On Paper, Population Growth Threatens Biodiversity & Life on Earth

The Australian Conservation Foundation says human population growth threatens Australia’s biodiversity, making it harder for us to reduce greenhouse pollution, protect natural habitats and ensure a good quality of life for all, while Australian Paper says the seven new grades of carbon neutral paper will create a tonne of sustainable value by helping government and listed companies hit carbon reduction targets and improve triple bottom line reporting figures.

Media Release (23 March 2010):

The Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human population growth as a “key threatening process” to Australia’s biodiversity under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act).

“The bigger our population gets, the harder it is for us to reduce greenhouse pollution, protect natural habitats near urban and coastal areas and ensure a good quality of life for all Australians,” said ACF’s director of strategic ideas, Charles Berger.

“More people means more roads, more urban sprawl, more dams, more transmission lines, more energy and water use, more pollutants in our air and natural environment and more pressure on Australia’s animals, plants, rivers, reefs and bushland.

“We need to improve urban and coastal planning and management of environmental issues, but we can’t rely on better planning alone to protect our environment.  Rapid population growth makes sustainable planning nearly impossible, so stabilising Australia’s population by mid-century should be a national policy goal.”

The EPBC Act nomination cites many government reports that acknowledge the direct link between population growth and environmental degradation. 

The nomination looks at four specific areas where human population growth is directly affecting native species and ecological communities – the coastal wetlands of South East Queensland, Mornington Peninsula and Westernport Bay in Victoria, the Fleurieu Peninsula in South Australia and the Swan Coastal Plain in Western Australia.

ACF is calling on the Government to set a population policy that will:

•           Stabilise Australia’s population by mid-century.

•           Increase humanitarian migration and continue to support family reunions, but substantially reduce skilled migration.

•           Return Australia’s overall migration to 1990s levels.

•           Adequately fund strategies to minimise the environmental impact of population growth.

Source: www.acfonline.org.au

Media release

In response to overwhelming customer demand, Australian Paper, the nation’s only carbon neutral paper producer, today announced the introduction of seven new carbon neutral grades that will be widely available through a range of new distribution partnerships.  

Paul Allen, Australian Paper GM Marketing, said the carbon neutral stock will create a tonne of sustainable value by helping government and listed companies hit carbon reduction targets and improve triple bottom line reporting figures.

“With Australian Paper’s new range of Australian owned and made carbon neutral paper, we are giving procurement and production departments a choice they can be proud of. 

“We are helping government and big business walk the talk on sustainability,” Mr Allen said.

“Our new grades will nullify more than 15,000 tonnes of harmful greenhouse emissions in 2010, so something as simple as the choice of paper can have a huge impact on environmental performance.

The stock has independently certified metrics as to the amount of CO2 avoided through the use of the grade; metrics that will improve their ‘People, Planet and Profits’ reporting.” 

In 2008, Australian Paper was the first to market with carbon neutral paper with the ENVI range. To date, they have offset over 80,000 tonnes of carbon – the equivalent of neutralising over 16,000 cars for one year1.

The seven new carbon neutral stocks, which range from virgin paper to 100% recycled, are supplied as completely carbon neutral and are certified under the Federal Department of Climate Change Greenhouse Friendly program. All carbon emissions from production, manufacture, transport and disposal have been measured, reduced and offset to make the paper truly carbon neutral, with the ISO methodology and numbers to back it up.   

Australian Paper is currently helping an number of Australian government and corporate clients reduce their carbon footprint, including Australia Post, Australian Passports, Hungry Jacks, Computershare,  Dolly Magazine, AGL Energy, The University of Adelaide, Stikki Notes, Foxtel and MP Sid Sidebottom.

Dave Hynes, Chairman of Computershare Communication Services which specialises in the delivery of investor service communications for some of the largest financial, utility, telecommunications and insurance corporations in Australia, said the company’s association with Australian Paper was an important element of Computershare’s environmental commitment.

“At Computershare, we want to help our stakeholders to effect positive change that improves the quality and sustainability of our environment, workplace, community and marketplace. 

“One of the key ways we can provide sustainable communication solutions to our clients is by influencing their choice of paper; giving them the option of a carbon neutral paper solution. In the past two years, by using Australian Paper’s carbon neutral ENVI range we have helped clients collectively save 790 tonnes of harmful greenhouse gas emissions through their communications alone,” said Mr Hynes.  

“With this expanded variety of carbon neutral stocks, we will be able to provide a greater range of services, such as brochures and inserts, to help our stakeholders complete the ‘sustainable package’ and reduce emissions even further.”       

In a recent survey, 90% of Australians said business has a responsibility beyond increasing shareholder value to that of caring for communities and the environment and 84% said that if a company can demonstrate an active involvement in minimising environmental and community impacts, they would be more likely to choose their products.

Mr Allen said that, as an Australian manufacturer, this made sustainability a business imperative for Australian Paper.   

“We want to give production and procurement departments access to the most sustainable paper in the world to help them meet these expectations. Our goal over the next two years is to achieve a 15% level of all paper specification in Australia for a real impact on carbon footprints and triple bottom lines.”

Mr Allen said that by specifying Australian Paper’s carbon neutral range, businesses can help Australian manufacting as well as the environment.

“Australian Paper employs approximately 1,200 Australians, mostly in Gippsland and Shoalhaven.

Being a manufacturer in Australia isn’t a particularly sexy thing to be, but we have a broad economic impact in these communities. People in these areas are hungry for business growth, and while manufacturing has been down in Australia, the sustainability cause is creating new opportunities.

“As the relaunched “Australian Made Campaign” shows, Australian made needs to matter, especially in the face of increased foreign imports. To this end, Australian Paper is proud to be doing its bit to help Australian manufacturing.”

ENVI, the first carbon neutral paper in Australia, is still available, in uncoated form only.

Source:  www.australianpaper.com.au

Week to Highlight Environmental Benefits of Community Composting

The Centre for Organic & Resource Enterprises (CORE), with the support of Compost Australia, announces that the fifth International Composting Awareness Week 2010 (ICAW) will be held throughout Australia from Sunday 2nd to Saturday 8th May to promote the importance of this valuable organic resource and the environmental benefits composting affords our communities.

The Centre for Organic & Resource Enterprises (CORE) with the support of Compost Australia (a

division of the Waste Management Association of Australia) has launched the fifth International

Composting Awareness Week 2010(ICAW) throughout Australia.

ICAW is being held from Sunday 2nd to Saturday 8th May with a week of activities and events to

promote the awareness of the importance of this valuable organic resource and the

environmental benefits composting affords our communities.

The major objectives of ICAW

ICAW aims to:

· Increase the diversion of organics from the main waste stream through increasing awareness

of, and participation in centralised composting, kerbside, home composting & community

composting

· Increase awareness of, and participation in, the proper use of “soil-improving composts”

· Help reduce and recover food waste

· Highlight the environmental and social benefits of composting including the opportunities to

reduce our carbon emissions

Composting benefits Australian communities

“Each year over half of our household garbage, is made up of food and garden organics. Most of this

material can be recycled by composting it”, says Eric Love Chairman of CORE.

“Composting is not new. Compost has been used in crop production for over 4000 years. Artificial

fertilizers only became widely available a century ago. Australia is an old and eroded continent,

that is suffering from land degradation”.

“As organic waste decomposes in landfill it produces the greenhouse gases, methane and carbon

dioxide. These greenhouse gases contribute to worldwide climate change. Most landfill gas is made up of 54% methane and 40% carbon dioxide. Methane is twenty four times more damaging as a

greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.”

Eric continues that “ironically, if all this organic material was diverted from landfills and properly

composted, it could be used to reverse the affects of climate change. By applying this compost to

gardens, farms and other land uses, millions of tonnes of carbon will be stored in the soil. This acts to

lower the atmospheric temperatures that lead to changes in our climate.”

“Indeed compost produced by the recycled organics industry is already providing Australian landscape, horticulture and agricultural industries with affordable solutions to improve productivity and

environmental outcomes. Recycled carbon based products are also being effectively used to treat

contaminated stormwater runoff and enabling the water to be reused or more safely released into our

waterways”, says Mr Wadewitz.

Composting, a solution at the burning issues

Australians are the second highest waste producers in the world, second only to Americans. Australians now throw away 3.3 million tonnes of food every year – up to a quarter of the country’s food supplies.

Emissions from landfills are part of the Australian Federal Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction

Scheme (CPRS). If everyone composted, the total waste going to landfill could decrease by up to a

third. So emissions and fees from landfills will drop off.

Composting is definitively one of the most important leverages to achieve the 66% diversion rate target, an overall state target for the reduction of waste by 2014.

Finally, 2010 is the year of the bio diversity. This is the perfect time to reflect on our achievements to

safeguard biodiversity and focus on the urgency of our challenge for the future.

It is important for all Australians that International Composting Awareness Week achieves its stated

objectives. We all need to be aware of the benefits afforded to all of us when our business communities, households and agricultural sector composts.

Composting is the intelligent alternative. We can compost to help scrap carbon pollution. Composting is the responsible and sustainable thing to do for our planet.                                                                                              

Source: www.compostweek.com.au

Lucky Last: An Admission of Failure to Communicate?

Australia’s Chief Scientist Penny Sackett, who has previously said climate change is real and humans are contributing to it, admits the problem was not the credibility of the climate science but of miscommunication.  “We do have a communications failure, and I think we should admit that, we should address it,” Dr Sackett, an astronomer, told ABC Television. She suggested scientists and journalists should ask themselves how they could do a better job at improving the public’s understanding of climate science. She could start, in my humble opinion, by communicating more herself and encouraging the head of CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark, to do the same. There’s much more to be said on this.

 Both of our leading ladies of science have turned down invitations to contribute to this media outlet for a start and I’m sure other editors/journalists have experienced something similar. Yet it was Geoff Garrett, the head of CSIRO at the time of the Greenhouse Conference in October 2007, who also admitted that the scientific community had not communicated this issue – climate change – as effectively as it should have done.

In my book, through this weekly newsletter and by all other means possible, I have encouraged – and provided a channel for – scientists, Government, business and NGOs to get their messages across in plain language.

One has to admit that the climate change sceptics and deniers – along with some very vocal industry groups – are far better organised and effective with their communications efforts, through PR, media and lobbying, than our Government institutions, research organisations and universities. As Peter Doherty put it so well in last week’s express: Don’t shoot the messenger!

But we have to say that our scientific institutions and their leaders need to be much better messengers and communicators. We have some great examples of scientists who clearly communicate effectively: Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe, Bob Henson, Ann Henderson-Sellers, Peter Doherty.

However, we must resist blaming the media if the right messages are not getting through. Penny Sackett has not only admitted communication failure but said quite clearly “we should address it”. If she wants some advice on how to address it, there are plenty of communications experts around, in the private sector, she could turn to.

Unfortunately, Government has shown its own failure to manage its communication and has, partly at least, admitted that failure to get its CPRS off the ground is due to the fact that it hasn’t explained what it is and how it will work.

Let’s hope that the words of the chief scientist will be taken to heart and we see an improvement in the media and the message, starting with her own office and CSIRO.

Source: www.abccarbon.com

Energy efficiency, emissions & electric cars

Energy efficiency gets a welcome boost this week with a study showing that this measure alone, if adopted by major businesses in Australia, could on its own account for a 5% national reduction in emissions. Can we put up our hand and say we told you so? Ecosave gets in the picture, as do clean energy electric vehicles in California and Japan. Glaciers are melting more than ever. That’s a fact. And reports by international scientists also confirm that climate change is happening faster than IPCC predictions, while the New Scientist gives us some more reasons to seriously accept the role we humble humans have played in all this. Emissions are a global tradable commodity but not in quite the way we expected, while US Energy Secretary tells us all to get our green technology and clean energy working harder and faster. Can we believe that coal power is going carbon neutral or that geothermal is praying for saintly blessings from above? We do know that the Pacific has become a plastic dumping ground and a clean up is overdue. Lucky last, the Sustainability Showcase gets underway in Queensland.
Ken Hickson

Here to Stay – 100 Not Out!

We’ve had a good innings – personally and professionally – and, to maintain the cricketing analogy, we’re not about to pull up the stumps, either. This issue, our 100th since we started in March 2008, continues to cover the issues and the people who matter. We invited a few of our important readers around the globe to expressly write something and we were overwhelmed with contributions. So much so that more will appear next week. This issue we have a profile on Graeme Woods and his remarkable contribution to the new Global Change Institute and an article by Nobel Prize winner Peter Doherty. Two Amercian communicators – Bob Henson and Anna Clark – give us some wise words of wisdom, while Tony Frost from South Africa and Flemming Bermann from the UK give us their views on matters large and small. Jeff Harding wings in from Italy with Ceramic Fuel Cells in tow, while Fiona Wain has mega clean vision to share. Jan Birkeland espouses ecologically positive development, as Joan and Richard Cassels call for better change management. Greg Bourne urges us to go beyond Earth Hour and enterprising Neil Christie tells us how Envirofriendly is cleaning up the world. There’s some important links to CSIRO announcements and ABC’s Environment portal for a Sara Phillips story. And the first will be last, as I take to the podium and the page to sound off about the Queensland’s first Sustainability Showcase for Minister Kate Jones. More runs on the board and more scores to keep!

Ken Hickson

Profile : Graeme Wood

The man who founded and managed the very successful online accommodation website Wotif.com is in the news for his latest contribution – a $15 million grant to kick start the Global Change Institute. at The new think tank’s focus will be a multidisciplinary approach to interconnected issues such as environment, population shifts, energy innovation, and water and food security. With a keen interest in sustainability, Graeme Wood is also the founder of Wild Mob, a not-for-profit organisation providing volunteers with the opportunity to assist with environmental conservation projects in remote and iconic locations across Australia.

Reported by QBR (11 March 2010):

Queensland businessman Graeme Wood is donating $15 million to a new University of Queensland (UQ) institute which will tackle problems linked to global-scale change.

Governor of Queensland Penelope Wensley last night announced the donation by Wood, a founder of Wotif.com, when she launched the Global Change Institute (GCI) in Brisbane last night.

Wood immediately called on other successful Australians to join him in supporting the GCI, which will pit leading researchers against the most complex global problems.

“If we want to make a genuine impact on global issues concerning the environment and the effects of rapid population growth, the investment has to be substantial,” he says.

“Every gift counts but in order to make a difference, substantial support is necessary.”

According to Wood, universities are the logical places to find solutions to the world’s problems and therefore places in which businesses should invest on behalf of future generations.

“I call upon the business community, government and individuals to assist the University in bringing together the best national and international thinkers and practices towards solving these complex and pressing global issues,” he says.

“Our generation can and must make a mark in history by espousing altruism and responsible business practices to leave the world a better place for our children and grandchildren.”

The impressive contribution will seed a $40 million building at UQ’s St Lucia Campus which will employ sustainable design, construction and operating practices, including Australia’s largest solar photo-voltaic grid electricity generator.

This will reduce the St Lucia Campus’s peak electricity consumption by 6 percent and carbon emissions by 1.14 kt CO2e per annum.

The GCI’s focus will not be limited to first-order environmental problems, but include a multidisciplinary approach to interconnected issues such as population shifts, energy innovation, and water and food security.

Rockhampton-born Wood co-founded the online accommodation booking company, Wotif.com in 2000.

With a keen interest in sustainability, he is also the founder of Wild Mob, a not-for-profit organisation providing volunteers with the opportunity to assist with environmental conservation work in projects in remote and iconic locations across Australia.

Source: www.qbr.com.au

Wild Mob is a not-for-profit, non-political organisation launched in 2008 and is a registered Deductable Gift Recipient.
Founder and Chief Executive, Graeme Wood, is an Executive Director of the online accommodation website Wotif.com, which he co-founded in 2000. He supports philanthropic projects in the arts, education and the environment, and was announced the Suncorp Queenslander of the Year in June 2008.
Source: www.wildmob.org

The Courier-Mail 11 March 2010

GOVERNOR Penelope Wensley last night delivered the first speech in the University of Queensland’s
Centenary Oration Series. This is an edited extract.

ADVOCACY and awareness-raising may sound straightforward but, in my experience, having been involved with these matters throughout my working life as an Australian diplomat, it is a demanding task.
The aim is to seek to influence public perceptions and opinions, shape the decisions of decision-makers and, ultimately, to affect public debate and policy formulation. I am impressed and greatly pleased by the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute’s high ambitions in this area.
We speak and hear constantly about the complexity of global change, about the urgency of addressing it, about the need to galvanise public opinion. We are committing resources, rightly, to research, building collaborative networks among experts within and between countries but where are the communicators?
Where are the articulate advocates, the persons capable of explaining complexity, the voices of clarity and integrity that can be heard and trusted – capable of cutting through the noise and confusion of debate and competing claims, the distortions, the scaremongering, the misinformation and the disinformation?
It is enormously important that we continue to invest in scientific investigation, that we work to position and secure the place and reputation of Australian institutions, including our own University of Queensland, at the cutting edge of scientific and academic inquiry.
But we must take that further step of moving knowledge into the public domain.
This university’s medical research institutions have led the way by building links between researchers and clinicians, connecting laboratory to patients and doctors, taking information from “benchtop to bedside” and getting not only better results but breakthroughs.
In the same way, we need to focus more deliberately on improving communication capacity and capability and building credibility in this vital domain of information if the practical and attitudinal change that is needed in our communities to address global change is to be achieved.
This would bring about that shift from ideas to action and generation of political will to drive decision-makers.
In this area, I hope this institute will break new ground.
I have referred earlier to the “science wars”. I know that this term has a very particular meaning for some and that there is a very vigorous debate going on within the international scientific community around this issue. Leaving that very specific battlefield aside, my concern is a broader one, highly relevant to our Australian situation, to this new Global Change Institute and its future.
Since becoming Governor, I have championed at every possible opportunity the role and importance of science and scientific research.
I have promoted the excellence of Australian science and, in particular, of what is happening on the Queensland scene.
I have spoken often of how vital an input it is to good policy formulation and our capacity to defend and protect our national interests internationally, to sustain our prosperity and contribute to the resolution of global problems.
I have drawn attention to dropping levels of investment in some areas, notably agricultural research, where R & D spending as a portion of the gross value of agricultural production has dropped substantially in recent years.
I am reminded how critical science is for the development of those innovative, technological solutions we are seeking in so many areas of activity.
For a country that has benefited so greatly from scientific research this might seem unnecessary, but I believe it is a cause that we must continue to champion, not least because there is an observable assault on the credibility of science under way at this time – focused on the science of climate change, but with implications, potentially, for all areas of research.
There are studies available that show this is causing not just confusion and uncertainty in the public mind, but a degree of disengagement from science by some younger people.
There are also studies that suggest that the level of public education on science generally is “shallow”. This is another reason why I welcome so warmly the creation of this Global Change Institute at this time.
With the wealth of expertise available to it, the extraordinary strength and richness of the scientific institutions functioning at such high levels within the University of Queensland to inform its work, even before that work gets under way, it is well positioned, I believe, to address these issues: to change public perception, to add depth to public debate and knowledge, to change those trends of disengagement into involvement, to animate and energise the national debate on critical national and international issues – and, in so doing, enhance Australia’s capacity to meet the challenge of global change.
I wish it well in this complex but vital endeavour and it is now with great pleasure that I launch officially the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute
Source: www.couriermail.com.au

If the USA, UK, Europe, and increasingly China, see the low carbon and environmental goods and services sector as the basis of the world’s next great technology and economic era – why is Australia not yet planning to be among the leaders in creating new wealth and millions of new jobs by embracing transition to new markets served by new industries? The question is asked and the visionary answer supplied for abc carbon express by Fiona Wain, CEO of Environment Business Australia.

By 2030 Australia could be developing into a regional hub for minerals processing and heavy manufacturing at ‘mega clean energy parks’. That is the scale of green energy that solar thermal, geothermal, marine and wind energy could provide if supported by innovative policy at all three levels of Government.

With HVDC grids and smart connectors these mega parks could provide baseload electricity around the country – and even to Asia.

Drawing down the overload of atmospheric CO2 will be key in the shorter-term to tackling climate change and the converging threats of food and fuel security. A carbon biosequestration program using soils, crops, rangeland, native vegetation and forests to draw down legacy carbon in the atmosphere would help replenish soil carbon and nutrient levels while adding value to farmers and agricultural communities.

And the biofuel opportunities abound if we use waste CO2 from power plants as feedstock. Liquid fuels could be produced at industrial scale – synthesised by algae. This ‘next generation’ of biofuels would not compete with the food chain or further deplete soil nutrient levels.

‘Green cities’ should have all buildings at high energy efficiency standards. Public transport operating as an efficiency centre (and not an inefficient profit centre) would be complemented by an electric vehicle mobility system for private car use.

Energy to fuel the electric vehicles could increasingly come from local supply of renewable energy and co-generation systems or from the ‘mega parks’. Adding further value, the batteries on wheels could download renewable energy back into the grid at times of peak demand.

All these ideas and more are feasible and the technology already exists. The Catch 22 is scaling them up sufficiently to bring them down the cost curve – and of course scaling them up quickly enough to ensure that Australia is not left behind. This requires a new policy framework – institutional reform will be key to catalyse public and private sector investment. It is time for policy innovation to match technology’s evolution.

And the cost? Well how much do we plan on spending over the next 20 years on basic infrastructure, built environment, food supply, energy security, etc? Let’s make sure that spend is invested in desirable lifecycle outcomes by including – and comparing – capex investment; efficiencies generated by expenditure into operational improvements and avoiding collateral damage; new value-adding to current sectors of the economy; and most importantly, strategic planning to take advantage of new markets and new industries that are emerging the new jobs that will be created.

The lack of foresight shown by climate change sceptics, denialists and contrarians is chilling – that mainstream media outlets use it as fodder for ‘debate’ is absurd. We humans may be resilient but we rely entirely on eco-system services to support us. There is a speed of climate change we do not want to unleash, because there is no technology, no infrastructure, no amount of money that would be capable of replicating the way we live.

A true debate about how to make industrial and economic transition is welcome as we face converging threats of food security, desertification, fuel security and ocean acidification alongside climate change. Our efforts should focus on prosperity without collateral damage to communities, the environment, economies, and global security. “Balance” is not about trying to present a contrarian case as an equal voice, it is about harnessing vision to create the future we want – and avoid the outcomes we do not want.
Source: www.environmentbusiness.com.au

Scientists Might Not be Perfect But Don’t Shoot The Messenger
Nobel Prize winning scientist Peter Doherty – and author of the illuminating “A Light History of Hot Air” – has his say: “Scientists aren’t perfect. What keeps them honest is the constraint that their published data must be verifiable. Though there are numerous uncertainties in climate science and better data is needed in many areas, the fundamental physics of global warming have been understood for more than a century. Political spin, propaganda and bombastic media hype isn’t going to make this go away. Putting a realistic price on carbon makes sense and so does the idea of soil sequestration.” Here’s an article which first appeared in the Australian Financial Review last month.

Climategate and shooting the messenger, by Peter Doherty
Back in November 2009, just before the Copenhagen Climate Congress, we suddenly saw the release of about 1,000 e-mails pirated from a server used by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of Britain’s University of East Anglia. The police are still investigating, but what was in a few of these e-mails has been exploited to discredit both the integrity of the climate science community and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Leading CRU investigators and their correspondents were among the thousands of scientists who contributed to the fourth (and latest) IPCC report that summarizes what is happening globally with this enormously complex and difficult situation and speculates about possible outcomes.
Did “climategate”, as the affair has come to be called, reveal a fatal flaw? The currently stood–down CRU Director, Phil Jones, refers to a “trick” in presenting results for a peer reviewed journal article. The “trick” turned out to be a technique for combining two types of data that’s generally considered to be legitimate. They clearly regarded some of the outliers in their field as a waste of time, were reluctant to provide them with data and wanted to keep their conclusions out of the upcoming IPCC report. Then they were contemptuous of the journal “Climate Research”. The data exclusion story was concerning as information generated using public funds should be open access. But it turns out that much of the problem is with the constraints imposed by national governments. The scientists don’t own the data. Then, if the “conspirators” indeed meant to exclude some sets of findings from the IPCC report, that was ineffectual as the information appeared anyway.
These guys were naïve to put such reflections and “heat of the moment” thoughts in writing but, collaborating from different continents, e-mail is their conversation. How would you look if selected excerpts from your private, in-house, strategy or editorial discussions were published? Busy, committed people don’t suffer fools and crooks gladly. Active climate scientists who promote a more skeptical view are taken seriously, but every field has its lightweights. All disciplines have one or other peer-reviewed journal that’s at the bottom of the pile. Most don’t have to contend with well-funded, public disinformation campaigns. Scientists aren’t perfect. What keeps them honest is the constraint that their published data must be verifiable. From what I’ve read to date, those who’ve looked objectively and in depth at the “climategate” e-mails have concluded that there’s no real case to answer.
Just when it looked as though “climategate” had pretty much run its media course, we were faced with the information that the IPCC report is basically flawed as it contains a prediction that the Himalayan Glaciers could disappear completely by 2035. That surprised me, both because I didn’t recall seeing it in the politically important Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report for Policy Makers that’s closely scrutinized and signed off on by the 193 participating governments. Also, it didn’t fit with anything I’d read in the scientific literature. It turns out that the 2035 mistake is in the somewhat speculative WGII section of the 1600 page IPCC report. This bit is not subject to the constraint that it should only discuss peer-reviewed, published data, and also considers “gray” material from NGOs, environmental organizations and the like. It now seems there are other such “errors” and that there’s a good case for overhauling aspects of the IPCC process. In the end analysis, however, neither “climategate” nor the flaws in some of the more speculative sections discredit the basic IPCC case that we need to take action on anthropogenic climate change now. The “message” may resemble a frayed and blood stained battle flag but it’s still proudly flying. “Shooting the messenger” makes no sense.
Though there are numerous uncertainties in climate science and better data is needed in many areas, the fundamental physics of global warming have been understood for more than a century. If you want a brief summary of the current situation look at the US Government National Oceanographic Administration website http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/. Rising greenhouse gas levels that result largely from the massive dumping of fossil fuel combustion products into the atmosphere cause the progressive trapping of energy radiated by the earth. While atmospheric CO2 levels of 280 ppm stop our planet becoming an ice block, we’re now heading rapidly towards 450 ppm, a concentration that hasn’t been seen for at least 650,000 and maybe a couple of million years. Doubling greenhouse gas levels could increase global mean temperatures from the current 15C to 18C (±1.5C), with a rise of 4.5C or more being a possibility. Political spin, propaganda and bombastic media hype isn’t going to make this go away. Putting a realistic price on carbon makes sense and so does the idea of soil sequestration. The first necessity is to get legislation in place so that the markets can function to facilitate the necessary process of change and renewal. Action provides opportunity!
Peter Charles Doherty is also professor of biomedical research and chair of the Immunology Department at St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Tennessee. He is distinguished for his study of major histocompatibility antigens’ role in immune recognition, particularly in virus-infected cells. He shared the 1996 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine with Rolf Zinkernagel.
Source: www.unimelb.edu.au

Eight Steps to Overcome Barriers To Sustainability Home and Away

When Anna Clark started her journey into sustainability, it came after “the sickening revelation” that her household consumed five planets worth of resources. Now she has a sustainability consulting practice, has moved to a platinum-level LEED certified home, planted a garden, and adjusted her consumer habits considerably. Her ecological footprint measure says she’s now down to three planets. In this article, Anna comes up with an all-American eight step personal sustainability plan, which now goes global.

Overcoming the Barriers to a Sustainable America by Anna Clark

Can five percent of the earth’s people consume one quarter of its energy? America is proof the answer is yes. This leaves some thinking, “How can one country go on like this when two billion people live in energy poverty?” Our lopsided consumption is not limited to energy.

While one third of Americans struggle with their weight, 800 million suffer from hunger. Convenient and over-simplistic explanations include apathy, consumerism, and good old-fashioned greed. However, only some of the fault lies with human (and not uniquely American) foibles. The greater truth is more complicated.

The most insidious reasons for the unfair distribution of life’s vital resources are systemic. Cheap, abundant energy, a car-based culture, and a business-friendly financial system are a few of the reasons why sustainable development hasn’t taken root. This is changing, albeit slowly, because the very notion of conservation runs counter to a consumer-based economy.

As countries like India and China adopt our ways, the scope of the problem goes global. If America is to blame for overconsumption, then we might call developing countries that manufacture our products our accomplices. But condemnation is unproductive in a world so desperate for solutions.

Fortunately, the steps to a sustainable America are simpler than we think, and the positive ripples have the potential to span the globe. Here are eight simple actions that will cost us little while fostering a sustainable future and restoring us to a position of leadership for the long haul:

1. Promote energy efficiency. According to a McKinsey report, the U.S. economy has the potential to reduce annual non-transportation energy consumption by roughly 23 percent by 2020, eliminating more than $1.2 trillion in waste – well beyond the $520 billion upfront investment that would be required. The reduction in energy use would result in the abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually – the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads.

2. Conserve. Too many of us have confused the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of stuff. The proliferation of cheap goods makes hyper-consumerism too easy. Product sales keep our economy churning. They also create waste and pollution while exacerbating the offshoring of American manufacturing. The Center for the New American Dream provides tools that help use live well with less and enjoy life more.

3. Pursue conscious capitalism. The land of opportunity can be a profound lever of social change when we apply American ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit to solving the world’s most pressing problems. Businesses like TOMS, which purchase a pair of shoes for impoverished villagers for every pair it sells, prove that having a mission can drive success, not hinder it.

4. Learn. Claiming you don’t know the law isn’t enough to avoid a traffic violation. The same should go for being a global citizen. Awareness is part of functioning as a member of 21st century society. For example, did you know that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by just 10%, we could have enough grain left over to feed 60 million people? There is empowerment in recognizing our individual roles, however small, in mitigating issues from world hunger to water scarcity.

5. Teach. You don’t need a world stage to teach sustainability. A small garden patch will do. If you have a child and a recycling bin, or a next-door neighbor and a backyard, you have an audience and a platform large enough to make a difference.

6. Vote with your dollars. We exercise our voice for a better planet with every product we buy, or decide not to buy. Purchasing organic produce is good; growing your own is even better. Shopping is a reality, but we can spend more consciously by learning labels and researching the sustainability programs of our favorite companies.

7. Forget partisan politics. George Washington warned us of the dangers of the two-party system. It’s a good thing our forefathers didn’t live to see us mired in this political divide. Sustainability, with its economic and health benefits, is one value that we can all share. Green is the glue that can pull us back together.

8. Take responsibility. Sustainability is not a policy decision to be left to institutions like government or business. It’s a personal expression of respect for our fellow man. We need to get sustainability out of our heads and into our hearts. To get radical, think of “green” as the Golden Rule: treat your (global) neighbor as yourself.

When I started my journey into sustainability, it was following the sickening revelation that my household consumed five planets worth of resources. Since that time, I’ve launched a sustainability consulting practice, moved to a platinum-level LEED certified home, planted a garden, and adjusted my consumer habits considerably. I recently recalculated our ecological footprint to gauge how well I’m doing. Now we’re down to three planets. Disappointing, but progress nevertheless. My point? Natural living doesn’t come naturally for most Americans, no matter how hard we may try. It requires change – that’s the real inconvenient truth.
The good news is that easy incremental changes on all our parts can improve matters considerably. The economic opportunities inherent in these simple solutions easily compensates for the cost in addressing the problems. Sustainable living also strengthens our familial bonds and our bolsters community ties. Sustainable development is a feasible resolution to volatile energy prices; water scarcity; toxins in our air, food and water; and climate change. Sustainability gives consumers healthier products and companies a competitive advantage. More than a good idea, sustainability might even be our best change to preserve the American way of life in a rapidly changing world.

Anna Clark is president of EarthPeople, LLC and the author of Green, American Style. She writes on sustainability and leadership.
Anna Clark is president of EarthPeople, a consulting and communications firm that helps clients of all sizes save money and bolster their brands through profitable green strategies.
Her ideas for greening small business have appeared in USA Today and on Greenbiz.com, FOX Business.com and Entrepreneur Radio. Her first book Green, American Style, is scheduled for release in April 2010.
Anna lives in Dallas with her husband and two preschoolers in one of Texas’ first residences to earn a platinum LEED-certified rating from the US Green Building Council. She writes and speaks on topics ranging from green living to leadership.

Source: www.earthpeopleco.com

Natural Gas Can Generate Electricity For The Home

By the time electricity from coal fired power stations gets to where it is used, the efficiency has dropped to less than 25%, meaning three quarters of the energy has been wasted. Clean energy guru Jeff Harding points this out. Just as mainframe computers gave way to personal computers, the energy system needs to move from a ‘centralised’ model towards a ‘distributed’ or ‘embedded’ model, where thousands of mini power stations are installed in homes and other buildings, just where the power is needed. Ceramic Fuel Cells can supplement renewable generation to reduce carbon emissions

Think Beyond Renewables to Cut Carbon Emissions
By Jeff Harding, Chairman Ceramic Fuel Cells.

It is now well recognised that the world’s energy system requires a transformation. Energy use is rising, particularly summer peak demand for electricity, and the monopoly electricity network companies are spending billions to upgrade ageing infrastructure, which is passed on to the consumer through increased power bills.

And yet there is bi-partisan agreement that Australia must cut its greenhouse gas emissions, especially from power generation.

The problem is particularly severe in Australia, which burns coal to generate most of its electricity. These generators have an efficiency of less than 30 percent. By the time the power gets to where it is used, the efficiency has dropped to less than 25 percent, meaning three quarters of the energy has been wasted.

Burning coal is the most polluting way of generating electricity. Australia’s per capita carbon emissions are the highest in the world – about 23 tonnes per person, per year.

The current model of building large, inefficient power stations, a long way from where the power is needed, is no longer good enough. We need new thinking to transform our energy system.

Just as mainframe computers gave way to personal computers, the energy system is moving from a ‘centralised’ model towards a ‘distributed’ or ‘embedded’ model, where thousands of mini power stations are installed in homes and other buildings, just where the power is needed.

Renewable energy such as solar, wave, wind and geothermal are absolutely necessary but cannot provide the whole answer. Nuclear energy is environmentally preferable to coal but has long lead times and other well known issues.

Fuel cells using natural gas can provide low emission baseload power, with significant benefits to the environment and the energy network – and significant cost savings.

Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited, based in Melbourne, has launched a gas to electricity generator called “BlueGen”. The unit operates constantly, all-year round – complementing solar and wind which are intermittent and not controllable. One BlueGen operating constantly at 1.5kW will generate about 12,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year – twice the annual requirement of the average home in Victoria. The excess is sold back to the grid. BlueGen also makes enough heat for provide 200 litres of hot water per day – enough for the average family home.

About the size of a home dishwasher, BlueGen units can be installed without additional infrastructure costs, and with significant environmental benefits. It delivers electricity at about 60% efficiency, with an additional 25% of the energy being collected as heat which goes into the hot water system.

A home with a BlueGen unit can actually offset more carbon than a home with a typical solar PV system. For example, in Sydney a 2kW solar PV system will generate about 3,500 kilowatt hours of electricity per year and offset about 3.7 tonnes of carbon. A BlueGen unit in the same house could generate more than 12,000 kilowatt hours of electricity and save about 9 tonnes of carbon per year. Even though the BlueGen uses natural gas, the carbon savings are much higher because over the year it provides all the power the home needs – and more. A home with a solar PV unit still relies on higher emission grid power.

Ceramic Fuel Cells has received orders for 13 BlueGen units from leading energy companies in Europe, plus VicUrban in Melbourne and Energy Australia in Sydney. Many large markets provide incentives for these units to be installed – including Germany, France, UK, USA, Japan and Korea. No incentives are currently available in Australia.

To achieve the world’s carbon reduction goals requires open thinking: a product using natural gas – with very high efficiency – can supplement renewable generation to reduce carbon emissions, quickly and cheaply.

Source: www.cfcl.com.au