Head in the clouds or the sand?

Election campaigns are not the most enlightening of times as Australians are discovering as the country heads towards its Federal vote on 21 August. And it is unlikely that climate change action in the form of a price on carbon – or any other realistic measure – will get the commitment it deserves from all those seeking office. More good advice for anyone who will listen from Geoff Carmody on a carbon tax, Matthew Wright on 100% renewable energy and  Phil Preston for a Green Investment Bank. Sad to report that climatologist supremo Dr Stephen Schneider has suddenly departed this earth before seeing the results for his labour to get real global recognition and action on climate change. Good to see a strong push from European countries to go further and faster on emissions reductions. There’s obviously more Australia can do about storing carbon and getting cleaner results from the soil, and there’s much warranted support for the Australian Green Infrastructure Council. News that vulnerable nations are taking steps to not only stem the tide, but cut their emissions, while Graham Readfearn shows us that for every cloud there is a silver lining of sorts. ExxonMobil and BP are still in the firing line for the damage they’re doing, but British Airways has latched on to a promising, clean fuel. Now that’s rubbishy news we like to hear! – Ken Hickson

Profile: The late and great Stephen Schneider

The scientific world has lost its leading advocate for climate change action. Dr Stephen Schneider emerged in the 1970s as one of the early supporters of the theory that man-made industrial gasses were damaging the ozone layer and leading to a slow but steady rise in the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere. “I’ve been on the ground, in the trenches, for my entire career,” Dr. Schneider wrote in his 2007 book, “Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate.” “I’m still at it, and the battle, while looking more winnable these days, is still not a done deal.” He passed away this week aged 65.

By T. Rees Shapiro in Washington Post

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Stephen H. Schneider, 65, an influential Stanford University climatologist who parlayed his expertise on the dangerous effects of greenhouse-gas emissions into a second career as a leader in the public dialogue — and debate — on climate change, died July 19 in London.

His wife, Stanford biologist Terry Root, wrote in an e-mail to colleagues that her husband had died after an apparent heart attack on an airplane en route to London from Stockholm.

Dr. Schneider wrote books and more than 400 articles on human-driven global warming and its wide-ranging effects, such as a recorded rise in ocean temperature and the increasing potency and frequency of hurricanes. He conducted research on the near-irreversible damage of greenhouse gases on the ozone layer and theorized how a nuclear war might affect the climate.

The founder and editor of the magazine Climatic Change, Dr. Schneider was part of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former vice president Al Gore for international research on global warming. He advised every president from Nixon to Obama.

“No one, and I mean no one, had a broader and deeper understanding of the climate issue than Stephen,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. “More than anyone else, he helped shape the way the public and experts thought about this problem — from the basic physics of the problem, to the impact of human beings on nature’s ecosystems, to developing policy.”

One of Dr. Schneider’s strongest talents as a scientist was finding vivid ways of describing the harm of global warming. He often appeared on television as a climate expert, including the HBO program “Real Time With Bill Maher.”

He once told Maher’s viewers that humans were to blame for global warming because of our use of the atmosphere as a “sewer to dump our smokestack and our tailpipe waste.”

Carl Pope, chairman of the Sierra Club Foundation, said Dr. Schneider “had the ability to connect the dots in a way that laypeople could understand.”

In the late 1970s, Dr. Schneider emerged as one of the early supporters of the theory that man-made industrial gasses were damaging the ozone layer and leading to a slow but steady rise in the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.

His passionate views on the climate debate occasionally attracted vitriol from extremist groups. An FBI investigation recently found he was named on a neo-Nazi “death list,” and Dr. Schneider said he received hundreds of hate e-mails a day.

“What do I do? Learn to shoot a magnum? Wear a bulletproof jacket?” Dr. Schneider said. “I have now had extra alarms fitted at my home, and my address is unlisted. I get scared that we’re now in a new Weimar Republic where people are prepared to listen to what amounts to Hitlerian lies about climate scientists.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Schneider said he believed it was important for scientists to communicate with the public and spread their understanding of climate data and findings.

“If we do not do the due diligence of letting people understand the relative credibility of claimants of truth, then all we do is have a confused public who hears claim and counterclaim,” Dr. Schneider said in a recent interview with Climate Science Watch. “When somebody says ‘I don’t believe in global warming,’ I ask, ‘Do you believe in evidence? Do you believe in a preponderance of evidence?’ ”

Stephen Henry Schneider was born Feb. 11, 1945, in New York. He was a graduate of Columbia University, where he also received a doctorate in mechanical engineering and plasma physics in 1971.

He worked as a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., for more than 20 years before joining the Stanford faculty in the mid-1990s.

Besides his wife, a complete list of survivors could not be determined.

Despite the fact that a recent study found that 97 to 98 percent of climatologists believed in global warming, Dr. Schneider acknowledged that the debate in the forum of public opinion was more divisive.

“I’ve been on the ground, in the trenches, for my entire career,” Dr. Schneider wrote in his 2007 book, “Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate.” “I’m still at it, and the battle, while looking more winnable these days, is still not a done deal.”

Source: www.washingtonpost.com

ABC News (20 July 2010):

Nobel Prize-winning climate change researcher Stephen Schneider has died at the age of 65.

The Stanford University scientist worked on the international research panel on global warming that shared the 2007 Nobel Prize with former US vice-president Al Gore.

He spent 37 years studying the forces influencing the climate, including pioneering work on the effects of aerosols.

Dr Schneider was suffering from a rare cancer but died of a heart attack overnight on a flight between Stockholm and London.

He was a South Australian thinker-in-residence on climate change policy back in 2006.

SA Premier Mike Rann says Dr Schneider’s advice resulted in South Australia becoming one of the first places in the world to introduce greenhouse gas emission reduction legislation.

“Stephen Schneider was a terrific adviser, he was incredibly constructive,” he said.

“He wanted to make a difference in the world and he saw what we were doing here in South Australia as an important opportunity to demonstrate to other places around the world what we could do in terms of tackling climate change.”

Griffith University’s Professor Jean Palutikof says Dr Schneider was recently in Australia and he will be sadly missed.

“He cared that you understood what he was trying to tell you,” she said.

“I don’t think he cared whether you were the man who was collecting the garbage or whether you were the director of the institute he worked for.

“I don’t know of anyone who can begin to take his place.”

Source: www.abc.net.au

A dedication from Ken Hickson, Editor of abc carbon express:

Stephen Schneider was an impressive figure in anyone’s terms. He held the stage, captivated an audience and had cynical – even skeptical – journalists hanging on to his every word. I first met and talked with Stephen at the Greenhouse 2007 Conference in Sydney. He was, most importantly, the  leading scientific advocate of action to deal with climate change.

As an “influential climatologist”, people took notice of Stephen. Political leaders and business leaders listened to what he had to say. Many took note and many, many more should now consider the legacy of this man, who has led the charge in the US and globally for action based on full scientific understanding of climate change.

He was more than anything admired by me (and others) for he believed it was important for scientists to communicate with the public and spread their understanding of climate data and findings. Stephen was quoted (and pictured) in my book “The ABC of Carbon” and has many times rated a significant mention in abc carbon express. The last time was a mere three weeks ago when he was profiled in advance of his visit to Australia where he had a number of speaking engagement.

I saw him at the Global Climate Change Adaptation Conference on the Gold Coast, where he was willingly sharing his views with journalists and delegates. I did comment to a friend at the time that I thought the normally upright and strident Stephen was appearing a little frail, supporting himself with a walking stick.

Stephen Schneider has graciously and generously shared his time and expertise, his wisdom and scientific knowledge, with the world. It is time now for all of us to treasure his contribution, not by burying it, but my making sure it is enshrined in the laws and policies for real action on climate change, now before it is too late. 

Source: www.abccarbon.com

Efficient & Effective Carbon Tax Needed

Political leadership contenders in Australia talk about “direct action” on climate change, but stop short of taxes or emission trading schemes. Economist Geoff Carmody says governments often aren’t good at direct action. Note the costly insulation shambles, the green loans debacle and the failed green car scheme. “We should be upfront about getting a globally applied, predictably rising, price on emissions in place. That delivers greater investment certainly, drives changes in technology and, globally applied, cuts emissions.”

Geoff Carmody in The Australian (14 July 2010):

IN terms of effectiveness and efficiency, a price on emissions is the way to go.

THE Coalition and Labor are leery of the idea of a carbon tax, interim or otherwise. They prefer the “direct action” path, which has a more positive political ring.

This is all smoke and mirrors. It delivers lousy cost-benefit results. Consider some examples.

Solar panels are widely touted as clean energy. Their economics are poor at present. So governments subsidise their installation. This puts a high price on reducing emissions. Taxpayers pay (where governments offer installation subsidies); energy users too poor to afford solar panels pay (where feed-in tariffs are financed by a surcharge on those not using them).

These direct action measures are expensive. One way or another, consumers pay.

There’s lobbying for subsidies for geothermal energy; this is also an expensive energy source, given market conditions and different energy source costs.

There’s lots of ranting against dirty coal as an energy source. Trouble is, it’s relatively cheap at present. How could we deal with that? Some suggest we regulate against its use. To back that up, some argue for mandated proportions of energy to be produced from renewable sources. Whether or not all renewables reduce greenhouse gas emissions, regulatory direct action mandates a shift to higher-cost energy sources. Guess who’ll pay?

There are hints about more extensive and demanding regulation to improve building energy efficiency. This is probably laudable. There’s large scope to reduce energy consumption (and associated emissions). But building costs will rise, and they will be passed on.

Similar points could be made about mandating fuel consumption standards for vehicles.

On the regulatory front, Australia seemingly can’t take a trick.

We seem to be good at encouraging higher-cost means to reduce emissions and preventing exploitation of possible alternative solutions. We are prepared to sell uranium to others for generating nuclear power but don’t trust ourselves to use it for the same purpose. Bizarre, no?

France relies substantially on this source of energy. Others are increasing their reliance on it. Why is it off the agenda here?

There are many more examples. Overall, politicians tiptoe around the basic proposition that putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, applied comprehensively, is what’s needed.

The political consequences of this are depressing. The economics are more so. All direct action measures put a price on carbon. They do so in an inefficient, ineffective and hidden way. Yet it seems mainstream politicians are prepared to pay a lot to purchase a hidden approach to putting a price on emissions.

As recent experiences attest, governments often aren’t good at direct action. Look at home insulation, green loans and the green car debacles. The first two were rorted or abused. The third produced a market dud. It was old-style protectionism.

All three cost a bomb and failed to produce much – if anything – of their intended outcomes.

Should we go back to the Rudd-Turnbull Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and put a price on emissions that way? Certainly not. It was a dog of a policy, with too many escape clauses. It was dishonest, inefficient and ineffective. Putting it on the back burner was a step towards good climate policy.

More generally, emissions trading schemes are scams in practice.

Trading in emissions permits – especially importing them – would have been a paper-shuffling exercise using funny bits of paper, right up there with “collateralised debt obligations” and “securitised assets”, and all the other oxymoronic-sounding instruments that lay at the heart of the global financial crisis. Indeed, during the GFC, in Europe, liquidity pressures crushed the price of EU emission permits so much that they became subprime assets.

Let’s be clear. If we want to reduce man-made greenhouse emissions, we need a clear and broadly applied price on emissions as the signal to start reducing them. We need a price on carbon.

A carbon tax, based on our national consumption of emissions, is likely to be the most efficient and effective option. This would exclude our exports and tax imports. It won’t adversely affect our international competitiveness, even if we act unilaterally. That feature makes it attractive to other countries, too. It would greatly improve chances of a global deal, which has been the target of the ineffective flailing around we’ve seen from Rio (1992) to Copenhagen (2009).

It’s cheaper than direct action and delivers superior emission abatement results.

The lever driving emissions reductions is price, however introduced. We should be upfront about getting a globally applied, predictably rising, price on emissions in place. That delivers greater investment certainly, drives changes in technology and, globally applied, cuts emissions.

This isn’t a recipe for poverty.

We’re trying to raise prices of emissions-heavy products compared with greener products.

We’re not trying to cut real incomes. Using most revenue from a carbon price to cut other distorting taxes and increase welfare payments can achieve the first effect and avoid the second.

Geoff Carmody is director, Geoff Carmody & Associates. He was a co-founder of Access Economics and, before that, a senior officer in the commonwealth Treasury.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Asia Pacific Report: Cut Emissions & Invest Sustainably

Three Asia Pacific countries, among those most threatened by rising sea levels, have vowed to cut their carbon emissions as a gesture of their commitment to fight global warming. Australian NGOs are calling on the Government to ban imports of illegal timber from Indonesia. The Asia Development Bank calls for proposals from venture capital fund and project managers to invest in climatech-related projects.  National Sustainability Conference in Singapore 29 & 30 July is focusing on the latest sustainable developments in the Asia pacific region.

AFP report in Sydney Morning Herald (19 July 2010):

Three Asia Pacific Countries – Maldives, Samoa and the Marshall Islands – which are among six countries seen as most threatened by rising sea levels, have vowed to cut their carbon emissions as a gesture of their commitment to fight global warming, the Maldivian government says.

The countries, mostly low-lying nations, met at the weekend in the Maldives and pledged to drastically cut their emissions while pressing others to follow suit.

“Antigua and Barbuda, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands and Samoa all pledged to slash greenhouse gas emissions and pursue green growth and development,” the government said in a statement.

The Maldives, which wants to be carbon-neutral by 2020, is one of the most vulnerable countries to a rise in sea levels because its low-lying islands and atolls would be submerged.

Ethiopia hopes to be carbon neutral by 2025, while the Marshall Islands has pledged to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, and Antigua and Barbuda by 25 per cent.

Costa Rica plans to go carbon neutral by 2021.

Being carbon neutral means offsetting emissions against other measures that help to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

“When those with the least start doing the most, it shows that everyone’s ambitions can be raised,” Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed said in the statement after the weekend meeting.

Smaller nations are trying to hammer out a common position before a UN climate meeting in Mexico scheduled to open on November 29.

The 10-day meeting is set to revisit the issues of global warming after talks at December’s Copenhagen summit fell short of a binding international treaty.

Source: www.news.smh.com.au

21 July 2010

Australian and Indonesian groups call for illegal timber ban

Social justice, environment and international development organisations have echoed an Indonesian call on the Australia Government to fulfil its 2007 election promise to ban imports of illegal timber.

Key civil society organisations in Indonesia, led by the country’s peak environment group WALHI (Indonesian Environmental Forum) and including members of the Indonesian Coalition Against Forestry Mafia, have delivered a letter (attached) to the Australian Embassy in Jakarta asking PM Julia Gillard to stop allowing illegally logged timber into Australia.

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has classified illegal logging as an organised crime and commissioned Indonesia’s Anti-Mafia Taskforce to tackle the problem.

“The most effective way for Australia to help stamp out illegal logging in Indonesia is by banning the import and sale of timber products that cannot be independently certified as legally and sustainably sourced,” said ACF executive director Don Henry. “Australia is lagging behind other OECD countries in acting on this issue,” he said.

In May 2008, the US instituted a ban by amending the Lacey Act.  And early this month the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to ban illegal timber. 

World Vision Australia CEO Rev Tim Costello said: “World Vision works with poor communities who are dependent on forest resources to get by. Forest degradation and illegal logging destroy livelihoods and food sources making it harder for poor families to survive,” World Vision CEO Rev Tim Costello said.

“If the Australian Government banned illegal timber imports into the country, poor communities in our region would have a better chance at establishing decent livelihoods and Australian consumers could be sure they were buying sustainable products,” Rev Costello said.

Dr Mark Zirnsak, spokesperson for the Uniting Church in Victoria and Tasmania, said: “The Australian Government needs to take regulatory action to address illegal logging to send a clear signal that it is committed to the fight against corruption globally and that as a country we do not seek to profit from corruption through the lower prices it delivers to consumers.”

Every year around $452 million worth of illegal timber is imported into Australia.  

Michael Kennedy of Humane Society International said: “With a federal election looming, the Government is running out of time to implement its 2007 election promise.  A ban is urgently needed to help save rainforest species like the orangutan and curb deforestation, a major contributor to climate change.” 

Source: www.acfonline.org.au

Asian Development Bank report:

To address the challenges of climate change and secure a low-carbon and sustainable energy future, accelerated and substantial investments in climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies (“climatech”) are required. Asian Development Bank (ADB) seeks to significantly increase its investments in climatech in Asia through specialized venture capital funds .

ADB calls for proposals from venture capital fund  and project managers (‘Fund Managers’) to invest in climatech-related projects  and companies located within ADB’s developing member counties (DMCs).

This Call for Proposals does not constitute a commitment by ADB to provide the financial assistance described therein. Any such financial assistance will be contingent upon approval by the management and the Board of Directors of ADB, satisfactory due diligence, the no-objection of the Host Countries, prevailing market conditions and the execution of documentation in form and substance satisfactory to ADB.

Indonesia is a founding member of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) since 1966 and, by the end of 2009, had received 303 loans amounting to $25.7 billion and 504 technical assistance (TA) projects amounting to $282.9 million. Measured by loan approvals, Indonesia is ADB’s largest client, and its second largest recipient of TA support

Source: www.adb.org

The National Sustainability Conference 2010 - Leading Singapore to a Sustainable Future

Are you interested in a sustainable Singapore?

Government, educational institutions, not for profit organisations, Business representatives and students will gather together at the 2^nd National Sustainability Conference, 29^th & 30^th of July to discuss the latest sustainable developments in the Asia pacific region.

The theme of this year’s conference is Sustainable Strategies for Singapore and the Asia Pacific Region with a focus on the sustainable workplace.

So what is Singapore doing to mitigate climate change and how is this filtering down to our major corporations and enterprises? These are some of the questions that will be answered at this year’s conference. Business Leaders and Policy Makers from both Asia and Australia will be presenting on topics such as Sustainable Leadership, Achieving Sustainable Business Practices, the Economics of Climate Change, Green jobs and the future of the Sustainable Development in the Asia Pacific Region.  

Some of the major speakers include Associate Professor Simon Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs and former Chair of the National Environment Agency, the country’s major agency for environmental protection as well as Dr. John Buchanan, Director of the Workplace Research Centre, University of Sydney and Mr. John Person, Head of the UK Regional Climate Change Network in Southeast Asia.

The conference is being organised by The Office of Environmental Sustainability (OES), National University of Singapore and the Workplace Research Centre (WRC), University of Sydney and they are very excited about exchange of ideas that will take place on the two days. The conference organisers are very pleased to have Guest of Honour, Dr Amy Khor, Mayor, South West District, and Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, opening the conference on 29 July at 0915. 

The National Sustainability Conference will take place in the Amara Hotel, 165 Tanjong Pagar Road, Singapore 088539. It will be a great insight into Singapore’s present responses to Climate Change and the emerging opportunities in the area as well as an excellent networking opportunity for anyone who is passionate about achieving a more sustainable Singapore.

ABC Carbon Director Ken Hickson, who initiated the involvement of the Workplace Research Centre in this Singapore Sustainability event, will be a speaker at the conference on the subject “Investing in a Low Carbon Economy to Create Green Jobs”. His book “The ABC of Carbon” will be launched in Singapore and a copy given to all delegates at the conference.

Source: www.nationalsustainabilityconference.com

Europe Leads the Way: 30% Emissions Cuts By 2020?

The United Kingdom, Germany and France have launched a new push for the European Union to commit to a larger reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 in a bid to aid economic recovery and shore up energy security, in a move that is likely to stir debate throughout the continent and make the rest of the world sit up and take notice. The UK Government is also committed to reforms to the Climate Change Levy to provide more certainty and support to the carbon price, as well as proposals for the creation of a Green Investment Bank to stimulate low-carbon investment.

By Selina Williams of Dow Jones Newswire (15 July 2010):

LONDON  – The U.K., Germany and France Thursday launched a new push for the European Union to commit to a larger reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 in a bid to aid economic recovery and shore up energy security, in a move that is likely to stir debate in the EU.

In articles published simultaneously in newspapers in the three countries, U.K. Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne, Jean-Louis Borloo and Norbert Roettgen–his counterparts in France and Germany respectively–said cutting emissions 30% by 2020 instead of the targeted 20% would encourage more low-carbon investment.

Such a move would also help European companies take a lead in the sector and not lose out to other global competitors, they said.

While the U.K. has supported a unilateral increase by the EU to the 30% target, the articles show a bigger policy shift for France and Germany, which have traditionally only been in favor of the higher emissions goal for the EU as a whole if other countries commit to similar efforts.

“The current target of a 20% reduction now seems insufficient to drive the low-carbon transition. The recession by itself has cut emissions in the EU’s traded sector by 11% from the pre-crisis levels,” said the jointly written article that was published in the Financial Times.

Partly as a result of this, carbon prices are too low to stimulate significant investment, the article said. Carbon is trading at around EUR14 a metric ton on the European Emissions Trading Scheme, which is estimated to be around EUR15 to EUR20 a ton too low to stimulate the investment required for larger and more costly low-carbon projects.

“Moving to a 30% target would provide greater certainty and predictability for investors,” they said in the article.

In the U.K., companies have been struggling to see how they will be able to finance large and costly low-carbon energy projects in offshore wind, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage while the carbon price is so low.

“The ‘wait and see’ policy of sticking to 20% risks putting Europe in the global slow lane of maximizing low carbon economic opportunities,” they said.

The move by the three ministers is likely to stir the debate in the EU, with business lobbies usually opposed to more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets.

“The European business community still thinks that a unilateral target increase would be counterproductive,” said Folker Franz, who is responsible for climate change policy at BusinessEurope, the European business lobby group.

“There is indeed increasing evidence that countries like China or the U.S. are becoming more competitive in “green” sectors like renewable energy, but none of these countries has a binding absolute emission target,” he said.

The European Commission–which called the move a “positive contribution” to the climate change debate–has estimated that the economic downturn would make the cost of meeting a 30% cut in 2020 EUR11 billion more than the pre-recession cost of meeting the 20% target of EUR70 billion.

The initiative is part of the U.K. government’s wider moves to encourage low-carbon investment.

In the recent budget the U.K. government announced plans to consult on reforms to the Climate Change Levy to provide more certainty and support to the carbon price in the U.K., and further reforms of the energy market to promote low-carbon energy generation will follow in the Energy Bill.

The government has also said it will put forward detailed proposals on the creation of a Green Investment Bank to stimulate low-carbon investment.

Source: www.dowjones.com

Make a Deposit in New Australian Outback Carbon Bank

Australia’s outback is a massive carbon bank ready for deposits and its fees would be cheaper than other methods of reducing carbon emissions, says research carried out for the Pew Environment Group and The Nature Conservancy. It investigated five carbon-cutting methods for the outback, which covers three-quarters of Australia, including reduced land clearance, control of feral animal populations and better fire management.

Aaron Cook in Sydney Morning Herald (14 July 2010)

Australia’s outback is a massive carbon bank ready for deposits and its fees would be cheaper than other methods of reducing carbon emissions, says a report just released.

Research carried out for the Pew Environment Group and The Nature Conservancy investigated five carbon-cutting methods for the outback, which covers three-quarters of Australia. These included reduced land clearance, control of feral animal populations and better fire management.

Most of the changes could be implemented using existing knowledge, said a Pew Environment Group representative, Patrick O’Leary, and could reduce Australia’s annual carbon dioxide emissions by more than 40 million tonnes, or about 7 per cent of present levels, by 2030.

In most cases the changes would cost less than the estimated carbon price under the government’s shelved emissions trading scheme, the report said.

It also said the figures were approximate, but highlighted the magnitude of reductions that could be achieved.

”This report shows that the outback is an integral part of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions but it doesn’t replace the need for Australia to reduce industrial carbon pollution and the urgent need for a price on carbon,” Mr O’Leary said.

Nearly 10 per cent of Australia’s emissions in 2008 were due to land clearing, largely for the purpose of grazing cattle. Guy Fitzhardinge, a grazier who advised the study, said the wider community should see the value of using land as a carbon bank.

”People don’t clear land because they want to, they clear land because they are rewarded by doing so,” Mr Fitzhardinge said. ”The important thing is to work out the priority areas for agriculture and the priority areas for the environment.”

Charlie McElhone, the National Farmers Federation’s manager, economics and trade, said the study reinforced that there was an opportunity for farmers to be involved in climate-change policies.

Cutting emissions in the outback would also increase employment, the report says.

Indigenous communities could implement fire-management policies similar to an existing scheme in West Arnhem land in the Northern Territory, where controlled burning is conducted to prevent wildfires.

Culling feral animals would also reduce emissions and environmental damage. Australia has more than 1 million feral camels and their numbers rise 10 per cent each year.

The above measures could be introduced immediately, said the Climate Institute’s regional projects manager, Corey Watts.

”We can start investing in these things now and rewarding people now,” he said.

Source: www.smh.com.au

Shedding the Light on Photosynthesis in the Dark

Does photosynthesis stop when is no sunlight or because of dense cloud cover? Not according to Ken Bellamy (VRM & Prime Carbon) as long as there are enough photosynthetic bacteria and other organisms which can accept non-visible light, photosynthesis can go on 24 hours a day. Increased overall photosynthetic activity results in greater capture of CO2 from the air, greater sugar production and better growth all around.

Report in Farm Weekly (8 July 2010):

Does photosynthesis stop when is no sunlight or because of dense cloud cover? Not according to Ken Bellamy (VRM & Prime Carbon) as long as there are enough photosynthetic bacteria and other organisms which can accept non-visible light, photosynthesis can go on 24 hours a day.

According to Vital Resource Management (VRM) director Ken Bellamy, photosynthesis is the natural process of living things capturing light and storing it in special energy compounds.

“These special compounds – let’s call them photon packs – are used for fuel when the organism converts carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into sugars,” Mr Bellamy said.

He said plants used these photon packs when they grew but the photon pack could have been produced by the plant itself or by other organisms living nearby.

Mr Bellamy, also a director of Prime Carbon set up in 2004 to help assess and register farm-based carbon offsets, said mineral phosphorus was a key component of the photon packs and must be available in the soil for photosynthesis to happen.

Phosphorus acts as a sort of battery for the photon pack and is exchanged as the energy in the pack is used.

Photon packs are “charged up” by photons (light) and accept the charge by picking up a piece of phosphorus.

When the pack is used, phosphorus is released. These packs can accept photon energy from any type of light.

The light seen is only a small part of the total light spectrum, but even ultra violet light and infra-red light can be used for photosynthesis.

These two bands of light are not overly impacted by cloud cover.

Photon packs can even be charged at night, using reflected or re-radiated light which is not visible to the naked eye. The trick is that plants use mostly visible light while other organisms use the other bands too.

So the plant itself could slow down when visible sunlight fades but some of its neighbours can help pick up the slack.

Infra Red light can penetrate soil, so photosynthesis can be active in what we think is darkness.

Provided there are enough “phototrophic” or photosynthetic bacteria and other organisms which can accept non-visible light, photosynthesis can go on 24 hours a day.

Plants make friends with these organisms and even trade them enzymes and other substances for photon packs when there are enough of them present.

This means plants can share in a second wave of photosynthesis outsourced to soil organisms.

Increased overall photosynthetic activity results in greater capture of CO2 from the air, greater sugar production and better growth all around.

As long as the right microbes are present around a plant, sugar production can happen day or night, light or dark, just like it does on the dark and shady floor of a rainforest or deep in the ocean.

Build the microbes, share their photon packs and photosynthesis happens even in the dark.

Mr Bellamy established VRM in 1997 to offer sustainable and affordable improvements in water management and food production.

Source: www.vrm.com.au, www.primecarbon.com.au and www.farmonline.com.au

Sustainability Rating Scheme For Infrastructure Projects

The Federal Government has approved another $100,000 in funding for the Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC) to develop a sustainability rating scheme for infrastructure projects, which brings the Government’s total contribution to the project to $500,000. And AGIC is co-hosting a forum in Brisbane at QUT on 30 July featuring John Hamilton Frazer, Professor of Design Science.

CE Daily reports:

Federal Government tops up funding for ‘green infrastructure’ scheme

The Federal Government has approved another $100,000 in funding for the Australian Green Infrastructure Council to develop a sustainability rating scheme for infrastructure projects.

The new funding, announced by Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese, brings the Government’s total contribution to the project to $500,000.

The scheme will be a voluntary framework that allows investors and participants in infrastructure projects to screen and assess projects using criteria including biodiversity, waste management, water, greenhouse gas management and emissions to air, water and land.

Source: www.cedaily.com.au

In a message from David Hood, Chairman of the Australian Green Infrastructure Council:

“We are now under way with the development of the world’s first full sustainability rating scheme for infrastructure”.

David is attending Enviro2010 in Melbourne and then onto 3rd Global Infrastructure Conference in Kuala Lumpur 26/27 July, where he’s chairing two sessions on sustainability in infrastructure and presenting on AGIC. Go to for more: www.marcusevans.com/marcusevans-conferences-event-details.asp?eventID=16409&sectorID=21#conference_focus

David Hood also extends an invitation to all to attend a Forum on Generative Design Applied to Urban Sustainability, co-hosted by the AGIC:

John Hamilton Frazer MBCS FSCD FRSA

Professor of Design Science at Queensland University of Technology

Friday, 30th July 6.00-7.00 pm

Room Z-401 QUT Garden Point

Professor Frazer will explain how urban modelling is being radically re-thought as a result of the introduction of complexity science into urban design theory.

A paradigm is offered for sustainable design on the basis of evolutionary thermodynamics and complex systems science.

In this model, buildings and cities adapt to the environmental context and their environmental performances are optimised in a mechanism of open systems evolution and self-organisation.

Professor John Hamilton Frazer directs the Centre for Complex Urban Systems Design in Queensland. He is an international pioneer of evolutionary and generative systems in the field of architecture and urban design. He is a highly regarded thinker whose influence continues to be instrumental in developing new approaches to the way in which we design and manage the built environments of the future.

Professor Frazer’s research is focussed around the creation of self-organizing, self-sustaining systems that evolve with user interaction – enabled by powerful computer systems and artificial intelligence. He has many notable research publications and his first book An Evolutionary Architecture, 1995, is regarded as the seminal work in the field of generative design.

Hosted by the Australian Green Development Forum

The Australian Green Infrastructure Council with

The Sustainability Minor, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering

More on AGIC:

AGIC will be the catalyst for the delivery and operation of more sustainable infrastructure in Australia.
 
This vision will be achieved by driving market transformation through education, training, advocacy and by recognising leading sustainable practice via a sustainability rating scheme.

It is AGIC’s mission to:

• Benchmark, advance and promote the concepts and knowledge of sustainability throughout the design, construction and life cycle of infrastructure solutions
• Recognise and reward organisations that deliver world leading sustainable solutions in the design, construction and operation of our national infrastructure
• Provide a roadmap to assist stakeholders to achieve sustainable outcomes
• Define sustainability performance benchmarks for industry paticipants
• Provide independently certified sustainability ratings; and
• Encourage and promote the highest standards of sustainability performance.

Source:  www.agic.net.au

Oil Companies in Trouble: Breaking Pledges & Plugging Leaks

ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies, has broken its pledge to stop funding groups that promote scepticism about man-made climate change, while BP floated a new option this week to plug the Gulf of Mexico oil leak to bring to an end the economic and environmental disaster sooner than expected. Report from The Times in The Australian (20 July 2010): ONE of the world’s largest oil companies has broken its pledge to stop funding groups that promote scepticism about man-made climate change. ExxonMobil gave almost £stg 1 million ($1.75m) last year to organisations that campaigned against controls on greenhouse gas emissions. Several made outspoken attacks on climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and argued that their leaked emails showed the dangers of global warming had been grossly exaggerated. The scientists were exonerated this month by an independent inquiry, but groups funded by Exxon have continued to lambast them. The Media Research Centre, which received $US50,000 ($57,500) last year from Exxon, called the inquiry a “whitewash” and condemned “climate alarmists”. Some of Exxon’s largest donations were to groups that lobbied against a global deal on emissions being reached at last December’s climate summit in Copenhagen. The value of Exxon’s oil and gas investments could fall sharply if governments adopt aggressive plans to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. The energy giant had indicated it was pulling back from funding sceptics. In its 2007 corporate citizenship report, it stated: “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.” Exxon also gave reassurances last year that it had no funding links with the sceptics’ biggest annual conference, the International Conference on Climate Change. But a list published by Exxon this month of its “2009 worldwide contributions and investments” revealed it had given four co-sponsors of the New York event $US275,000. It also gave $US1m to 20 other sceptic groups. Bob Ward, policy director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, who has been monitoring Exxon’s links to sceptic groups, said: “Exxon has engaged in a public relations campaign to convince the world that it has stopped funding climate sceptic groups. But this has turned out to be pure greenwash. Exxon has continued to provide financial support for many groups that are engaged in activities to persuade the public and policy-makers into wrongly believing that climate change is a hoax.” Four of the groups funded by Exxon — the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Media Research Centre, the Pacific Research Institute and the Heritage Foundation — co-sponsored the New York conference. Exxon recently announced it would no longer fund the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Media Research Centre or the Pacific Research Institute. Source: www.theaustralian.com.au AFP report in The Age (20 July 2010): BP floated a new option Monday to plug the Gulf of Mexico oil leak and end the economic and environmental disaster sooner than expected. The “static kill” operation would involve pumping heavy drilling fluids known as mud through the blowout preventer valve system that sits on top of the well and then injecting cement to seal it. Similar to the “top kill” operation that failed in May, BP believes it will now work because the oil and gas in the runaway well is sealed already by its containment cap so the mud won’t need to be forced down so hard. BP senior vice-president Kent Wells said officials could decide to implement the operation within the “next couple days,” long before the first relief well – still seen as the ultimate fix – is completed at the end of the month. Back in May, the “top kill” saw engineers spend days pumping heavy drilling fluid into the leaking well, but they failed to smother the gushing crude. Former Coast Guard chief, Admiral Thad Allen, who heads the government’s response to the spill, confirmed there was “some discussion that there might be some way to do a static pumping of mud into the top that would suppress the hydrocarbons”. But he stressed the plan was still in its infancy and said he was waiting further analysis from BP before making a final decision. He admitted it could have better chances of success than the “top kill” because the well, which has been capped since Thursday, was now in a closed system with back pressure. Both BP and Admiral Allen treaded cautiously after a string of containment failures. “We’re trading off a lot of different options. We’ve discussed about three or four different things that could happen, the relief well being number one,” said Admiral Allen. “We’re still very much in the design and planning phase,” Mr Wells told reporters. “We’ve got some real experienced teams working on this over the next couple of days.” Gulf residents, who have seen the crude tarnish their shorelines and cripple the local economy since a rig leased by BP exploded and killed 11 workers in April, have reacted with cautious optimism. Kenneth Feinberg, who manages BP’s US$20-billion compensation fund, said capping the well would allow compensation claims to move forward more quickly as the extent of the damage became clearer. He urged fishermen, oyster collectors and hotel owners and other businesses to come forward with claims, including emergency payments to cover the first six months of damages. Residents face a tough choice: whether to accept compensation from the fund or pursue legal action against BP or the other companies involved. “I’ll be much more generous than any court will be, and at the same time you won’t need to pay lawyers’ costs,” urged Mr Feinberg. Oil has washed up on the coasts of all five Gulf states – Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida – since the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig sank on April 22, two days after the explosion. Poisonous crude has killed birds, closed fishing grounds, decimated the tourism industry and done untold environmental damage. Source: www.theage.com.au

Don’t Rubbish This New “Wastefuel”  Way to Fly

British Airways has set up Green Sky with US biofuel firm Solena, which aims to build a plant capable of taking thousands of tonnes of rubbish from east London every year and converting it into enough jet fuel for all its flights from London City airport two times over.

Danny Fortson for the Sunday Times in The Australian (20 July 2010):

WILLIE Walsh has seen the future, and it’s in the smelly depths of your bin.

The chief executive of British Airways has many problems on his plate: a pound stg. 3.7 billion ($6.4bn) pension hole, striking unions and annual losses of pound stg. 530 million.

But it is banana peel, rotten tomatoes, coffee grounds and cardboard that he believes hold the key to the carrier’s future.

Walsh will use this week’s Farnborough Air Show to unveil a project that could set BA fair to fly into a future where pollution is taxed and oil is expensive.

BA has set up Green Sky with US biofuel firm Solena which aims to build a plant capable of taking thousands of tonnes of rubbish from east London every year and converting it into enough jet fuel for all its flights from London City airport two times over.

Jonathon Counsell, BA’s head of environment, said: “This is a proof-of-concept type project. We hope that eventually there will be many plants like this around the world.”

BA is not doing this out of the goodness of its heart. Airlines face a bleak future. Last year will, in the words of Giovanni Bisignani, head of industry trade group IATA, “go down into the history books as the worst year the industry has ever seen”. It rounded off a decade in which airlines accumulated $US47bn in total losses.

From 2012, airlines flying in to and out of Europe will be forced to pay for every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted over 2005 levels to comply with the European Union’s carbon trading scheme. And the price of jet fuel, the single biggest cost for an airline, is expected to rise in line with oil.

In January last year, Walsh broke ranks with the rest of the industry by declaring BA would halve its carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2050. The move was followed by rivals.

Airlines have only one practical option: biofuels. Solena chief executive Robert Do said: “Air transport doesn’t have the same options that carmakers do. You can’t go hybrid, or plug (aeroplanes) in. The only option is to look at alternatives to jet fuel from oil.”

Some carriers such as KLM and Virgin Atlantic have begun experimenting using biofuels blended with conventional jet kerosene. But the infrastructure required for significant biofuel production, from crops to refineries to re-engineered engines, is still a long way off.

The Solena project tackles one key obstacle: feedstock. The idea of using large areas of arable land for the production of jet fuel has many critics.

Waste, however, is another matter. London produces 10,000 tonnes a day. The Solena plant would need 1500 tonnes daily, about 60 lorry loads. For waste firms it is an attractive proposition. Soaring landfill taxes mean they will pay Solena to take it off their hands.

It sounds simple.

It’s not. The technology that turns the muck into fuel originated in the US space program.

When NASA needed to test heat-shield materials that would protect a space capsule from the extreme temperatures on re-entering the Earth’s atmosphere, conventional combustion failed. Once the temperature reached about 1200C, the metal conductors melted.

A scientist named Salvador Camacho came up with the solution. He replaced the metal between the two electrodes — think of the bit that gets red when you turn on the toaster — with ionised gas. The plasma torch can provide a constant source of heat at up to 14,000C.

This is the key to Solena’s technology. “In low-temperature processes you lose carbon through the ash and tar it produces,” said Do. “Using plasma allows us to get 40 to 45 per cent more of the carbon out of the feedstock. It’s highly efficient, so we can use almost any type of source — whether it’s woodchips or banana peels. And in London the only abundantly available feedstock is waste.”

Most of the gas molecules generated from the process will be converted into liquid jet fuel through a process called Fischer Tropsch, a technology that has been used to convert coal into gas. At capacity the plant would produce 74.6 litres of jet fuel a year, just under 2 per cent of BA’s needs, which would then be blended with conventional fuel.

Some gas would be used to fire a turbine, which would provide the power for the plant.

Excess electricity would be sold to the grid and because it is renewable power it would fetch a premium. The other byproduct, bionaptha, could be used to make plastics.

Solena still has a big hill to climb, however. The plan calls for a plant over 6.5ha with constant lorry traffic, and it has yet to apply for planning permission.

Do is confident he will get approval. “We’ve been working closely with the Greater London Authority, and Boris Johnson, the Mayor, has been very supportive,” he said.

The firm has hired environmental consultancy Arcadis to help it get planning consent.

The other question mark is money. Green Sky needs pound stg. 230m to build the plant. Solena is in the process of bringing in new private equity backers but also needs considerable project finance. BA has agreed to take the fuel for a decade, but won’t be taking a stake in the venture.

The rest of the industry, meanwhile, is keeping a close eye on the plant’s progress.

Today there are about 18,900 airliners in the world. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that aviation causes about 3.5 per cent of the man-made effects on the weather. New aircraft such as the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 787 are more fuel efficient, but the gains will be more than wiped out by the industry’s growth.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au