Carbon Farming Gets a Belated Boost From PM

A new carbon farming initiative is on the cards. Is this the best alternative to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that Prime Minister Julia Gillard (pictured here in a goose caricature by artist Anthony Pascoe) can come up with? Along with a community assembly to decide on climate change policy, it’s the Labor Party’s last offer before it goes to the polls this coming Saturday. Environment Business Australia CEO Fiona Wain says it’s “a significant step towards recognising the immense value of the natural processes of carbon management”.

Lucy Knight in Stock & Land (15 August 2010):

A NEW carbon farming initiative has been unveiled by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, during her first rural visit of the Federal election campaign near Ballina on Saturday.

Sporting a brand new pair of RM Williams boots, the Prime Minister promised that a re-elected Labor Government would legislate rules that recognise various types of carbon credits that could be generated, and in turn sold, by farmers on the domestic and international markets.

This is despite the fact that flawed international accounting rules still exist for agriculture, after a failure to reach agreement on better recognition of agriculture at last year’s United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen.

That means the scope for these incentives announced by the Prime Minister will largely be limited to the voluntary domestic market, however there would be some international market opportunities in the area of forestry.

Ms Gillard, flanked by Minister for Agriculture, Tony Burke, and Minster for Climate Change, Penny Wong, announced that farmers that help reduce and store pollution would receive credits that can be sold in Australia and overseas.

Ms Gillard said the incentive would provide new opportunities for Australian farmers, adding the Government would help facilitate the sale of the carbon credits.

“Farmers and landholders will benefit from a new income stream, and the environment will benefit from reduced pollution,” Ms Gillard said.

“There will be no restriction on the number of credits that can be generated, with initial conservative estimates suggesting it could be worth about $500 million (to farmers) over 10 years.”

Under the incentive, reforestation would be considered an eligible early means of generating credits, and there is scope for other projects which reduce emissions from livestock, fertiliser use and manure management, savannah burning, legacy waste in landfill and deforestation.

The initiative will be funded from re-allocated money in the Government’s renewable energy future fund.

The National Farmers’ Federation said in a statement that the announcement “recognises that carbon abatement through the agricultural sector is an opportunity that should not be ignored”.

But NFF pointed out that the international community is at varying stages in their efforts to reward the carbon abatement that agricultural and land use management delivers through the proactive efforts of landholders across the globe.

“The international marketplace for carbon credits has been stunted in the wake of the lack of progress at Copenhagen, but the market may certainly develop in the future and so today’s announcement is prudent in gearing farmers up to engage as and when markets develop,” NFF said.

“The rules underpinning these markets can often be confusing and difficult to interpret at a practical level.

“This initiative will hopefully deliver some clarity for Australian farmers about what practices delivered on farm will be compliant with the international carbon markets.”

NFF said in order to maximise the opportunities for Australian farmers through carbon farming, two key ingredients are still required – the Government must continue to actively pursue changes to the flawed international carbon accounting rules to ensure that they appropriately acknowledge the positive carbon mitigation practices undertaken by farmers.

NFF said extra funding would be needed to optimise the mitigation opportunities through land use and livestock management.

“The ALP has positively acknowledged their support for more R&D funding in this area today but we are still looking for robust funding commitments,” NFF said.

The Coalition and the Greens both criticised Labor’s plan, with Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt arguing the deal short changes farmers.

“Labor’s claim that the Coalition scheme would not allow Australian farmers to access carbon markets is a fabrication,” Mr Hunt said.

“Our scheme offers the added benefit of access to funds through our $10.5 billion over 9 years Emissions Reduction Fund.

“Julia Gillard’s scheme short-changes farmers by offering them only a fraction of what the Coalition plan could deliver from the ERF.”

Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said Labor’s scheme would cause “more problems than it solves because it doesn’t understand either the climate challenge or land management”.

“The government is dancing around the climate crisis, coming up with more ill-thought-out nonsolutions because it refuses to do the right thing – protect our forest carbon stores and introduce an effective, well-designed price on pollution,” Senator Milne said.

“Those in the offset market we have spoken to this morning are crying out for more detail. It sounds like, at best, this announcement is not new, it is simply trying to address the vacuum left when the Greenhouse Friendly scheme ended in July leaving businesses in the voluntary carbon offset markets in limbo.

“We are also concerned that it could create more problems for farmers and other land managers if it focuses solely on carbon without at the same protecting farming land, water and biodiversity from perverse outcomes.

“Farmers across Australia will also be confused, and troubled that this could cause the same problems for them as managed investment schemes. Schemes designed by the city for the city without thinking about the impact on people on the land have a bad history.

“Perhaps worst of all, this is yet another new badly-designed climate promise funded by taking money away from renewable energy.”

Source: www.farmonline.com.au

Environment Business Australia (EBA) welcomes Labor’s Carbon Farming Initiative

“The outline that has been presented in the policy statement by Prime Minister Gillard is a significant step towards recognising the immense value of the natural processes of carbon management. We are also pleased that the technologies and approaches will be subject to scientific peer review” said Fiona Wain, CEO of EBA.

EBA formed a Bio-CCS Group in 2009 to support companies developing biosequestration projects to reduce CO2 emissions and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

As well as providing a fast-acting carbon sink, soils with higher carbon levels are more productive and more drought and erosion resistant. This is why the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) is undertaking extensive work on soil carbon as a way to combat desertification and to increase food production.

Man-made, or anthropogenic, CO2 is the main greenhouse gas and its accumulation in the atmosphere is the key trigger to climate change. Reducing the pollution associated with excess emissions has multiple benefits to the environment, the economy and society.

Taking CO2 from the atmosphere and using it to rebuild soil carbon levels through photosynthesis can help soil fertility and food production. In addition farmers can earn additional revenue by trading the carbon offsets they create.

Capturing CO2 from coal-fired power plants and other major emitters and using it as a feedstock to grow algae that is then turned into biodiesel, animal meal and soil fertiliser is another carbon sink process that can help farmers.

The major benefits of the broad Bio-CCS approach is that farmers can select the approach that bests works for their land:
• Plantstone crops – crops that permanently trap carbon in silica granules. No need to change the crop just select the hybrid that produces food and provides a carbon sink at the same time
• Natural fertiliser that rebuilds soil structure while carrying beneficial biota (tailored to specific soil types). Natural fertilisers continue to build soil health and productivity
• Improved rangeland management giving land the opportunity to regrow native grasses and vegetation and put down deeper carbon-storing roots systems
• Tree-planting alongside cropland/rangeland agriculture

For too long farmers have been vilified for greenhouse gas emissions. A portfolio of policies to support soil carbon as part of a national action plan to tackle climate change will benefit farmers and farming communities.

There are many ways to measure soil carbon. At present there is no formally recognised international protocol. It is anticipated that the FAO’s work will result in soil carbon measurement having a protocol recognised under the UNFCCC, the UN’s climate change body.

Source: www.environmentbusiness.com.au

China Shuts Dirty Factories & Encourages Green Buildings

China’s government has ordered 2,087 steel and cement mills and other factories with poor energy efficiency to close as it struggles to cut waste and improve the country’s battered environment.

The “backward” facilities produce steel, coke, aluminium, paper and other materials and must close by late September. Meanwhile, Australian companies in the sustainable design and building sectors can make a lot of headway in China when benefiting from the right connections, relationships and events, according to Nigel Haywood in China Connection from Beijing.

Business Week Reports from Beijing:

China’s government has ordered 2,087 steel and cement mills and other factories with poor energy efficiency to close as it struggles to cut waste and improve the country’s battered environment.

The “backward” facilities produce steel, coke, aluminum, paper and other materials in areas throughout China and must close by late September, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced Sunday.

Authorities said last week that a five-year plan to improve energy efficiency suffered a setback this year as China’s economic rebound and a construction boom boosted demand for steel, cement and other energy-intensive products.

The plan calls for a 20 percent reduction in China’s energy consumption per unit of economic output, or energy intensity, by the end of this year. The government said in March it had cut energy intensity 14.4 percent by the end of 2009 but it said last week that energy intensity crept up 0.09 percent in the first half of this year.

China overtook the United States last year as the world’s biggest energy consumer, though with a larger population it still is well behind in consumption per person, according to the International Energy Agency.

China’s surging energy demands have alarmed communist leaders, who worry about dependence on imported oil and gas from volatile regions such as the Gulf and pollution damage to scarce water supplies and forests in a densely populated country.

The country’s growing presence in international energy markets has prompted complaints that it is pushing up crude prices and making supply deals with international pariahs such as Iran and Sudan.

China is the world’s biggest steel producer and a major producer of other industrial materials as well. Its newest facilities are equipped with the latest technology but there are thousands of small, outdated paper mills and other businesses that local authorities are reluctant to close for the sake of jobs and tax revenue.

In the latest crackdown, the facilities would lose their certification to emit pollutants at the end of September, utilities would cut off power supplies and banks would be ordered to stop dealing with them, the ministry said.

Its list included 762 cement factories, 279 paper mills, 175 steel mills, 192 coking plants and an unspecified number of aluminum mills.

Provinces with the biggest numbers of affected facilities are Henan in central China and Shaanxi in the north, both traditional centers for heavy industry, with more than 200 each.

Beijing warned in March that China was lagging on efficiency due to its stimulus, which was based in part on pumping money into the economy through massive spending on building new highways and other public works. Banks also were ordered to lend more to support private sector construction.

That set back government efforts to shift the economy away from heavy manufacturing and toward more technology-based businesses and cleaner service industries.

The economy grew by 11.9 percent in the first quarter over a year earlier and by 10.3 percent in the second quarter. Stimulus spending and a flood of lending by state banks helped to boost growth from a low of 6.1 percent in the first quarter of 2009.

Chinese industries use 20 to 100 percent more energy per unit of output than their U.S., Japanese and other counterparts, according to the World Bank. Chinese officials say energy use is 3.4 times the world average.

Source: www.businessweek.com

China Connections Magazine (July-August 2010):

Australian companies in the sustainable design and building sectors can make a lot of headway in China when benefiting from the right connections, relationships and events writes Nigel Haywood from Beijing.

Since launching its program of economic reform over 30 years ago, economic growth in China has been averaging 10 percent each year with the Chinese economy doubling in size every seven to eight years. Since 1978, China’s economy has increased 16 fold, leaving little doubt that at some point in the future it will surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy. 

Central to continued economic growth in a post global financial crisis world will be a further economic transformation based on sharply increased internal domestic demand, higher incomes and higher standards of living. This, in turn, will require significant social reforms and a massive mobilisation of the population from rural to urban settings.

To underscore this, the United Nations forecasts that by 2050, China’s population will be 75 percent urbanised, which equates to a movement of 500 million people into urban centres over the next 40 years – or roughly 23 times the entire current population of Australia. Comprehending the enormity of this challenge is difficult from many perspectives.

How do you meet the housing an infrastructure demands from such urbanisation and what does it mean in terms of additional floor space?

Interesting questions – and once again, the statistics are quite frankly mind boggling. By 2030, Chinese urban floor space is projected to double, expanding by some 40 billion metres² to a total of roughly 80 billion metres².  To put it in an Australian context, that equates to roughly 4,500 times the total square-metre capacity of Sydney. It is no surprise then to note that by 2030, China’s construction industry will account for around 20 percent of total global construction activity and be valued at about US$2.5 trillion.

It is fairly safe to say that this additional floor space will be significantly different to the existing building stock. The United Nations Environment Program estimated in 2007 that buildings in China accounted for 42 percent of total energy use. Although the carbon footprint of China’s buildings is considered to be about one-tenth that of the United States, it is clear that this is increasing as urbanisation and living standards increase. Impressive commitments in the international sphere with regards to climate action have been made by China, including a target of reducing its carbon emissions per unit of GDP (carbon intensity) by 40 percent to 45 percent before 2020 based on 2005 levels. 

To achieve this goal, a systematic approach to addressing the energy intensiveness of new construction in China will need to be adopted. Whilst this approach is likely to be multi-faceted and certainly challenging to achieve, there are already signs of action. 

Emergence of the China Green Building Council and China’s aspirations for ascension to membership of the World Green Building Council are clear signals that China is taking responsible and measured steps to address the energy efficiency of its massive construction sector. More, however, needs to be done and with this comes tremendous opportunities. Australia has already been active in influencing the development of China’s Green Building Council and also China’s “Green Star” building rating system.

Australian design and architectural practices were also well represented at a recent Beijing Institute of Architectural Design forum which examined the issue of sustainable building and design. This two-day forum, which was part of Australian Sustainable Building and Design week, covered significant ground and gave an opportunity for a sharing of experiences and approaches on the issues of sustainability and green building. Approximately 14 Australian organisations were represented at the forum.

In addition to the BIAD forum, May saw the opening of the ImagineArchitecture exhibition in Beijing. Showcasing the built works of Australian architectural and design practices in China, the photographic exhibition, organised by AustCham Beijing and sponsored by Austrade and the Australian Institute of Architects (with support from BIAD), brought the achievements of Australia’s architectural and design profession to the people of Beijing for the first time. Comprising the works of seven practices, the exhibition is a lasting impression of the ways in which Australian architects have influenced development of the built form in China and evidence of the strong linkages between the two countries from an architectural and design perspective.

Austrade, through the Wanwu initiative, is also encouraging exports and two-way investment between Australia and China in clean energy, green-building and the environment. Through this avenue, it is expected that opportunities for Australian businesses will be identified and pursued.

So what comes next?

The massive scale of China’s construction market presents opportunities for the country to make the quantum leap into eco-cities, potentially by-passing the “green building” phase of development. Much has been made of the opportunities here and there are many eco-city projects on the drawing boards. So what is an eco-city? Put simply, the term ‘eco-city’ applies to the application of principles of sustainable development, urban planning, design, and management in order to balance the economic and environmental needs of society. In other words, the eco-city concept takes a holistic approach to the issue of sustainability. In a country where some 40 billion square metres of floor space is being added over the next 20 years, maybe this is the solution that China needs. I guess only time will tell.

Nigel Haywood has recently completed an assignment for the Australian Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, compiling a position paper on behalf of Australian firms in the Green building sphere and how they can best maximise business opportunities – from consulting services to design and build – in China.

Source: www.chinaconnections.com.au

Tide is Turning in Scotland for Turbine from Australia via Singapore

Atlantis Resources Corporation, the Singapore-based tidal power company – which started life in Australia – whose investors include Morgan Stanley and the Norwegian utility Statkraft AS, has unveiled the world’s largest tidal turbine in Scotland. The AK1000 device’s 18-metre (60-foot) rotors have the capacity to generate 1 megawatt of electricity, enough to power at least 1,000 homes.

Bloomberg report by Alex Morales – (13 August 2010):

Atlantis Resources Corporation, the Singapore-based tidal power company whose investors include Morgan Stanley and the Norwegian utility Statkraft AS, has unveiled the world’s largest tidal turbine in Scotland.

The AK1000 device’s 18-meter (60-foot) rotors have the capacity to generate 1 megawatt of electricity, enough to power at least 1,000 homes, the Singapore-based company said today in an e-mailed statement. The turbine will be installed at the European Marine Energy Centre in Scotland’s Orkney Islands later this year, it said.

“We are at the start of a new industrial boom, akin to the development of the North Sea oil and gas fields,” Atlantis Chief Executive Officer Timothy Cornelius said. “If we receive the same support from all levels of government that the oil and gas industry received to make the North Sea the success that it is, then the future is very bright for marine power.”

The tides around the U.K. may provide enough electricity for 1.4 million homes by 2020, the government said in March. The industry, whose investors include Siemens AG and Vattenfall AB, is still in the development phase. The largest source of tidal power in the U.K. is a 1.2-megawatt twin-turbine SeaGen device installed in 2008 in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, by Marine Current Turbines.

SeaGen’s 16-meter rotors can deliver about double the amount of electricity to the grid in a year as a similarly-rated wind turbine because the tides are predictable and the wind doesn’t blow all the time, according to the Bristol, England- based company’s website.

Source: www.bloomberg.com

Report from Atlantis Resources Corporation (“Atlantis”):

One of the world’s leading developers of electricity-generating tidal current turbines, unveiled the largest and most powerful tidal power turbine ever built, the AK1000™, yesterday at Invergordon, Scotland. The AK1000™ is due for installation at a dedicated berth at the European Marine Energy Centre (“EMEC”), located in Orkney, Scotland later this summer.

Dignitaries, utilities and technology partners from around the world attended the unveiling of the flagship turbine at the Isleburn Engineering facility, taking the only opportunity to view the turbine before it is installed on the seabed and connected to the grid at EMEC.

Despatching 1MW of predictable power at a water velocity of 2.65m/s, the AK1000™ is capable of generating enough electricity for over 1000 homes. It is designed for harsh weather and rough, open ocean environments such as those found off the Scottish coast. The turbine incorporates cutting edge technology from suppliers across the globe, has an 18 meter rotor diameter, weighs 1300 tonnes and stands at a height of 22.5 meters. The giant turbine is expected to be environmentally benign due to a low rotation speed whilst in operation and will deliver predictable, sustainable power to the local Orkney grid.

CEO of Atlantis, Timothy Cornelius, said: “The unveiling and installation of the AK1000™ is an important milestone, not only for Atlantis, but for the marine power industry in the United Kingdom. It represents the culmination of 10 years of hard work, dedication and belief from all our partners, staff, directors and shareholders. The AK1000™ is capable of unlocking the economic potential of the marine energy industry in Scotland and will greatly boost Scotland’s renewable generation capacity in the years to come.”

“ Today is not just about our technology, it is about the emergence of tidal power as a viable asset class that will require the development of local supply chains employing local people to deliver sustainable energy to the local grid. The AK1000™ takes the industry one step closer to commercial scale tidal power projects.”

The AK1000™ nacelle was fabricated by Soil Marine Dynamics in Newcastle in England and the gravity base structure and system assembly was completed by Isleburn Engineering, a member of the Aberdeen based Global Energy Group. Steel for the turbine came from Corus’ Scunthorpe facility.

“The AK1000™ development program has injected over £5M to date into UK Plc’s renewable energy sector and has provided employment across a broad range of sectors including design, engineering, fabrication and project management. We are at the start of a new industrial boom, akin to the development of the North Sea oil & gas fields. If we receive the same support from all levels of government that the oil & gas industry received to make the North Sea the success that it is, then the future is very bright for marine power and even brighter for Scotland”

Source: www.atlantisresourcescorporation.com

Rio Tinto Energy Boss Calls for a Price on Carbon

A surprising admission from one of the world’s largest mining companies. Transition to a low-emission global economy is “vital”, says Rio Tinto’s energy chief Doug Ritchie. He also said climate change “represents uncertainty and potential volatility to the mining industry”. But a price on carbon is necessary to encourage the development of low-emissions technology and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Mr Ritchie told a coal industry conference in Brisbane.

David Fickling on Dow Jones Newswires (16 August 2010):

Transition to a low-emission global economy is “vital”, Rio Tinto’s Doug Ritchie said today.

At the same time, the miner’s energy chief said climate change “represents uncertainty and potential volatility to the mining industry”.

A price on carbon is necessary to encourage the development of low-emissions technology and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Mr Ritchie told a coal industry conference in Brisbane.

Rio Tinto is one of Australia’s largest producers of the thermal coal used in energy generation and of the coking coal used in steelmaking, alongside Xstrata PLC and BHP Billiton.

Australia’s mining industry campaigned heavily against the country’s proposed emissions trading scheme ahead of the Copenhagen climate change conference last year.

The law was eventually blocked in the senate after the government’s opposition deposed its leader, Malcolm Turnbull, who supported the legislation, in favour of current leader Tony Abbott.

Most mining companies claim to support Australia’s climate change efforts, while opposing the specific legislation proposed by Canberra.

Mr Ritchie criticised the approach of many companies to such issues.

“It’s not enough to just complain about our legislators having short-term, politically expedient policies,” he said.

“Yes, we need long-term vision from our policy-makers to address the big issues – however, this is where we need to work together as an industry to help create awareness, informed debate, and meaningful discourse.”

However, Mr Ritchie said that, while the future of energy needs to be about “sustainable practices” that would lead to “a carbon-neutral world”, policy measures need to be gradual to succeed.

A doubling of the cost of power to reduce emissions “would not be a vote winner”, he said, adding that domestic electricity bills had risen by 30 per cent in the last two years to fund new electricity infrastructure.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Australian Academy Of Science Climate Change Statement

Professor Kurt Lambeck says the complexity of the issue may be one reason both sides of politics seem to have shelved the issue of climate change. “I suspect both sides find it hard to understand what they should be doing. Some time ago the major parties both recognised that climate change was a real threat and that action needed to be taken. But we’ve lost that consensus between the two parties.” He was commenting in the Australian Academy of Science statement.

By environment reporter Sarah Clarke on ABC News (16 August 2010):

Some of the nation’s top scientists have united in a new climate statement which issues fresh warnings about the dangers of global warming.

The statement released by the Australian Academy of Science is a first for the organisation and details the key evidence identified globally by climate scientists.

It says carbon emissions need to be cut by more than half by 2050 if there is to be a good chance of keeping temperature rises to less than two degrees.

It also says global emissions must peak within a decade and decline rapidly if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.

Kurt Lambeck from the Australian National University says current misinformation is confusing the public debate and the warnings need to be identified.

“It’s because we’ve been concerned about the nature of the climate change debate in recent times,” he said.

“We see the quality of the science improving with time but the debate seems to be degenerating in some ways.”

Professor Lambeck says one of the reasons behind the degeneration is that the science is very complex.

“Climate science is really at the sort of intersection of a whole lot of basic science areas,” he said.

“Now a lot of people understand elements of those basic sciences but they don’t understand the complexities that occur when you try to put it all together.

“People get confused over those minor, what are essentially secondary issues and in that process the whole level of the debate degenerates.”

Professor Lambeck says the complexity of the issue may be one reason both sides of politics seem to have shelved the issue of climate change.

“I suspect both sides find it hard to understand what they should be doing,” he said.

“Some time ago the major parties both recognised that climate change was a real threat and that, you know, action needed to be taken.

“But we’ve lost that consensus between the two parties.”

‘Severe’ impact

Professor Lambeck says the statement looks at global temperatures, which he says have increased by “about a degree” over the last century.

“A degree doesn’t sound like very much but it appears that its impact on regional climate can be quite severe,” he said.

“Now when I say one degree, that is the global average surface temperatures.

“There are parts of the globe that have been subjected to much larger changes in more recent times.

“Whether that’s part of a long term trend or whether that’s part of some of the natural variability or whether these are oscillations, that’s something that we don’t know yet because our records are too short.”

Scientific questions

The statement makes the point that no scientific conclusion can ever be absolutely certain.

But Professor Lambeck does not think that leaves the conclusions open to sceptics and critics.

“The underpinning parts – the fact that CO2 is increasing, the fact that CO2 increases results in global temperature rises, the fact the CO2 has a long residence time in the atmosphere – these are facts that are extremely unlikely will ever be overturned by new information,” he said.

“Where the scientific questions arise is in the feedbacks that occur between the various components.

“We’re not totally clear on that and we may not have the right way to put that into our forecast.

“But these are factors that will affect the rate at which things will change.

“They’re extremely unlikely to affect the change in direction of what we are observing.”

The Greens say the report shows the major parties need to do more to deal with the threat.

Greens Senator Christine Milne says the big parties are acting as if climate change is not real.

“Both parties are trying to ignore climate change and this is big turnaround from 2007 when the Labor Party told Australians that it was a great moral imperative and they would act on it,” she said.

“Part of the reason for that is the sceptics campaign that has been aided and abetted by Tony Abbott and the Coalition.”

Source: www.abc.net.au

Around the World in 80 Days on Electric Powered Vehicles

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

AFP report from Geneva (17 August 2010):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: www.google.com

Clean Tech Driving Economies North, But Not Down Under

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

Kai Tabacek for The Guardian (16 August 2010):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conference Communique from Sydney (12 August  2010):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: www.Climateandbusiness.com

From Climate Spectator (13 August 2010):

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

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

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

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: www.grist.org

Temperatures Rise as Sceptics Want Their Day in Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: www.heraldsun.com.au