A word for the wise…

It’s Australia Day (26 January) as I write this and it is a previous Australian of the Year (1997) Peter Doherty who gets appropriately honoured in profile. He was also a real Nobel Prize winner in 1996, for Physiology and Medicine.  We cannot entirely let go of matters sceptical while we have a loose cannon like Monckton roaming the country. By the way, he is not a member of the House of Lords and he is definitely not a Nobel Prize winner, as he claims to be. See the article headed “Are we losing the fight against the sceptics?” quoting Professor Andy Pitman. We present a global collection of good news stories from North America, Europe, Asia and Australia: investment in renewables, switching to biofuels and how Haiti could be sustainably rebuilt after its devastating earthquake.  There’s carbon neutral wine growing and coffee making going on, and in some places more people are taking a foot off the petrol-driven pedal for a bicycle. Recycling  is making its presence felt on the global sports medal count. And news to come: Expect to hear from US President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address about his plans to promote alternative energy as a way of tackling global warming problems and creating more domestic jobs. In the End, we reveal what you had to say in our 2010 Readership Survey. Happy Days!

                                                              Ken Hickson

Profile: Professor Peter Doherty

For a man who describes himself as “very, very skeptical”, Nobel award winning doctor Professor Peter Doherty has determined for himself that climate change is for real. “We’re building whole economic systems on the premise that we can continue to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels both inexpensively and indefinitely. It makes no sense and the situation is potentially very dangerous. We have to change, and the time to start changing is now.” An article entitled “The Science of Scepticism”, which we draw on here, appeared in the University of Melbourne’s Research Review

When Ken Hickson asked Professor Peter Doherty if he would add anything to the Research Review article about him and his book “The Light History of Hot Air”, especially on the subject of scepticism, he came up with this:

 “My perception is that the climate change denial position is being eroded very rapidly, despite the enormous support it is receiving from some of the Australian print media. Particularly over the past 40 years, we’ve been doing a massive, uncontrolled, greenhouse gas experiment that involves 6.8 billion human beings and every complex life form on this planet.

“That experiment is unacceptable, especially as the cause (burning fossil fuels) is leading to the rapid depletion of major, non-renewable resources that have many other uses apart from combustion. Compounding the insanity, we’re building whole economic systems on the premise that we can continue to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels both inexpensively and indefinitely.

“It makes no sense and the situation is potentially very dangerous. We have to change, and the time to start changing is now.”

Professor Doherty is also the author of “The Beginner’s Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize: A Life In Science” ( Melbourne University Publishing, September, 2005).

Here’s the complete article from the Research review:

The Science of Scepticism,

by Silvia Dropulich

Climate change is not the professional speciality of world-renowned immunologist Professor Peter Doherty. That he has written about it in “A Light History of Hot Air” (Melbourne University Press 2007) provides a great insight into how this innovative thinker operates, and unveils a key element behind his scientific success.

“The reason I wrote the little book on hot air, which is only partly about climate change, was that I wanted to find out for myself, Professor Doherty said.

“I don’t take things at face value, I always have to find out for myself.

“So, I read into it [climate change] quite a lot.

“Some of the science is very hard to read because its way outside my area of expertise, but I came away from it really convinced that this is a very substantial and serious issue.”

Peter Doherty originally trained in veterinary medicine. He is the first veterinarian or veterinary scientist to win a Nobel Prize. He started out hoping to save the world by helping to produce more food by being an agricultural scientist, but by the time he qualified as a vet, he realised that food production was more about agricultural economics and politics than cows and sheep.

He then became interested in virology and immunology after reading books by Sir Macfarlane Burnet (another Australian Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology) and decided to do a PhD at Edinburgh University on the viral infection of sheep brains.

After returning to Australia he accepted a postdoctoral position with the John Curtin School of Medical Research because there was interesting work there on immunity to viral infections.

Professor Doherty is driven by intellectual curiosity.

“I’m very, very sceptical,” he said.

“I look at the science. I’m an experimental scientist. I spend a lot of time looking at the actual data, the actual results, rather than worrying too much whether it fits somebody else’s ideas or conceptual framework.

“I want to think it through for myself. Doing that has caused me to come up with some conclusions that are at times different and that’s what winning the Nobel Prize means.”

Professor Doherty is passionate about trying to understand complex systems. Immunity is a very complex system.

“If we can dissect that complexity better we would do better with making, for example, vaccines,” he said.

Professor Doherty and Dr Rolf Zinkernagel from Switzerland won the 1996 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for work they did together in Canberra in the 1970s. The prize-winning discovery was made in 1973 at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University.

Their work explained how the body’s immune cells protect against viruses. They discovered how T cells recognised their target antigens in combination with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) proteins.

Viruses infected host cells and reproduced inside them. Killer T cells destroyed those infected cells so that the viruses could not reproduce. The pair discovered that, in order for killer T cells to recognise infected cells, they had to recognise two molecules on the surface of the cell �€“ not only the virus antigen, but also a molecule of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC).

Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity

Late last year the Federal Government awarded the University $90 million under the Higher Education Endowment Fund for the establishment of the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity.

Subject to securing additional financial assistance, the $210 million Institute will co-locate the University’s Department of Microbiology with a number of Victorian Government and World Health Organization laboratories.

This critical mass will create a new world-class national capability in infectious diseases in a broad-based partnership providing:

•           shared vision, historical links, complementary skills, cohesive organisational structure and joint infrastructure

•           broadened undergraduate and postgraduate education

•           coordination of interdisciplinary research programs reflecting community and policy needs

•           new high-throughput DNA sequencing and peak computing facilities

•           enhanced national and international links attracting outstanding researchers, students and collaborations.

The Institute will pursue a number of integrated research programs in strategic areas, including emerging infections; respiratory infections (e.g. influenza); mycobacteria (e.g. TB); food-borne and enteric infections; blood-borne infections (e.g. HIV, hepatitis); and vaccine-preventable infections.

Academic virology, historically a strength in Australia, is now in decline, according to Professor Doherty.

With their expertise in virus detection and surveillance, VIDRL and the WHO Collaborating Centre for Influenza will work with University of Melbourne researchers, creating enhanced national capability in this area. The Institute will provide outstanding advice to help protect us against diseases caused by micro-organisms.

It will help to eliminate many traditional pathogens that challenge us, and create a level of preparedness for the inevitable influenza pandemic, so that when it comes we are ready, Professor Doherty explains.

Professor Doherty describes his concern for environmental issues as a personal interest, not a professional activity. He has been watching it with some interest for some years now.

“The climate change issue has been sort of sneaking up on us,” he said.

“My perception is that the climate change denial position is being eroded very rapidly, despite the enormous support it is receiving from some of the Australian print media. Particularly over the past 40 years, we’ve been doing a massive, uncontrolled, greenhouse gas experiment that involves 6.8 billion human beings and every complex life form on this planet.

“That experiment is unacceptable, especially as the cause (burning fossil fuels) is leading to the rapid depletion of major, non-renewable resources that have many other uses apart from combustion.

“Compounding the insanity, we’re building whole economic systems on the premise that we can continue to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels both inexpensively and indefinitely. It makes no sense and the situation is potentially very dangerous. We have to change, and the time to start changing is now.

Professor Doherty has also been very interested in literature and history. In fact, at one stage he thought about going into journalism, but he decided to do something practical and useful.

“That’s why I went to the veterinary school,” he said.

“I didn’t want to talk about things. I wanted to do something.

“I’m a doer, not a watcher.  A player, not a fan.”

By Silvia Dropulich, Editor, Research Review

Source: www.voice.unimelb.edu.au

Not Easy Being Green is No Excuse for Party

The Greens’ carbon tax proposal is smart policy. So why didn’t they pitch it earlier instead of allowing themselves to be locked out of the climate debate? So asks Ben Eltham, who also says the proposal from the Greens for an interim $20 a tonne carbon tax is a tacit acknowledgement that the party had dealt itself out of the ETS debate.

By Ben Eltham

The Greens’ carbon tax proposal is smart policy. So why didn’t they pitch it earlier instead of allowing themselves to be locked out of the climate debate?

Last week’s proposal from the Greens for an interim $20 a tonne carbon tax is a tacit acknowledgement that the party had dealt itself out of the ETS debate.

They desperately need to re-engage.

The Greens’ decision to oppose Labor’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme last year because of its weak targets and generous handouts to big polluters was ideologically sound. After all, few Greens voters want to see government money paid straight to big mining companies and other major greenhouse polluters.

But it was also a tactical error. By adopting a hardline stance against the CPRS, the Greens allowed themselves to be sidelined from the debate for months, playing into Labor’s hands. While Penny Wong negotiated with Ian McFarlane over the fine print of the ETS and Malcolm Turnbull fought a civil war with the sceptics in his own party, the Greens were essentially locked out of the debate. As a consequence — and almost unbelievably — the biggest environmental issue in federal politics came to be dominated by conservatives.

Even worse, the failure of the CPRS made it look as though the Greens had refused to negotiate with the Government over the legislation. In reality, it was the Government that refused to deal with the Greens — but unless you follow federal politics closely, you wouldn’t have realised this. The Greens did a poor job of getting their message across, and indeed of selling their CPRS amendments at all (which, as I wrote at the time, were both sensible and realistic). Casual observers saw only that the Greens voted against a bill to cut Australia’s emissions — twice.

The Greens’ media strategy has also been patchy of late. There are a number of reasons for this, including a lack of resources and the tendency of the mainstream media to ignore smaller parties. But the Greens have also missed important opportunities. The CPRS, and indeed the entire issue of climate change, is home turf for the Greens and should have been their time to shine. The barnstorming success of Barnaby Joyce in reframing the debate shows what can be achieved by a single politician from a small party. Yet despite possessing a surprisingly effective media performer in Christine Milne, the Greens have been unable to cut through.

The reasons for this are undoubtedly complex, and not all of them are of the Greens’ making. Partly, the increasing polarisation of the debate has acted to squeeze the minor party out. But the Greens have also been unable to link together the many disparate sections of the environmental movement in a solid bloc behind their policies — reflecting the notoriously faction-ridden and conflict-prone nature of activist politics. Renewable energy companies, green pressure groups, scientists and public intellectuals, even left-wing unions — all of these represent a natural base for the party that it has so far been unable to unite and mobilise.

It doesn’t help that the ALP sees the Greens as an enemy, rather than a friend. The two parties compete viciously at state and local government levels for many of the same voters, and the ALP has not been afraid to do deals with conservative opponents to lock the Greens out of various seats in Melbourne local councils — not to mention the regrettable 2004 Senate preferences deal which led directly to the election of Family First’s Steve Fielding.

For their part, the Greens make no secret of their ambition to defeat inner-city Labor parliamentarians like Melbourne’s Lindsay Tanner and Sydney’s Tanya Plibersek. The problem for the Greens is that Labor can still muster a tough and experienced political machine, with resources and organisational capacity vastly superior to the smaller, younger party.

There’s no doubt that the party needs to expand and improve its media operations. The relentless discipline of the Rudd Government is probably something the Greens will never be able to match, but the party could certainly achieve more simply by getting its best media performers into public view. Milne should continue to take the lead on the issue, but both Sarah Hanson-Young and Scott Ludlum are young, attractive and good media performers. They should be put in front of a camera as often as possible, and given a disciplined message to repeat.

All of which underlines the importance of the Greens’ carbon tax announcement: it should be the start of a renewed push by the party to influence the climate debate. The alternative is irrelevance, which in politics is death. Just ask the Democrats.

It’s never easy being a minor party in Australian politics. Australia’s single-member system of representative government makes it almost impossible for small parties to win lower house seats (rightly so, in the view of the major parties). Over a century of representative democracy, the voting patterns of the Australian electorate have been remarkably stable. Minor parties have won Senate seats and independents have won seats in the House of Representatives, but that’s about it. Even at the height of their popularity, the Australian Democrats were unable to win a lower house seat.

With five Senators and significant representation at local government level around the country, the Greens are an influential and steadily growing small party. But if they can’t manage to cut through on the biggest environmental issue of our time, they never will.

Source: www.newmatilda.com

Pass the US Climate Bill or Face Carbon Emissions Regulation

US federal climate legislation may still pass this year even though a Republican who opposes the bill won a seat in the Senate last week. “Our view is that it’s not dead,” says Abyd Karmali, managing director and global head of carbon emissions at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch. If the bill does not pass, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may begin regulating carbon emissions for the first time.

Carbon market exec still hopes for U.S. climate bill

By Rebekah Kebede for Reuters (22 January 2010):

NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. federal climate legislation may still pass this year even though a Republican who opposes the bill won a seat in the Senate this week, a carbon markets executive said on Thursday.

“Our view is that it’s not dead,” Abyd Karmali, managing director and global head of carbon emissions at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, told Reuters in an interview.

A climate bill passed the House last year, but the legislation has been bogged down in the Senate and its future is uncertain after Republican Scott Brown, who has opposed capping emissions, won the seat held by Ted Kennedy.

The prospect of Environmental Protection Agency regulation as well as a growing threat of nuisance torts may be enough to garner support for the bill among emitters, Karmali said.

The cap-and-trade bill, expected to create a trillion-dollar carbon trading market, would cap carbon emissions and allow pollution permits to be traded.

If the bill does not pass, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may begin regulating carbon emissions for the first time.

“Right now, companies have a stark choice in front of them. One path is a market-based approach through cap and trade, another is EPA regulation… In terms of trying to steer things toward a positive outcome, clearly, the Senate would be a more manageable forum,” Karmali said.

In addition, a recent raft of climate-related tort suits which cite greenhouse gas emissions as a public nuisance may give some emitters additional incentive to support carbon control.

“Without any action taking place to reduce emissions, large emitters are more likely to face tort suits from environmental and civil groups and we’ve seen that already,” Karmali said.

In September, for instance, a U.S. Appeals Court reinstated a lawsuit by eight states and the city of New York against five of the largest U.S. utilities over their carbon dioxide emissions.

Some emitting companies, including some major U.S. power companies, are already in favor of cap and trade legislation in the interest of having a more definite regulatory outlook.

“Companies are trying to make long-term investment decisions with assets that have 20-30 year time frames and the uncertainty can act as an impediment to investing or lending,” according to Karmali.

However, the window for passing the bill this year may be limited.

“If it doesn’t happen by May, it’s not going to happen this year,” Karmali said.

Delay in the world’s top industrial emitter to regulate has could further delay a global warming agreement.

But if federal climate control legislation does not pass, individual states may continue to develop their own carbon trading frameworks.

Already, 10 states in the eastern United States regulate carbon dioxide in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and a western U.S. and Canadian initiative led by California.

Although a state-by-state approach to carbon legislation is less desirable for development of a carbon-trading market than a federal one, states may eventually form networks of carbon markets.

“It’s easy to envision a scenario where to try to make the patchwork quilt as manageable as possible, those efforts begin to link up so there would be a coordinating mechanism that’s almost acting like a federal coordinating mechanism,” Karmali said.

Source: www.uk.reuters.com

Europe Must Continue to be a Driving Force for Change

In 1988, Malta launched an initiative for a United Nations Resolution on the ‘Conservation of Climate as part of the Common Heritage of Mankind’. An island state which has much to lose from rising sees, Malta is proud that despite its size and limitations, this move led to the adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retired ambassador Francis Cachia reflects on Malta’s past and future roles as well as where Europe stands on climate change.

Climate Change: Wonderful Copenhagen to valiant Valletta

by Francis Cachia

The year 2009 ended and the year 2010 began with woeful prophecies of doom and gloom by some and joyful forecasts of hope and happiness by others. In the usual metaphor, the optimists see the glass as half full and the pessimists as half empty. Realists must acknowledge that the fate of the world can go either way.

“Wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen”, home of Hans Christian Andersen, the famous teller of fairy-tales, hosted in the first weeks of December 2009 the United Nations sponsored summit of world leaders on climate change.

This is what gave rise to contrasting expression of strong hope or near despair. The climax of the summit was reached on Friday, 18 December, when US President Barack Obama joined the other world leaders in the beautiful Danish capital city.

Since no agreement was reached that day, the conference was extended to Saturday. It was largely through the American President’s unremitting efforts and those of the General Secretary of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon, who allowed himself only two hours sleep at night that the “Copenhagen Accord” was reached at all!

It was also just as well that the global warming conference was not further extended as ironically enough, extremely cold weather would have left many world leaders stranded in Copenhagen where they were discussing ‘Global Warming’: Europe was in for its coldest spell in decades!

The bottom line is that though it was labelled as a weak agreement, the “Copenhagen Accord” did indeed, send out a strong message to the powers that be in the world at large.

Art of the possible

Politics has been called, “The art of the possible.” Bearing this in mind can help one conclude that the Copenhagen meeting of world leaders was a positive achievement for which President Obama’s statesmanship and persistence should be given much of the credit.

As was not the case with 1997 Kyoto Protocol, major powers including the USA, India, Brazil and China actually put their signature to this so-called “Copenhagen Accord”. True enough, it fell far short of the expectations of many, but was welcomed by others as a step in the right direction. Rather strangely, the major complains came mainly from such countries as the Darfur-notorious and piracy-plagued Somalia and Robert Mugabe-run Zimbabwe. EU member states, including Malta, that had gone to Copenhagen with very high hopes and well thought out, concrete proposals, admitted that the results of the conference though positive in themselves, fell far short of their expectations.

An EU summit of ministers of the environment and heads of state or government had been held in preparation for the Copenhagen meeting of world leaders. During this EU summit, the last presided over by Sweden, it was decided that EU member states would offer poor, developing countries 2.4 billion euro to help them cope with their environmental problems. The EU member states themselves would set the example by cutting harmful emissions by 25 per cent.

Drama or deal!

High drama was not missing from the conference. There were protests by activists, including hot-heads who with inverted logic hard to understand claimed that disrupting the congress with riotous behaviour was the best way to bring it to a successful conclusion! Unfortunately, the world is not free from factious fanatics who think they have a human or even divine right to smash windows and burn cars with the excuse that they want to further a good cause.

Some of the banners displayed by protesters did however carry sensible messages. For instance, one poster proclaimed, “Keep the islands on the map!” It is islands like the Maltese archipelago that have most to lose if climate warming goes unchecked: The seas would rise and literally drown many islands!

The renowned French literary critic, Etienne Souriau claimed that drama begins with conflict when the protagonist, whom he calls ‘Lion’, sets out to achieve his goal but is impeded by ‘Mars’ his opponent and rival who is seeking the same objective. Perhaps bearing this in mind, some of the media stressed disagreement more than agreement, drama rather than deal!

Some media, for instance, played up the resignation of the conference chairmanship by the Danish Minister of the environment, Connie Hedegaard. She herself claimed it was only a foreseen logical procedural matter in order to allow the Danish Prime Minister to take over the chairmanship of the proceedings when it was the turn of Heads of Government or State to make their interventions. It must be admitted that it would have indeed seemed rather odd for a mere minister to be in the chair when world leaders were taking the floor!

Valiant Valletta

On Thursday 17 December 2009, Maltese Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who was present with many other heads of government, delivered his speech. He proudly recalled that it was his country Malta that first brought up the topic of climate change in the United Nations 21 years ago!

Recalling this fact was not only very encouraging for us Maltese. But it spurred us on to pledge that we too wanted to play our part in saving our planet from destruction caused by unchecked global warming. In fact, valiant Valletta, like wonderful Copenhagen sought to take bold steps to apply new procedures to produce clean, alternative energy that does not pollute the environment.

In his speech at Copenhagen, the Maltese Prime Minister, said inter alia:

“Colleagues, our mandate for achieving a comprehensive, effective and fair climate change regime has never been stronger. In 1988 Malta launched an initiative for a United Nations Resolution on the ‘Conservation of Climate as part of the Common Heritage of Mankind’. Malta is proud that despite its size and limitations, this initiative resulted in the adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“Malta has adopted a ‘National Strategy for Policy and Abatement Measures Relating to the Reduction of Green Gases’ containing mitigation measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and including the implementation of renewable energy sources, electricity efficiency and conservation. Over the past years Malta has started exploring economically viable options to maximise its use of renewable energy sources. Malta therefore recognises the need to provide the least developed countries, in particular vulnerable African countries, with adequate and effective capacity building and financing.”

At the same time of the Christmas season, ‘Valiant Valletta’ celebrated the festive inauguration in a fairy-tale atmosphere of its radically restored St George’s Square, in which literally, ‘ground was broken’. Original ancient structures were adapted to latest new techniques to provide water for the fountains and the electric lighting installed in the square facing the presidential palace built by the Knights of St John for their Grand Masters. The Magisterial Palace, together with St John’s ‘Conventual Church’ were to be the crowning glories in artistic achievement of the city founded by the Grand Master called by the historian Bosio,Giovanni di Valetta of whom it was said in a Latin adage, ‘plus quam valor valet Valette’ – Valette is worth more than valour itself.

Now, Valletta-born Maltese Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi is determined to restore to Valletta all the dignity it deserves! To help him do so, he engaged the services of the world-renowned architect, Renzo Piano.

The plans for the entrance, parliament and theatre in Valletta drawn up by the world-renowned architect include innovative strategies to win energy literally by breaking ground. The latest, innovative techniques will be applied to win the energy needed to provide air conditioning in the new parliament building and the reactivated old Royal Opera House.

Three Presidents at one

At the very beginning of this year, 2010, the Lisbon Treaty came into force. This means that the EU now has a President of the European Council. The Belgian Herman Van Rompuy was elected to this very important and prestigious post.

On assuming the rotating presidency of the European Union, the Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Zapatero convened a meeting in Madrid with the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy and the European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso. In the freezing weather of an ultra-white Christmas season, that was a nightmare rather than a dream, ‘Global Warming’ was to be a main topic.

President Herman Van Rompuy stressed that the launch of the Spanish Presidency on 8 January 2010 marked “the beginning of a very close cooperation between José Luis Zapatero, as Head of the Government responsible for the work of the Council, José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission” and himself. In fact, as the press conference proceeded, it became very evident that the three presidents were entirely at one when it came to the objectives of the EU for the coming months!

Concerning climate change, “The EU must continue to be a driving force in the field. There has been a lot of criticism of the outcome of Copenhagen. But let us be clear without the EU, the outcome in Copenhagen would have been much less. We as EU would have liked to go further. But there are enough elements to build on and to achieve for the good of our climate and our future.”

President Herman Van Rompuy commented that this was a very complicated process. The EU was doing much in terms of the commitments for emission reductions and in terms of the financial assistance it was prepared to bring to others, both in the short and long term.

In conclusion, President Herman Van Rompuy said, “It is time to recall that globalisation may give rights to all global actors, but also responsibilities. Within a few weeks, we will know the quantitative goals of the various actors in terms of CO² reductions. We will then know the distance between pledges made in Copenhagen and what is still needed to reach the objective of limiting the rise in temperature to a maximum of 2ºC. Everyone will have to face up to their responsibilities.”

We sincerely hope that the optimistic predictions of the three presidents of the EU will be fulfilled and crowned with success!

Dr Francis Cachia is a retired ambassador for Malta.

Source: www.independent.com.mt

Seven Billion Dollars for Canada’s Green Energy Investment

It was announced last week that seven billion Canadian dollars will be invested to build 2000MW of new wind turbines and 500MW of solar PV panels by a consortium headed by Samsung, which will provide about 8% of the existing power capacity in the Canadian province of Ontario. Professor Danny Harvey says investments of this magnitude are needed to seriously address the climatic change issue and also create the critical mass to build a thriving green energy industry.

By Professor Danny Harvey for Reuters (22 January 2010):

The world is facing the prospect of massive climatic change during the coming decades, and we’re already seeing the beginnings of this all around us and much faster than predicted – dramatic melting of sea ice, thawing of permafrost, increased loss of ice from Greenland, and drier conditions in many parts of the world.

Climate scientists are nearly unanimous in saying that dramatic and strong action is needed to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy as rapidly as possible.

Small, gradual changes are not good enough. We need large, transformational change – and it will occur sooner or later, and throughout the world.

Thursday it was announced that C$7 billion will be invested to build 2000 MW of new wind turbines and 500 MW of solar PV panels by a consortium headed by Samsung C&T Corp. The total new capacity is about 8 percent of the existing power capacity in the Canadian province of Ontario.

This investment is of the magnitude that is needed if we need are going to seriously address the climatic change issue and also create the critical mass to build a thriving green energy industry with strong exports, but we will need many more such investments.

Both wind and especially solar electricity cost more than the market price of coal or other alternatives, but the market prices do not include the full cost.

More importantly, investments now in emerging technologies helps to bring their costs down through learning-by-doing and begin to build the skilled workforce that will be needed as the pace of development accelerates, leading to yet further price declines.

In the long, we will need many dispersed large wind farms and solar power facilities, linked to each other and to hydro-electric resources in order to provide a reliable and controllable electricity system based entirely on renewable energy resources.

This will cost modestly more than we pay at present, but it is a small price to pay in order to avert near-certain climate disaster.

Higher electricity costs can be offset by more efficient use of electricity and by curbing our often-times very wasteful use of electricity – all of which will be good for us both economically and environmentally.

Danny Harvey is a geography professor and energy policy expert at the University of Toronto. He is author of A Handbook on Low-Energy Buildings and District Energy Systems: Fundamentals, Techniques and Examples, and  the forthcoming Energy and the New Reality, Volume 2: C-free Energy.

Source: www.reuters.com

CANADA TORONTO, January 21, 2010 – The push for renewable energy alternatives in Ontario was given a major boost today after the Government of Ontario signed a green energy investment agreement with a consortium created by Samsung C&T Corporation – Trading and Investment Group and the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO).

Ontario Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Brad Duguid was joined by Premier Dalton McGuinty, Samsung C&T Corporation President & CEO Sung-ha Chi and KEPCO Executive Vice President Chan-Ki Jung to officially announce the project and to sign the green energy investment agreement for the initiative, which will be the largest of its kind in the world.

According to the terms of the green energy investment agreement, Samsung C&T and KEPCO will establish and operate a series of wind and solar power clusters over the next 20 years. The clusters, which will be built in several locations throughout the province, will eventually include wind turbines that will generate up to 2,000MW as well as solar power facilities that will generate up to 500MW. The entire project will have a combined power-generating capacity of 2.5GW by 2016, producing energy equivalent to four per cent of Ontario`s total electricity consumption.

The Province plans to shut down all of its coal-fired power plants by 2014 and increase Ontario`s ratio of renewable power generation. Ontario is currently a North American leader in the adoption of green energy policies with its passing of the Green Energy Act in May 2009.

‘The newly enacted green energy law is bringing forth a new green wave in Ontario as it comes into effect,’ said Minister Duguid. ‘By executing this project, the Ontario government will be one step closer to taking the lead in the North American green energy industry by securing the industrial infrastructure for low-carbon growth, creating new jobs and establishing a renewable energy cluster.’

The first stage of the project is scheduled to be completed by the first quarter of 2013 and will include a 500MW cluster (400MW wind and 100MW solar) that will be built in the Chatham-Kent and Haldimand County regions of Southern Ontario.

‘This project is a good example of Samsung C&T receiving recognition in developed markets for its ability to manage and carry out projects, from planning and financing to execution,’ said Samsung C&T Corporation President and CEO Sung-ha Chi. ‘With rapidly expanding expertise in the renewable energy sector, this project marks the forging of a win-win partnership where Samsung C&T will provide optimal solutions to assist the Government of Ontario in reaching its goal to increase the amount of renewable energy produced in the province.’

Samsung C&T Corporation is rapidly becoming a world leader in the facilitation of major renewable energy programs including solar, wind and bio-energy. Through strategic partnerships with key renewable energy corporations, Samsung C&T is currently engaged in renewable energy projects in Korea, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Costa Rica and the U.S.

Samsung C&T and KEPCO will support the development of local infrastructure for the renewable energy industry by constructing production facilities to provide key components, such as blades, wind towers, solar modules and inverters. Samsung C&T will also encourage component suppliers to build manufacturing facilities in the area. In total, the project is expected to generate more than 16,000 green energy jobs within the province.

Samsung C&T will facilitate all project operations, overseeing the entire process of establishing the wind and solar power cluster, procuring equipment and financing while KEPCO, with its expertise in power generation technology, will be responsible for designing and connecting the transmission and distribution system in operating the plant facilities. The Ontario government will provide assistance in securing the land for the construction of cluster installations and provide administrative assistance for the project while also purchasing the produced electricity.

Source: www.samsungcorp.com

China Leads the Emissions Pack & Invests in Solar Batteries

Four nations led by China pledged earlier this week to meet an end-month deadline to submit action plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions and challenged rich countries to come up with funding to help fight global warming, while Chinese car and battery maker BYD Co Ltd, 10% owned by US billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, will invest US$3.30 billion over five years to build China’s largest solar power battery plant.

Matthias Williams for Reuters World Environment News (25 January 2010):

NEW DELHI – Four nations led by China pledged on Sunday to meet an end-month deadline to submit action plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions and challenged rich countries to come up with funding to help fight global warming.

Environment ministers and envoys from Brazil, South Africa, India and China met in New Delhi in a show of unity by countries whose greenhouse gas emissions are among the fastest rising in the world.

The bloc was key to brokering a political agreement at the Copenhagen talks in December and its meeting in India was designed in part to put pressure on richer nations to make good on funding commitments.

“We have sent a very powerful symbol to the world of our intentions,” the Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said at a joint press conference after seven hours of talks.

The group discussed setting up a climate fund to help nations most vulnerable to the impact of global warming, which it said would act as a wakeup call for wealthier countries to meet their pledges on financial assistance and give $10 billion in 2010.

Rich countries have pledged $30 billion in climate change funding for the 2010-12 period and set a goal of $100 billion by 2020, far less than what developing countries had wanted.

The group in New Delhi said releasing $10 billion this year would send a signal of the rich countries’ commitment. The four said they were in talks to set up an independent fund for the same purpose, but gave no timeline or figure.

“When we say we will be reinforcing technical support as well as funds to the most vulnerable countries, we are giving a slap in the face to the rich countries,” Brazil’s Environment Minister Carlos Minc said through a translator.

The non-binding accord worked out at the Copenhagen climate summit was described by many as a failure because it fell short of the conference’s original goal of a more ambitious commitment to prevent more heatwaves, droughts and crop failures.

China is the world’s top CO2 emitter, while India is number four. China was blamed by many countries at Copenhagen for obstructing a tougher deal and has refused to submit to outside scrutiny of its plans to brake greenhouse gas emissions.

China has pledged to cut the amount of carbon dioxide produced for each unit of economic growth by 40-45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels. For India, that figure is up to 25 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

Xie Zhenhua, deputy head of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission, said the world needed to take immediate action to fight climate change.

But in the wake of a controversial exaggeration by the U.N. climate panel on the threat of global warming to the Himalayan glaciers [ID:nSGE60M01C], he called for an “open attitude” to climate science.

“(There is a) point of view that the climate change or climate warming issue is caused by the cyclical element of the nature itself. I think we need to adopt an open attitude to the scientific research,” he said through a translator.

“We want our views to be more scientific and more consistent.”

Source: www.planetark.org

Joseph Chaney for Reuters World Environment News (25 January 2010):

HONG KONG – Chinese car and battery maker BYD Co Ltd, 10 percent owned by U.S. billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, will invest 22.5 billion yuan ($3.30 billion) over five years to build China’s largest solar power battery plant, a report said on Saturday.

Shenzhen-based BYD, which aims to sell 800,000 vehicles next year, will build the plant in China’s Shaanxi province, a report in the South China Morning Post said, citing the Shaanxi Provincial Development and Reform Commission website.

The plant will have capacity to produce a total of 5,000 megawatts of batteries, the report said.

In December, BYD received 15 billion yuan in credit from the Bank of China.

The company is likely to use the credit to invest in new areas, such as solar energy and new energy vehicles, Frank He, an analyst with BOCI Research in Hong Kong, said at the time.

BYD’s F3 sedan was the best-selling car in China in the first 11 months of 2009, leading other popular domestic and foreign models, such as Hyundai Motor’s new Elantra and Chery Automobile’s QQ.

BYD plans to start selling its first electric car, the e6, in the first quarter of 2010, Paul Lin, manager of the company’s marketing department said in late December.

Source: www.planetark.org

Biofuels to Fire-up Green Strike Group & Great Green Fleet

United States military is the largest customer for fuel, so it was good news for the biofuels industry when the Department of the Navy and USDA agreed to work together on the development of advanced biofuels and other renewable energy systems. The reasons? For the strategic energy future of the United States, to create a more nimble and effective fighting force, and to protect our planet from destabilizing climate changes.

Feedstocks and Stock and Land reports (23 January 2010):

US Navy to sail under biofuel power

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has set four, specific goals for moving the Navy and Marine Corps onto an aggressive renewable energy – including advanced fuels — agenda. He outlined those goals as he and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at supporting the Navy’s program.

“In order to secure the strategic energy future of the United States, create a more nimble and effective fighting force, and protect our planet from destabilizing climate changes, I have committed the Navy and Marine Corps to meet aggressive energy targets that go far beyond previous measures,” Mabus said in a statement.

The goals include:

By 2012, demonstrate a Green Strike Group composed of nuclear vessels and ships powered by biofuel;

By 2016, sail the Strike Group as a “Great Green Fleet” composed of nuclear ships, surface combatants equipped with hybrid electric alternative power systems running on biofuel, and aircraft running on biofuel;

By 2015, cut petroleum use in its 50,000 non-tactical commercial fleet in half, by phasing in hybrid, flex fuel and electric vehicles; and

By 2020, produce at least half of shore based installations’ energy requirements from alternative sources. Also 50pc percent of all shore installations will be net zero energy consumers.

By 2020 half of DoN’s total energy consumption for ships, aircraft, tanks, vehicles and shore installations will come from alternative sources.

The biofuels and renewable energy industries have long looked to military – and other government departments – as major potential customers for the new technologies.

“USDA looks forward to working with the Navy and other public and private partners to advance the production of renewable energy by sharing technical, program management and financial expertise,” Vilsack said in a statement issued after signing the USDA-Navy MOU on Jan. 21.

The MOU complements USDA and The Navy and Marine Corps’ existing renewable energy programs and efforts. USDA has a variety of programs and services that support renewable energy development as does the Department of Energy.

Source: www.feedstuffs.com and www.sl.farmonline.com.au

Raise Your Glass for Mulching Vineyards & Community Gardens

Amid nationwide calls for thousands of hectares of vineyards to be uprooted to resolve the wine glut, some Canberra district wineries are turning to carbon sequestration in the hope they’ll not only help save the planet, but improve the quality of their grapes, while growing vegetables is a way of life for many city gardeners who want to produce healthy food, combat high prices and reduce their carbon footprint, so in Melbourne community gardens are starting to meet the need.

Agriculture’s backyard revolution rolls on in the city

Denise Gadd for The Land (24 January 2010):

GROWING vegetables is a way of life for many city gardeners who want to produce healthy food, combat high prices and reduce their carbon footprint.

But not everyone has the room to grow vegies, so people turn to allotments or community gardens – popular in England, and now flourishing in Melbourne – to create their potagers (kitchen gardens).

Traditionally, these plots were the domain of retirees who filled their days pottering around and chatting with their greenthumb neighbours.

Today, though, growing vegetables is more serious gardening business as people come together to share their food and culture in an organic and chemical-free environment.

Age is no barrier. At the Ringwood Community Garden, which celebrates its 30th year in March, the youngest member is nine and the oldest an octogenarian.

Laura Bermingham is a grade 4 student at Great Ryrie Primary in Heathmont. Like her father, Bryan, she is a member of the Ringwood Community Garden and has had her own plot for two years, growing produce including potatoes, cucumbers, tomatoes and flowers.

She visits weekly on her allotted watering day and enjoys swapping excess produce with her fellow gardeners and participating in a gardening program as part of her curriculum.

Bill Lynch, who lives in a unit, does not have room to grow vegetables, so he joined the club three years ago. A retired fireman, at 80 he is the oldest member and his produce tends to be whatever is in season. At the moment, that’s tomatoes, zucchini, cucumbers and beetroot. If he has a glut of anything, it gets left on a communal bench for people to help themselves.

Why does he prefer to grow his own? ”Because they’re better for you.”

Vic Jeynes, 80, had an allotment in England before coming to Australia. Now a member of the local Probus gardening club, which has two plots at Ringwood, he and 12 others dug out the potatoes last week and this week will dig up half the plots to make way for winter greens.

Sharing the harvest is also part of Mr Jeynes’ philosophy. ”We take some of the goodies and leave the rest for others,” he said.

Member secretary Ralph Powell said: ”A virtual United Nations exists within the garden. On any given day it is possible to hear Italian, Greek, German and Chinese accents mixing with the Irish, British and Anglo-Australian members.”

The club has 102 plots that are leased for a one-off joining fee of $30 and an annual rent of $40.

A sensory garden for disability support groups runs along the front fence and there are three donated water tanks providing a supplementary water supply. An honour system prevails.

Ringwood Community Garden will open on the weekend of January 30-31 as part of the Australian Open Garden Scheme.

Source: www.theland.farmonline.com.au

District wineries raise their glasses to super mulch

By Aurora Daniels for Canberra Times (25 January 2010):

Amid nationwide calls for thousands of hectares of vineyards to be uprooted to resolve the wine glut, some Canberra district wineries are turning to carbon sequestration in the hope they’ll not only help save the planet, but improve the quality of their grapes.

Canberra District Wine Industry Association president Anne Caine said that as long as wine was of a high enough quality, there would always be buyers.

As part-owner of Lerida Estate, her and husband Jim Lumbers stopped the tradition of burning the vine offcuts about two years ago, and now uses the by-products to mulch under the vines, making the vineyard carbon neutral.

Mr Lumbers said, ”We use the waste, which usually releases CO2, and we spread the mulch under the vines so carbon is locked into the soil by worms and micro-organisms.

”We add lime and do other things with the mulch but basically it is left stewing away and breaking down in piles, it ferments getting hot and killing the weeds and then we break it all up with the tractor.”

The 20 tonnes of wood from the vines used to create about 40 tonnes of CO2 annually, now it helped improve soil and vines and, hopefully, the end product.

The result was obvious with thicker foliage, something he wasn’t seeing when using bought products.

Yarrh Wines’ Neil McGregor has taken the process one step further, turning those leftovers into a super mulch and also trying to go organic to increase the help of microbial life.

”I wasn’t seeing the improvements in the vines that I wanted. With traditional farming we’ve depleted the carbon and humus complex in the soil so now we’ve got to replace it,” he said.

He adds straw, manure, soil, winery waste and uses a large compost turner to add oxygen and lots of water to his 100 tonnes of compost. Already this season he has noticed more bees during flowering and fungus breaking down the slashed grass under the vines.

Dionysus Winery has started to mulch the by-products as well.

For Lark Hill Winery, this is all old news. It has been a biodynamic farm since 2003. Composting and mulching and using milk sprays instead of poisonous fungicides.

Shaw Vineyard Estate has also been mulching and using turkey manure on the vines for about seven years, so to improve sales in the tougher times it is now sending wine further afield hitting Vietnam, Singapore and Europe, as well as Queensland, Victoria and hopefully soon Western Australia.

Source: www.canberratimes.com.au

The ABC of Airports and Behavioural Change: How Big is Your Footprint?

Aviation is a significant source of carbon emissions, but it’s not just the planes that are a problem. While Europeans have had trouble this icy cold winter even getting on and off aircraft, groundbreaking work is soon to be under way to establish just how big a carbon footprint is created by travel to and from airports. The study of two UK airports is the first of its kind in the world to look at this issue and aims to pinpoint innovative measures that will cut these emissions.

Saying goodbye at airports the green way

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

From EurekAlert (21 January 2010):

Groundbreaking work is under way to establish just how big a carbon footprint is created by travel to and from airports.

The study is the first of its kind in the world to look at this issue. It also aims to pinpoint innovative measures that will cut these emissions, such as:

* Setting up audio/video facilities at airports that can link with anyone’s home, reducing the need to travel to airports to see off friends and family.

* Situating luggage-drop facilities in city centres and train stations, making it easier to travel to airports by public transport.

* Establishing web/mobile-based information-sharing services that promote car-sharing among airport users, employees etc.

The study is being carried out by a team from the Universities of Loughborough, Cranfield and Leeds, with funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).

“Aviation is a significant source of carbon emissions, but it’s not just the planes that are a problem,” says project leader Dr Tim Ryley of Loughborough University. “Travelling to and from airports also has a big impact, but no-one has yet quantified it or identified how to reduce it. This study will address that gap in our understanding.”

The study will focus on two UK airports – one international and one regional – and generate recommendations that the aviation industry, airport authorities and policy-makers can implement to reduce aviation’s overall carbon footprint.

The study will look at every kind of journey to and from airports. It will not only take into account people catching a flight but also those seeing off or meeting friends and relatives, as well as airline and airport employees.

It will also assess the impact of different types of delivery (food, fuel etc), freight movement and other logistics associated with airport terminals and surrounding facilities.

Importantly, as well as devising and evaluating innovative ways of reducing the carbon footprint of airport journeys (using tried and tested computer modelling techniques) and quantifying their carbon reduction potential, the study will conduct market research to explore how receptive people would be to any recommended changes.

“There’s no point developing and implementing a carbon-reduction measure if it won’t work in the real world – perhaps because it involves people paying more than they’re prepared to pay,” says Dr Ryley. “So developing a realistic understanding of attitudes and motivations with respect to people’s environmental behaviour will be key to delivering a practical set of recommendations.”

An important feature of the project is its interdisciplinary nature, harnessing social sciences and economics alongside engineering and the physical sciences.

The study is due to deliver its conclusions by the end of 2012.

The three-year study ‘The ABC Project – Airports and Behavioural Change: Towards Environmental Surface Access Travel’ will receive total EPSRC funding of just under £492,000.

The idea for the study emerged, along with five other airport operations-related projects, from an EPSRC IDEAS Factory ‘sandpit’ that took place in November 2008. A sandpit is a residential interactive workshop over five days involving 20-30 participants, the director and a number of independent stakeholders. An essential element is a highly multidisciplinary mix of participants, including active researchers as well as potential users of research outcomes, to drive lateral thinking and radical approaches to addressing particular research challenges.

The two UK airports to be studied as part of this initiative will be decided in early 2010.

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is the UK’s main agency for funding research in engineering and the physical sciences. The EPSRC invests around £850 million a year in research and postgraduate training, to help the nation handle the next generation of technological change. The areas covered range from information technology to structural engineering, and mathematics to materials science. Website address for more information on EPSRC:

Source: www.epsrc.ac.uk