risks of climate change by cutting carbon pollution.

We do not need to make this change overnight – indeed this economic transformation will take decades – but it is necessary that we get started. The Australian economy is deeply dependent on energy sources that generate carbon pollution. The carbon intensity of our national electricity supply is one of the highest in the world. To deliver one kilowatt of electricity to a household, we emit about 1kg of carbon pollution. The responsible path is to take measured steps towards reduced dependence on carbon pollution.

Last Friday, the government released the report of the Prime Minister’s Task Group on Energy Efficiency. The report reinforced the government’s strategy and the need for a price on carbon.

In its last term, the government introduced legislation that would have put a price on carbon. However, the Greens and the Coalition blocked this legislation three times in the Senate.

We know, of course, of the division within the Coalition over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. But the fact that the Greens blocked the CPRS three times has received surprisingly little attention. The CPRS was a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme that would have delivered quantifiable and significant reductions in pollution. If the CPRS had been legislated, in the year 2020 our carbon pollution would have been at least 144 million tonnes lower than it is at present projected to be. By way of comparison, this is roughly two-thirds of Australia’s emissions from electricity generation, or roughly twice our road transport emissions.

The Greens wanted stronger targets and deeper cuts in pollution and less transitional support for industry. Now that their focus on the primacy of their targets appears to have been set aside and they have joined the government’s multi-party climate change committee, I look forward to their involvement in consideration of the real economic effects of public policy in this area.

Passing legislation on carbon pricing was never going to be easy. Big economic reforms never are. But change we must. If we are to remain internationally competitive in the long term, our industries must become less carbon intensive. Putting a price on carbon pollution tilts the economic balance in favour of low pollution options.

The repeated finding of independent analysis is that a carbon price mechanism is the cheapest way to reduce carbon pollution.

Decentralising the signal to abate, through a carbon price, means the government does not have to prescribe to individual firms or sectors how they are to reduce their emissions. A carbon price therefore encourages ingenuity and innovation. It does this through the everyday decisions of investors and businesses.

Alternatives to a market-based mechanism, such as regulatory or subsidy-based approaches, cannot alone operate on the scale required to meet the government’s targets and would be extremely costly. Put simply, other approaches, such as that proposed by the opposition, will cost Australians more and will not be able to deliver the emissions reductions of the scale required to meet our targets. It is an odd time in Australian politics when an apparently market-friendly Liberal Party advocates old-school Soviet-style command and control measures rather than supporting a market-based solution to such a great challenge.

The impracticality of these alternative approaches was confirmed in the advice provided by the Treasury to the government and opposition. The advice was that: “Direct action measures alone cannot do the job without imposing significant economic and budget costs . . . Moreover, many of the direct action measures cannot be scaled up to achieve significant levels of abatement, and for those that can be scaled up, the cost per tonne of abatement would rise rapidly.” In the long term, if global carbon pollution emissions are not reduced, the risks to our economy, country and way of life are too great. Both Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut have made it clear that the costs of this transition will be much greater if we don’t start now.

The absence of a carbon price is already having significant effects. Without a carbon price, business must build more risk into investment calculations, with the result that investment will be more expensive than it needs to be, leading to less investment taking place.

This is occurring already.

The chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Brad Page, has stated that the uncertainty related to domestic climate change policy will result in a rash of smaller capacity, open-cycle gas turbine generators being built to meet incremental rises in energy demand, rather than fewer but more cost and emission-efficient baseload combined cycle gas plants. This is supported by analysis undertaken by AGL and the Climate Institute. They estimate that uncertainty caused by a delay in a carbon price, could cost the economy and consumers up to $2 billion a year in higher electricity prices or about $60 a household in 2020. Let me make this clear, opposition to a carbon price will force up electricity prices.

As previous big economic reforms have taught us, we sometimes need to do difficult things for the sake of our long-term national prosperity.

Our priority now is to agree on carbon pricing arrangements that are achievable, economically responsible and fair. This reform will create jobs, strengthen the economy and build a sustainable environment. Combined with the great strides we are already making on renewable energy and energy efficiency, a carbon price is a structural reform that will ensure Australia begins its transformation towards the low-pollution economy of the future.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Finally, a Wake Up Call on Energy Efficiency

In welcoming the Government’s energy efficiency task force report, the Australian Conservation Foundation says improving efficiency 30% by 2020 will help Australia catch up with countries like China, while Rob Murray-Leach, CEO of the Energy Efficiency Council and an advisor to the Task Group says this is a wake-up call for Australia. “It shows that energy efficiency programs would strengthen the economy, cut energy bills and slash carbon emissions.”

From the Australian Conservation Foundation (8 October 2010):

Energy efficiency and price on pollution both needed

The recommendations of the Prime Minister’s taskforce on energy efficiency will help reduce electricity bills for Australian households and businesses and should be implemented immediately, the Australian Conservation Foundation said today.

“This report on energy efficiency joins the chorus of voices in Australia calling for a price on pollution to help us make the switch to a cleaner economy,” ACF executive director Don Henry said.

“A target to improve the energy efficiency of the Australian economy by 30 per cent by 2020 will help Australia catch up with countries like China, which has improved its efficiency by 20 per cent over the last five years.

“Under current Government policy, Australia’s fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles will be a quarter of a century behind China’s by the time they are made law in 2024.

“We urge the Government to fast track this report’s recommendations for mandatory fuel efficiency standards for light vehicles.

“The recommendation to implement the proposed Henry Tax Review reform of the fringe benefits tax benefits for vehicles is welcome.

“Further reforms could save the government $222 million dollars a year and further cut pollution.

“The recommendation for a national energy savings initiative to replace existing state schemes is welcome and should be swiftly put into practice.

“ACF urges the government to begin implementing these reforms now in parallel with the necessary introduction of a price on pollution.”

Source: www.acfonline.org.au

Media Release from the Energy Efficiency Council (8 October 2010):

Task Group report a wake-up call

The energy efficiency industry welcomed the Prime Minister’s Task Group on Energy Efficiency report as a serious start to making Australia a competitive, low-carbon economy.

“This report is a wake-up call for Australia. It shows that energy efficiency programs would strengthen the economy, cut energy bills and slash carbon emissions. This is a win-win-win,” said Rob Murray-Leach, CEO of the Energy Efficiency Council and an advisor to the Task Group.

Energy efficiency saves money simply because it uses less of a valuable resource. Modelling on just one measure, the National Energy Savings Initiative, found that it would save households up to $296 a year. This means that Australia has a huge opportunity to cut its carbon emissions and save money.

ClimateWorks Australia estimates that improving Australia’s energy efficiency would save homes and businesses $5 billion a year and cut emissions by 50 million tonnes a year.

Energy efficiency is the single biggest opportunity to cut global carbon emissions. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) estimates that 55 per cent of emission cuts in Australia to 2050 will need to come from energy efficiency.

“The rest of the world worked out that energy efficiency would boost their global competitiveness some time ago, and have been steaming ahead. In the meantime, we’ve been pouring money down the drain. Australia has a fantastic opportunity to turn this around,” said Rob Murray-Leach.

The report identifies a range of barriers that there are a range of barriers to energy efficiency. The report states that this means that we need multiple policies to drive energy efficiency, including a price on carbon price and dedicated energy efficiency policies.

“We have to have a price on carbon to meet Australia’s 2020 emission reduction targets. However, a price on carbon needs to be accompanied by energy efficiency policies – this will dramatically lower the cost of meeting our targets,” said Rob Murray-Leach.

“The five key policies recommended by the Task Group are smart. In particular, we urge all parties to adopt the recommendations for a national energy efficiency goal and a national energy savings initiative,” said Rob Murray-leach.

“The Energy Saving Initiative is mainly about making sure that we invest in energy efficiency when it’s cheaper than investing in new energy supply. This helps lower energy prices. It’s nothing new – California and the UK have been this for years,” said Rob Murray-Leach.

“The Coalition and Greens have previously proposed energy efficiency schemes, so we anticipate cross-party support for this initiative,” said Rob Murray-Leach.

“However, the report is much bigger than just the big five recommendations. There are important ideas throughout the report, particularly for industry, buildings, cogeneration and the energy market. The community really needs to have a serious discussion about these ideas,” said Rob Murray-Leach.

“This report has drawn a line in the sand. We can either continue to bury our head in the sand, or take up the challenge to make Australia a competitive, low-carbon economy.” Said Rob Murray-Leach.

Source: www.eec.org.au

Biosequestration the MBD way: from Coal through Algae to Clean Fuel

Queensland Government has committed A$1 million for a groundbreaking trial which uses algae to soak up carbon emissions from the Tarong Power Station, the first coal-fired power station in Australia to use the technology as part of the $5 million MBD Energy Limited trial. MBD’s Tony St Clair will be speaking about his company’s progress in biosequestration in Australia at next week’s 3^rd Algae World Asia 2010 conference in Singapore.

Ken Hickson reports from the Carbon Expo in Melbourne where MBD CEO Andrew Lawson provided an update on the company’s plans to capture CO2 to feed its algae plants to produce clean energy in Australia.

Next week, on 19/20 October the 3^rd Algae World Asia 2010 will be held in Singapore. MBD’s Tony St Clair is not only one of the keynote speakers, but also session chairman on day two. For the full programme of the conference go to http://www.futureenergyevents.com/algae/3rd-algae-world-asia/conference-schedule/

Here we provide just a glimpse or an overview of the MBD presentation by Tony St Clair on the subject:

Algal capture and conversion of CO2emissions for the sustainable production of biomass, oil and other algae products

MBD is the Australian leader in large scale, algae based bio-fuel and food production, and CO2bio-sequestration

•Strong and experienced Board and Executive Management Team

•Compelling sustainable solution to 3 significant world issues: oil, food and CO2

•Modular , scalable, fully integrated and automated low cost algae based “CO2to energy” system

•Signed Formal Agreements with 3 major Australian CO2emitters -Binding Contracts (Tarong) /MOUs (Loy Yang & Eraring)

•Staged Deployment of 1 Hectare (ha) “proof-of-concept” underway -insituat Tarong PowerStation over 12 months to 3Q11

•3 Stage Commercialisation Plan: (1) Display, 2011; (2) Commercial, 2013; (3) Large Scale Expansion, 2015

•2 Patent Applications submitted: (1) International “PCT” (2009); and (2) Expanded “Provisional”(2010)

•Exclusive relationship, and access to proprietary algae libraries (both micro and macro), with world leading algae Research expertise at James Cook University (JCU), Queensland

•Existing large scale Research and Development Facility (5000m2) at JCU

•Cornerstone Investor -Anglo American, 2009

•Secured (thus far) in-excess of A$6.4M in Federal and State Government Grants

•Established Partnerships with Key Tier-1 services and technology suppliers

Joint Statement by Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and Minister for Main Roads, Hon. Craig Wallace

(11 October 2010):

Government invests $1 million in algae carbon capture project

The State Government has committed $1 million for a groundbreaking trial which uses algae to soak up carbon emissions from a coal fire power station.

Premier Anna Bligh said Tarong Power Station near Kingaroy will be the first coal-fired power station in Australia to try the technology as part of the $5 million MBD Energy Limited Tarong trial.

Premier Anna Bligh said the technology would not only capture CO₂ from the plant but it would also produce a range of valuable products.

“In simple terms the algae eats the carbon and then produces material that can be used in things like bio-diesel, stockfeed and bio-plastics,” she said.

“This technology has enormous potential to make a positive impact in our battle against climate change,” she said.

“But the products it can produce means it could also be worth many millions of dollars to the Queensland economy.”

Ms Bligh said that as part of the trial MBD Energy would start construction on a one hectare algal biomass display plant beside Tarong Power Station, 180km north-west of Brisbane, in December.

“The research and development for this landmark project has been undertaken at a purpose made facility at James Cook University in Townsville,” she said.

“This is a wonderful example of the sort of smart and green industry that can see Townsville become a globally recognised city.”

Premier Bligh said MBD Energy had also agreed to build facilities next to power stations in Victoria (Loy Yang A) and New South Wales (Eraring Energy), with construction underway first at Tarong.

The Tarong Power Station test plant, once fully built, is expected to capture about 700 tonnes per annum of CO₂, the equivalent of taking 170 cars off the road for a year.

It is also expected to produce one tonne of algal biomass per day, 120 tonnes per annum of algal oil and 240 tonnes per annum of algal meal by 2012.

The Algal Synthesis process involves the injection of carbon gases into waste water contained in large plastic tubes to produce oil-rich algal biomass every 24 hours.

Member for Thuringowa Craig Wallace said: “It can be harvested every day to produce algal meal suitable for animal feed and oils that can be used to make plastics and transport fuels.

“It’s a clever concept and I take my hat off to the local team at JCU for their ingenuity,” he said.

Member for Townsville Mandy Johnstone said that the sale of the products could offset the cost of building and operating the carbon capture technology.

“For technology such as this to be developed in Townsville shows the great potential our city has to become a global leader in tropical technology,” she said.

Member for Mundingburra Lindy Nelson-Carr said there had already been successful trials of the technology at JCU’s Townsville campus.

“This new trial is about testing the technology on an industrial scale and this Townsville developed technology has a real chance of making a difference in the battle against climate change,” she said.

MBD Energy Limited’s Managing Director Andrew Lawson welcomed the Queensland Government funding, saying it would directly assist MBD and JCU establish the proven technology at the company’s Algal Synthesiser at Tarong.

“If successful we expect to commercialise the Tarong project by expanding to approximately 80 hectares, thereby producing 11 million litres per annum of algal oil and 25,000 tonnes of algal meal and abating approximately 70,000 tonnes of CO² during 2013,” Mr Lawson said.

Director of JCU’s North Queensland Algal Identification and Culturing Facility Associate Professor Kirsten Heimann said the Tarong project would confirm selection of the best strain of microalgae.

“Strain selection and management is a vital component to the success of large scale algae biomass production,” she said.

Source: www.mbdenergy.com