Green & Eco Friendly Leaders Wanted!

Who do you think has the most influence when it comes to creating awareness and taking action for the climate, the planet, the environment and life on earth?  We want you to nominate  those very green and eco-friendly leaders who you think deserve to be on the ABC Carbon 50 honours list.  Unlike the Time Magazine 100 Most Influential, ours is by necessary limited to Australia – or at least those mostly living and working in and for the country. Those who “Think Global, and Act Local”. It’s as easy as replying to this email with your nominations. Closing date is 31 May.To feed your mind and give you ideas, keep reading. What are people like Will Steffen and Tony Blair up to? What’s happening in places as far apart as Vietnam and New Zealand? How hot is it really getting and what’s the word from the US and Australia? Electric vehicles and energy efficiency are in the news again. IT energy use and underwater reef research is considered. And in the end we hear from a high powered panel of experts on what progress there is towards a low carbon economy.   It’s the deal.                     

- Ken Hickson

Profile: Professor Will Steffen

A key science adviser to the past Howard Government and the present Rudd government has described the debate in the media over the basics of climate change science as ”almost infantile”, equating it to an argument about the existence of gravity. Professor Will Steffen said this to the  Australian Davos Connection’s  Future Summit, while also pointing out in his latest book that Australia’s unique biodiversity is under threat from a rapidly changing climate.

Adam Morton in The Age (25 May 2010):

A science adviser to the federal government has described the debate in the media over the basics of climate change science as ”almost infantile”, equating it to an argument about the existence of gravity.

Speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice.

While there were uncertainties about the pace and impact of change, he said, the core of climate science – that the world was warming and the primary cause since the middle of the last century had been industrial greenhouse gas emissions – should be accepted with the same confidence as the laws of gravity and relativity.

”It’s a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals – and they have been disproved,” Professor Steffen said after an address at the Australian Davos Connection’s Future Summit.

”Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether ‘is it real or isn’t it real?’, it’s like saying, ‘Is the Earth round or is it flat?’ [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.” He called on the media to focus on areas where there was not a consensus, including the link between climate change and the south-east Australian drought and how rapidly sea levels would rise.

Professor Steffen, the executive director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, was appointed a science adviser by the Howard government in 2004. He has advised Labor’s Penny Wong and the Coalition’s Ian Campbell and Malcolm Turnbull.

Asked about the scepticism of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, he said scientists respected leaders from both sides of politics who showed respect for scientific expertise.

”You can have a very partisan approach to the policy and how you deal with it – that’s fair game – but I think a wise society would respect the judgment of its experts, bearing in mind that that judgment is continually debated within [the scientific community],” he said.

Source: www.theage.com.au

Will Steffen on his contribution to a new book – Australia’s Biodiversity and Climate Change:

Australia’s unique biodiversity is under threat from a rapidly changing climate. The effects of climate change are already discernible at all levels of biodiversity – genes, species, communities and ecosystems.

Many of Australia’s most valued and iconic natural areas – the Great Barrier Reef, south-western Australia, the Kakadu wetlands and the Australian Alps – are among the most vulnerable.

But much more is at stake than saving iconic species or ecosystems. Australia’s biodiversity is fundamental to the country’s national identity, economy and quality of life.

Australia’s biodiversity is fundamental to the country’s national identity, economy and quality of life.

Dr Will Steffen, lead author of the new book Australia’s Biodiversity and Climate Change, talks about the science behind the book and the process of working with the authoring team to pull this important book together.

Source: www.publish.csiro.au

His Professional Background
Will Steffen has a long history in international global change research, serving from 1998 to 2004 as Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), based in Stockholm, Sweden, and before that as Executive Officer of IGBP’s Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems project.   Prior to taking up the CCI Directorship in 2008, Steffen was the inaugural director of the ANU Fenner School of Environment and Society. From 2004 he has served as science adviser to the Department of Climate Change, Australian Government.

His Research and Teaching Interests
Will Steffen’s interests span a broad range within the field of sustainability and Earth System science, with an emphasis on the science of climate change, approaches to climate change adaptation in land systems, incorporation of human processes in Earth System modelling and analysis; and the history and future of the relationship between hum ans and the rest of nature. 

Here are  some event coming up organised by or in association with Will Steffen’s Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute:

Canberra: Thinking together about sustainability, development and growth

Thursday, May 27^th 6:00 pm—9:00 pm

Climate Change and Game Theory

Thursday, May 27^th 12.30 pm—13.30 pm

Healthy Climate, Planet and People Conference

Wednesday, June 23^rd 9.00 am—5.00 pm

Conference: Democratizing Climate Governance

Thursday, July 15^th 9.00 am—5.00 pm

Source: www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/

El Nino Heats Up Climate Change

Climate scientists say 2010 could turn out to be the warmest year in recorded history. They have collated global surface temperature measurements showing the world has experienced near-record highs between January and April. Researchers working independently at Britain’s Met Office and NASA are soon to publish data that reveal the trend is likely to continue for the rest of the year.

In The Australian  (24 May 2010):

CLIMATE scientists have warned that 2010 could turn out to be the warmest year in recorded history.

They have collated global surface temperature measurements showing the world has experienced near-record highs between January and April.

Researchers working independently at Britain’s Met Office and NASA are soon to publish data that reveal the trend is likely to continue for the rest of the year.

James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a world centre for climate monitoring, said: “Global temperatures, averaged over the past 12 months, were the warmest for 130 years. December to February was also the second warmest of any such period.”

Vicky Pope from the Met Office said: “It was a cold winter in Europe but, globally, January to March was one of the seven warmest starts to the year on record.

“This year has more than a 50 per cent chance of being the warmest on record.”

The average global surface temperature is based on measurements taken from thousands of monitoring stations and satellites.

These measurements are collated and independently analysed by the Met Office, GISS and at the National Climatic Data Centre in North Carolina.

The GISS record shows that from January to April this year, the global temperature was elevated by an average of 0.75C, compared with benchmark temperatures.

Climate change was not the only suspected cause. Research suggests that the warming is also strongly linked to a temporary shift in Pacific currents, known as El Nino, which has caused the ocean to release large amounts of heat into the atmosphere.

Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said: “We have seen rapid warming recently, but it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change.

“However, this warming is in addition to the 0.7C long-term rise in global temperature caused by climate change. The record temperatures are due to the two factors adding together.”

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, was cautious about predicting record temperatures for this year, pointing out that the global datasets for temperature had flaws that could lead to rises being overstated. “Be wary of climate forecasts – Mother Nature always seems to have a trick up her sleeve,” he said.

Reported by The Sunday Times

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Stand By Your Plan: NZ Keeps Emissions On Track

Australia may have ditched its planned emissions trading scheme, but New Zealand prime minister John Key today confirmed the country will launch its scheme in July. It will cover all businesses in the forestry, transport fuels, industrial processes, synthetic gases, agriculture, waste and electricity production sectors.

Tom Young in BusinessGreen  (24 May 2010):

New Zealand is standing by its carbon trading plans

Australia may have ditched its planned emissions trading scheme, but New Zealand prime minister John Key today confirmed the country will launch its scheme in July.

New Zealand will go ahead with its proposed carbon trading scheme despite Australia abandoning its plan to price carbon last month, prime minister John Key said this morning.

There had been reports in the press that the Key administration might follow Australia’s lead and abandon its emissions trading legislation in the face of public opposition.

But speaking in an interview on Television New Zealand earlier today, Key said there was “no chance” that the scheme would be postponed, pledging that it would be launched as planned from 1 July this year.

Key argued that abandoning the scheme would risk international scorn and trade boycotts, as many other nations were already engaged in emission trading schemes (ETS).

“If our goods were blocked going into international markets or if we weren’t seen to be playing our part when it comes to climate change, I think that would be bad for us,” Key said. “Of the 38 countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol, 29 of them [already] have an ETS.”

All EU nations are involved in an emissions trading scheme, although the  US and China currently only operate regional emissions trading schemes and have no set date in place to launch national schemes.

The New Zealand scheme will cover all businesses in the forestry, transport fuels, industrial processes, synthetic gases, agriculture, waste and electricity production sectors.

All participants will have to measure and report their emissions by 2012 before then taking part in a cap-and-trade scheme broadly modelled on that already in place in the EU.

Companies covered by the scheme are expected to pass the resulting carbon price on to customers and Key admitted that the plan will cost households NZ$3 ($2) a week and is expected to raise the cost of petrol by three cents a litre, while increasing electricity prices by five per cent.

The government will use revenues of NZ$600m ($404m) generated by the scheme for planting trees, as part of a wider NZ$1.6bn ($1.1bn) planting programme over the next five years.

“The question for a household is are they prepared to pay $3 a week for the insurance premium of our environment, and I think the answer to that is ‘yes’,” Key said. “We’ve got a very modest ETS.”

The New Zealand opposition Labour Party’s energy spokesman Charles Chauvel criticised the government’s plan on the grounds that it would raise electricity prices for poorer households.

“This comes at a time of nil wage growth, continuing upwards pressure on those on fixed incomes and forecast inflation of nearly six per cent,” Chauvel said in a statement. “[Our] ETS would have provided transitional relief for low and middle income households. [The government] has failed to design a scheme that does this”.

Source:  www.businessgreen.com

Beyond the Environment, it’s a Sustainability Problem

The National Academy of Sciences, a group of elite American researchers that advises the US government, issued an 869-page report underscoring mankind’s role in altering the climate. It also called for specific policy measures to help forestall undesirable effects. Stanford’s Pamela Matson says the nation needs a comprehensive, integrated and flexible climate change research enterprise that is closely linked with action-oriented programs at all levels.

By Gautam Naik in Wall Street Journal (21 May 2010):

The National Academy of Sciences, a group of elite American researchers that advises the U.S. government, on Wednesday issued an 869-page report reasserting mankind’s role in altering the climate and calling for specific policy measures to help forestall undesirable effects.

The report, requested by Congress 2008, essentially supports the main findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body whose most recent report released in 2007 was criticized for containing several errors.

Those errors and the publishing of unflattering emails hacked from a U.K. lab have put climate-change science in the hot seat in recent months.

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks,” the academy report concludes. The peer-reviewed study was done by 55 scientists from academia, industry and elsewhere vetted by the academy.

The next IPCC report will be in 2014. In some areas, the study provides a more up-to-date assessment of climate change. “We carefully looked at the scientific literature of the last five years, our own [academy] research,” plus other sources, said Pamela Matson, dean of Stanford University’s school of earth sciences, who helped compile the report.

Nonetheless, the academy acknowledged that there is significant uncertainty when attempting longer-term predictions about climate change.

For example, the 2007 IPCC report said sea levels could rise by between 0.6 and 1.9 feet by 2100, but later studies suggested that forecast was too conservative. The academy’s report incorporates the newer research and concludes that sea levels could rise by as much as 6.5 feet in that period.

The new report also urges the U.S. to take bold steps to cut fossil-fuel use, calling for a carbon tax on such fuels—mainly oil and coal—or a cap-and-trade system, which offers monetary incentives to cut emissions of pollutants. Those recommendations are a big step up from the less-sharply-worded prescriptions issued by the academy in the past.

“The charge we got from Congress was not just to tell them what the science says but what to do about the problem,” said Robert Fri, a visiting scholar at the nonprofit Resources for the Future, who helped compile the report.

The report says that the U.S. emissions of between 170 billion to 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent from 2012 until 2050 would be a “reasonable goal,” in line with reduction targets proposed by the White House. In 2008, the U.S. emitted about seven billion tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent. At that rate, the U.S. will run through the suggested emission amounts well before 2050, the academy said.

Source: www.online.wsj.com

Stanford’s Pamela Matson urges U.S. to adopt coordinated research program on climate change

Temperatures are rising, and the U.S. must respond with a coordinated research program, said Stanford researcher Pamela Matson, who chaired a recent study by the National Research Council:  ”We need to focus not just on improving our fundamental understanding of climate change but also informing and expanding America’s climate choices.”

By Daniel Strain for Stanford Report (21 May 2010):

The National Research Council issued three major climate reports on Wednesday recommending that the United States act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of global warming.

The three reports were commissioned by Congress in 2008 to inform and guide the nation’s response to climate change.  Pamela Matson, dean of the School of Earth Sciences at Stanford, presented the findings of one report, Advancing the Science of Climate Change at a news briefing in Washington, D.C. The report was prepared by a panel of 20 climate experts chaired by Matson.

“The core phenomena of climate change have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of scientific debate for several decades,” said Matson, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment. “The nation needs a comprehensive, integrated and flexible climate change research enterprise that is closely linked with action-oriented programs at all levels.”

To accomplish that goal, the report recommended giving a single federal program the authority and resources to implement a national climate change research effort.

Affirming climate change

In the report, Matson and her colleagues affirmed that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

Global temperatures have risen an average of about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century, they wrote, and this hike is largely due to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release greenhouse gases.

Rising temperatures could have big consequences for global ecosystems and humanity, Matson said, igniting a chain of events that could lead to more severe storms and even starvation. “Climate change is not just an environmental problem,” she said. “It’s a sustainability problem.”

Impacts will vary at the regional level, she added. California, for example, could see an increase in droughts over the coming decades as Sierra Nevada snowpacks  – which provide the state most of its freshwater – shrink. “We need to know more about climate change at the regional scale,” Matson said.

Although the causes of global warming are well understood, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about the magnitude and rate of future climate change, the report said, noting that climate models project an additional warming of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

Some of this uncertainty stems from the complexity of the Earth, Matson said. For example, estimates of sea level rise – anywhere from 0.6 feet to 6.5 feet – vary because scientists don’t know all the dynamics of how large ice caps melt, such as those over Greenland and Antarctica.

“We need to understand more about metrics and measures and processes to predict who’s vulnerable and who’s not to climate change,” Matson said.

New era of research

In the report, Matson and her colleagues called for a “new era of climate science research.” The panel recommended that scientists and policymakers form a national umbrella organization “aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change.”

The U.S. Global Change Research Group, a collaboration of federal agencies established by Congress in 1989, could fulfill this role, but the agency would need to “address weaknesses” that have led to gaps in research on how best to respond to global warming.

 ”We need to focus not just on improving our fundamental understanding of climate change but also informing and expanding America’s climate choices,” Matson said.

The linchpin to this new era, she said, will be to build a dialogue between scientists and the people in government and industry who will make decisions on how to adapt and respond to change.  “It’s very important for scientists to understand what the concerns of decision-makers are so they can focus their attention in the right directions,” Matson said.

Last week, members of the U.S. Senate introduced a comprehensive energy bill designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationwide. Matson said that she and other panelists hope that their recommendations will help inform this debate.

“If we understand what the challenges are, we will do a better job of developing the scientific information that will help them make good, effective decisions,” she said.

“We recognize that scientists aren’t going to be the ones making decisions.”

In addition to Matson, the panel also included Stanford researchers John Weyant, a research professor of management science and engineering and a senior fellow at the Woods Institute and Precourt Institute for Energy; and Ken Caldeira, an associate professor, by courtesy, of geological and environmental sciences.

The National Research Council is administered by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The mission of the council is to provide elected leaders, policy makers and the public with expert advice based on sound scientific evidence.

Daniel Strain is a science-writing intern at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.

Source: www.news.stanford.edu

Underwater Lab Plots Climate Change Reef Impacts

A project team, led by David Kline, a young scientist from the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute, is completing tests on a new underwater laboratory that will expose living corals on the Great Barrier Reef to the more acidic conditions forecast for oceans by the end of the century.

Jo Chandler in Sydney Morning Herald (24 May 2010):

May 24, 2010

ON AN idyllic coral atoll just a two-hour boat ride from Queensland’s Gladstone Harbour, out past the endless line of tankers queued to load coal for export, a half-dozen scientists work frantically against the tide.

Their objective? To explore the consequences of rising atmospheric carbon – which evidence overwhelmingly attributes to the burning of coal and other fossil fuels – on the delicate chemistry of the reef and the creatures living there.

The project team, led by David Kline, a young scientist from the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute, is completing tests on a new underwater laboratory that will expose living corals on the Great Barrier Reef to the more acidic conditions forecast for oceans by the end of the century.

A Queensland University researcher tests the Barrier Reef laboratory that will expose corals to the more acidic conditions forcase for oceans by the end of the century.

The team has spent weeks working around the ebb and flow of tides, connecting four narrow, two-metre transparent chambers pegged over the reef shelf to the complex technology required to manage and monitor them. Small fish and currents move naturally through the porous structures, two of which will be constantly dosed with seawater flushed with carbon dioxide to lower the pH.

”This system here is the heart of the experiment,” Dr Kline explains to a film crew from the BBC natural history unit as he stands in the shallows, patting his hand on a floating platform loaded with pumps, cables and 50 instruments, all in constant conversation with ”the brains” – a computer program running in a laboratory a few metres away on shore.

International interest is high because this is the first in situ investigation of its type. Findings from the Free Ocean Carbon Enrichment (FOCE) project will be keenly studied by scientists around the world.

Fathoming the effects of ocean acidification – the ”other” carbon problem, one that emerged in scientific literature only a decade ago – has become one of the most urgent issues on the science agenda. The potentially diabolical consequences were highlighted in major briefing papers presented last week by the United States National Research Council to the US Congress and by the European Science Foundation to national leaders. The papers appealed to governments to give the issue priority for investigation and action.

”The chemistry of the ocean is changing at an unprecedented rate and magnitude due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions,” the NRC has said. ”The rate of change exceeds any known to have occurred for at least the past hundreds of thousands of years.”

Ocean acidification occurs when carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves in naturally alkaline seawater, forming weak carbonic acid. Studies show the world’s oceans have a huge appetite for carbon, and have insulated humanity from greenhouse warming by gulping in about one-third of the emissions pumped into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

But the process lowers the overall pH of seawater – by about 30 per cent over the past 200 years. It also soaks up carbonate ions, which are crucial to marine organisms making their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.

The Heron Island experiment assumes a future with seawater twice as acidic as today, a more conservative take than published business-as-usual scenarios, which put the increase at 150 per cent by 2100. The question scientists are racing to answer is what a more acidic environment will mean for the tiny shelled zooplankton on which the marine food chain depends, and for the skeletons corals build into reefs.

The fear, explains the director of the Global Change Institute and head of the Australian Research Council-funded research team, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, is that the change hits these creatures on two fronts – creating a more corrosive environment, and depleting stocks of building materials. ”If these organisms can’t compensate for that … reef growth will slow until the reef superstructure begins to crumble. If coral populations disappear you put at risk about a million or so species, and all of the beautiful benefits to humans such as fisheries, coastal protection, tourist industries and so on.”

Meanwhile, he says, reefs are struggling with the effects of rising temperatures, which can trigger bleaching – when the stressed coral hosts expel the microscopic algae on which they rely for survival. He likens simultaneous bleaching and acidification to ”having two rhinos run at you from different directions”. Maybe by some miracle you will escape, but the odds are not good.

”Ocean acidification is already occurring and will get worse,” said Professor Jelle Bijma, lead author of the European Science Foundation document, when it was presented last week. Combined with warming, ”we are in double trouble. The combination of the two may be the most critical environmental and economic challenge of the century”.

Dr Kline says some of his corals will be airbrushed to mimic bleaching, to see how damaged structures respond to the more acid environment. This will provide clues on whether reef atolls will continue to provide a platform for new communities to grow – ”or is the balance going to shift … are these massive reef structures going to end up dissolving?”

To date, exploration of these questions has been limited to laboratory aquaria. ”But seeing how they behave in the natural world is vital to gaining a reliable sense of where the future lies,” says Dr Kline. Ecosystems may turn out to be more resilient – or less – than the models show. ”Here in the world, the corals are surrounded by their natural community – you have natural water, natural light,” he explains, making final adjustments to the chambers.

They rest on layers of sands that have their own complex chemistry of carbonates and biota, which may help corals cope with a more acidic future.

”I’m hoping that these environments have some ability to buffer the impact of ocean acidification, and thereby part of the biodiversity of islands and coral reefs would be preserved,” says Dr Hoegh-Guldberg. ”But its 50:50. I actually think that what we are seeing in the laboratory is repeated in nature.”

The Queensland coalmines may be just over the horizon, but ”this is a big fat canary”, he says of the reef.

”Something as complex and broad a feature as coral reefs is now sickening and dying … This is really giving us a warning sign that maybe the whole basis of our dependence on this planet, the biological and ecological services, will change.”

Source: www.smh.com.au

Devices On Standby Account for 20% of IT Power Consumption

Millions of computers and gadgets used by Australians for business and pleasure are contributing heavily to the nation’s greenhouse tally, a report produced for the Australian Computer Society by Connection Research clearly shows. IT equipment and use accounts for 7% of the nation’s electricity and 2.7% of his emissions.

Andrew Colley in The Australian (25 May 2010):

Millions of computers and gadgets used by Australians for business and pleasure are contributing heavily to the nation’s greenhouse tally, a report produced for the Australian Computer Society by Connection Research clearly shows.

The report, commissioned by the Australian Computer Society and said to be the first of its kind, finds that IT equipment last year consumed 7 per cent of the country’s electricity output and contributed 2.7 per cent of its carbon emissions.

Producing about 14.4 megatonnes of carbon dioxide last year, IT equipment had an emissions footprint on the scale of the large greenhouse polluters.

IT equipment emissions were 18.2 per cent of the size of transport (79Mt) and 53.2 per cent of industrial production (27Mt).

“By any estimation, (the IT sector’s) energy consumption and carbon emissions are significant proportion of Australia’s total,” the report’s authors wrote.

The report appeared to show a marked jump in greenhouse emissions caused by IT equipment since 2007, when the ACS calculated it at about 1.5 per cent of the total output.

Most of the increase was due to the inclusion of household devices such as home computers, game consoles and portable music players.

Otherwise, said ACS president Anthony Wong, enterprise and government greenhouse emissions had been stable. “It’s a mere 0.1 per cent increase over the last three years.”

The domestic contribution to IT systems’ greenhouse gas output accounted for 34.6 per cent of the sector’s total.

Mr Wong said that was because of increased blurring of the line between work and home.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

For the complete report go to the websites shown below, but here is a summary for abc carbon express readers, including the key recommendations:

ICT is responsible for nearly 2.7 percent of Australia’s total carbon emissions. More significantly, it is directly responsible for more than 7 per cent of all electricity generated in Australia. These are significant figures, particularly given that Australia is one of the largest carbon emitters per capita in the world.

The findings published in a research report commissioned by the Australian Computer Society (ACS) and released today. The figures were arrived at through detailed modelling of all ICT usage in Australia – enterprise, household, and telecommunications network infrastructure.

In 2009 Australia’s ICT users consumed 13.248 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, which caused 14.365 Megatonnes (Mt) of Scope 2 CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions. This compares to Australia’s total emissions of 539 Mt, and total electricity generated of 203 Mt.

The biggest components of ICT carbon emissions are data centre environment (18.8 per cent), PCs (15.8 per cent), printers and imaging equipment (15.7%) and servers (14.7%). But if video monitors are added to PCs, their total energy consumption exceeds a quarter of the total. Add games consoles, and the figure is nearly one third of the total. Games consoles consume five times more energy than mainframe computers.

Mobile phones and other portable devices, though widely used, account for only 1 per cent of ICT energy consumption, and fixed line telephones and related equipment less than 2 per cent. But data networking equipment accounts for more than 7 per cent, and the network infrastructure to support the voice and data another 8.6 per cent.

There is an almost even split between households (34.6 per cent), data centres (34.4 per cent) and a combination of other enterprise ICT usage (22.4 per cent) and network infrastructure (8.6%). The majority of data centre power consumption is accounted for by environmentals – mostly air conditioning and other types of cooling. The household figure is so high because of the sheer number of PCs and video monitors (and games consoles) they contain – an average of close to two devices per household, for over eight million households.

The report makes a number of recommendations:

1. Work Harder on Data Centre Efficiency

Data centres are responsible for more than one third of Australia’s ICT footprint. The real culprit is data centre cooling – data centre environmentals consume more power than data centre ICT equipment. There are many techniques and technologies for increasing the energy efficiency of data centres – they all need to be implemented, and quickly.

1. Reduce the Usage and the Number of Printers and Imaging Devices

Printers, multi-function devices, fax machines, scanners – they are real energy hogs. The report shows the massive amount of energy they use. Most people print too much, though the techniques for saving on printing are well known – print management, centralised printing, duplex printing (though its advantages are greatly overrated). The easiest thing is to simply print less, and on fewer printers. We don’t need all that paper, and we certainly don’t need all those printers.

1. Turn Computers Off – Standby is Not Good Enough

Standby power is power wasted. The research for this study clearly shows that electronic devices left on when they are not being used constitute close to 20 per cent of all ICT power consumption. With some devices, like games consoles and video monitors, the waste is excessive. Turn them off at the wall when not in use, or implement power management systems that have the same effect.

1. Think Green

There are many ways to reduce ICT power consumption. Most of them have to do with changing behaviour, not introducing new technology. Green ICT does not cost money, it saves money. All ICT users, from casual home users to power users in large corporations, should adopt a power saving attitude to everything they do in ICT.

1. Use ICT to Reduce Carbon Emissions in Other Areas

We can work hard on reducing ICT’s carbon footprint, but much more significant savings can be made outside of ICT – improving business processes, making transport and electricity distribution and building systems and healthcare more efficient – working greener, not harder. Efficiency means green. They are the same thing. ICT has always been an enabling technology.

The report was researched and produced for the ACS by Sydney based market analysis company Connection Research. Research director and report author Graeme Philipson, a long time ICT industry journalist and analyst, says the report is the culmination of many months of work.

“A few people have talked about doing an analysis of this nature for some time now, but it always seemed too big a job. It’s great that the ACS has taken the initiative. The final result owes a lot to many individuals and organisations who contributed information and ideas. It has been extensively reviewed by many industry figures, and we believe the findings and the analysis will stand up to the closest scrutiny. We had to get it right.”

About the Australian Computer Society

The ACS is the recognised association for ICT professionals in Australia, attracting a large and active membership from all levels of the ICT industry. It is the public voice of the ICT profession and the guardian of professional ethics and standards in the ICT industry, with a commitment to the wider community to ensure the beneficial use of ICT.

About Connection Research

Connection Research is an Australian market research and analysis company with a focus on corporate and consumer usage of sustainable and digital technologies. Its primary methodology is demand-side research, surveying consumers of technology about usage patterns, attitudes and plans. It operates across four practice areas: Green ICT, Carbon and Compliance, Building Industry and Trades, and Community Sustainability.

Source: www.acs.org.au and  www.connectionresearch.com.au

GoGet & ChargePoint Start Charging Electric Cars

Traffic moved one step closer to a carbon-neutral future with the launch of Australia’s first public electric-car charging station in Glebe this week. Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore says she wants the city to be ready when electric cars start arriving in 12 to 18 months.

Glebe leads the charge: Electric car charging station a first for Australia

By Peter Bodkin for whereilive.com.au (25 May 2010):

SYDNEY traffic moved one step closer to a carbon-neutral future with the launch of Australia’s first public electric-car charging station in Glebe on Monday.

The station, which is on the corner of Glebe Point Rd and Derby Place and managed by ChargePoint, will service one electric Toyota Prius from car-share company GoGet’s fleet.

GoGet co-founder Bruce Jeffreys said the station would recharge the car in two to three hours using 100 per cent renewable energy, and the car would travel for 20 to 30km on one charge before transferring to hybrid petrol-electric power.

Electric vehicles do not emit carbon dioxide, however most major car manufactures are not expected to launch fully electric models until 2012 or later.

Sydney Mayor Clover Moore, said the council would be buying 50 electric vehicles during the next 18 months for use in the city as part of its commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 70 per cent from 2006 levels by 2030.

“Of course we will be wanting to also see the rollout of other charging stations, but this trial will enable us to assess how this one goes,’’ she said.

ChargePoint CEO Luke Grana said governments, businesses and individuals needed to be proactive in facilitating the introduction of electric vehicles.

“We will be working hard with the local councils and fleets who adopt early,’’ Mr Grana said.

“As more electric vehicles come into market we plan to roll out more infrastructure to support the uptake over time.’’

“(We will) announce further charging station rollouts throughout Australia in the near future.’’

Mr Grana said electric-powered driving will cost motorists about $2 to $3 per 100km, and each charging station was valued about $4000 plus site-specific installation costs.

GoGet members will be able to book the electric Prius immediately for the same rental rate as the company’s standard hybrids, Mr Jeffreys said.

“We’re really looking to the GoGet members to see how they take this up,’’ he said.

“If there is demand from our members, which we think there will be, we will continue to roll out more vehicles in more locations.’’

Source: www.sydney-central.whereilive.com.au

ABC News ( 24 May 2010):

The charging point in Glebe is available to customers of a hybrid car rental company.

Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore says it is part of a pilot program testing the viability of charging stations.

“The city is very interested and supportive of this project,” she said.

“I made a commitment last november at a climate change summit in Copenhagen that we would accelerate the introduction of electrical vehicles into Sydney and that we would deploy our first charging station in 2010.”

The Lord Mayor says she wants Sydney to be ready when electric cars start arriving in 12 to 18 months.

Source: www.abc.net.au

Time to Deal with “Massive Issue” of Energy Efficiency

Businesses shouldn’t get bogged down with climate change science or the ETS. They need to focus on their energy cost numbers. Energetics’ Jon Jutsen says within five years – and probably as soon as two years – there will be a price on carbon as well as much tougher regulations on energy use in buildings and appliances.

By Keith Orchison in The Australian

It’s time for Australia’s businesses to get serious about how they use energy despite the federal government’s backflip on emissions policy, according to Jon Jutsen.

The executive director of consultancy Energetics says “They shouldn’t get bogged down with climate change science or the ETS. They need to focus on their energy cost numbers. Managers and directors should understand that within five years – and probably as soon as two years – there will be a price on carbon as well as much tougher regulations on energy use in buildings and appliances.”

Even without the ETS, Jutsen points out, the $40 billion in infrastructure investment approved by the Australian Energy Regulator for electricity  networks to spend between now and 2015 already represents a much higher cost environment for all consumers, and especially large ones. The renewable energy target will also add to power prices.

They may also face higher eastern seaboard gas prices once the projects to export LNG from coal seam methane are built.  As well, there is potential for crude oil prices to rise again. Jutsen says: “Australian business really has to deal with a massive issue of energy efficiency.”

The national commitment to achieve a five per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 levels by 2020 is a significant challenge for all companies, not just miners and power generators, he says.

“The target is daunting. At its minimum level of 140 million tonnes by 2020, it represents a need to improve energy intensity between 40 and 60 per cent after taking in to account GDP growth averaging 2.5 per cent a year. This means that each dollar of GDP must be produced with 40 to 60 per cent less carbon emissions – yet Australia has not even begun to curb its carbon intensity growth.”

The national long-term target, Jutsen says, is to drive down emissions 60 to 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. “This equates to a 90 per cent reduction in carbon intensity when GDP growth is factored in and the later we start to deal with this task, the harder it will be.”

Some of Australia’s largest companies are already on the path to decarbonisation despite the policy confusion, he adds. “These businesses recognise the brand value of effective action and they are finding that major investments in carbon reduction are paying off in an environment of escalating energy prices.”

He cites Woolworths as a company that has set out to reduce its emissions against floor area occupied by its stores and offices by 40 per cent over eight years. In the finance area, he says, the Commonwealth and National Australia banks are substantially reducing their emissions and their energy costs.

Energetics sees a significant move among large companies towards obtaining a comprehensive analysis of their emissions and their abatement opportunities for the decade ahead. This involves examining opportunities to improve end-use efficiency, pursue fuel substitution, source power supply from renewable generation and adopt range of options to offset emissions.

However, says Jutsen, he still encounters companies that tell him many of their board members are climate change skeptics. “My response is that I am not interested in their religious beliefs – only in whether they want to mitigate their business risks and take advantage of new opportunities.”

By Keith Orchison of Coolibah Pty Ltd .This article first appeared in The Australian Professional Section on 15 May 2010.  Visit his website for more articles and information.

Source: www.coolibahconsulting.com.au

Carbon Pollution Will Rise Without a Price on Carbon

The federal government’s hastening of renewable energy efforts will be ineffective without support from a market mechanism like an emissions trading scheme.  This is the key finding in a new report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, commissioned by the Climate Partners, which includes environmental lobby group the Climate Institute, finance, energy and communications companies.

AAP report (24 May 2010):

The federal government’s hastening of renewable energy efforts will be ineffective without support from a market mechanism like an emissions trading scheme, a new report finds.

The report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance was commissioned by a group called the Climate Partners, which includes environmental lobby group the Climate Institute, finance, energy and communications companies.

It comes after the government shelved its emissions trading scheme and focused on its renewable energy target.

The government wants 20 per cent of the nation’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020 and plans to split the target to get there sooner.

While new renewable energy targets will begin to restructure the energy sector, the Climate Partners report finds Australia’s carbon pollution will continue to rise without price signals and other policies.

The five per cent carbon pollution reduction target agreed on by both major parties would be missed by more than 170 million tonnes in 2020, the modelling shows.

The 25 per cent target, which also has bipartisan support but is conditional on global action, would be missed by 270 million tonnes.

The Climate Institute’s chief John Connor said without a market mechanism to send a price signal to polluting industries, Australia’s pollution would be rising at a time when it should start falling.

“A price on carbon is inevitable,” he said.

“The choice we have is to delay and suffer the economic pain of being a high-carbon economy in a low-carbon world or put in policy signals to drive the change needed to safeguard our competitiveness and prosperity.”

Source: www.news.smh.com.au