Category: Archive

Archived material from historical editions of The Generator

  • Landcare unveils carbon trading market to help farmers

    Farmers will be encouraged to plant extra trees and then sell carbon credits to companies.

    Landcare says 10 hectares of trees could yield about $20,000 over 30 years.

    Garth Strong, a farmer from the Riverina in New South Wales, says the scheme is a good way of supplementing his income.

    "I think it’s something to look at, especially if you’re doing revegetation, making tree lines wide enough to qualify for carbon trading," he said.

    "The single lines of trees aren’t much good – they really need fairly substantial plantings – but there’s definitely a win-win situation I think."

    In other developments:

    • A climate change campaign being launched across Australia today aims to provide Australians with practical tips on combating global warming. (Full Story)

  • Seattle joins states revolt against US Feds

    An international panel of scientists recently concluded that it’s "very likely" that manmade pollution primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is warming the world. In the Northwest, that’s expected to mean warmer weather, higher sea levels, less snow and more forest fires.

    Citing a leadership void at the national level, the governors — who were attending the annual winter meeting of the National Governors Association in Washington, D.C. — announced their plan.

    The initiative is not without precedent. In 2003, a coalition of Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states teamed up to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Eleven states are now part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

    Also that year, Washington, Oregon and California created the West Coast Global Warming Initiative, which had more modest goals and seemed to lose steam when two of the three governors involved left office.

    In the meantime, California has charged ahead, firmly establishing itself as a national leader on global warming issues. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed an executive order pledging carbon dioxide cuts 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The state also has approved tough emissions standards for vehicles, which were adopted by Washington. And it approved emission caps that will come into effect as early as 2012 for some pollution sources.

    In Washington, carbon dioxide from transportation amounts to about half of the total emissions.

    "The real work that must happen in this arena is we need fewer cars and cleaner cars," Poulsen said. "Until we get more serious about public transit we’re only going to make a dent in the problem."

    Grant Nelson, governmental affairs director for the Association of Washington Business, was pleased that the business community would have input into the process thanks to a stakeholders group that the governor is forming.

    Critics have questioned the efficacy of city- and state-level global warming measures, concerned that plans to cut pollution could hurt the economy while providing little environmental benefit.

    The initiative is being designed so that additional states and provinces can sign on, said Kathleen Drew, Gregoire’s climate policy expert. Leaders in British Columbia have expressed interest in the plan, she said. And it could provide a framework for a national program for combating climate change.

    "We want to make sure that we’re part of a larger system," Drew said. "We can’t do it on a state-by-state basis, we’re just too small."

     


    P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com.

    © 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

  • geosequestration trials begin

    Drilling has begun on a well at Nirranda in Victoria’s south-west. Carbon dioxide gas will be pumped underground as part of a geosequestration trial being done by CO2CRC.

  • Geosequestration: No silver bullet

    By Ben McNeil – posted Friday, 26 November 2004

    The Howard Government’s strong and continuing support for fossil fuels, and especially coal, seems to be a pragmatic policy. After all, coal is cheap, reliable and Australia has plenty for its own energy needs and export sales for decades to come. The downside is that burning coal, particularly brown coal, is the most intensive producer of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, that fuels global warming. Australia’s chief scientist (Dr Robin Batterham), has recently argued for a 50-80 per cent reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 which is considered necessary by the scientific community to avoid “dangerous” interference with our climate.

    However, Australia’s energy demand is expected to soar by half over the next 15 years and the Australian Greenhouse Office estimates that our total emissions will actually rise by between 126 and 140 per cent by 2020, relative to 1990 levels. Given the recent ratification of the Kyoto Protocol without Australia, the Howard government will be under intense international pressure to address greenhouse gas emissions beyond Kyoto. It has therefore pinned considerable hope on the “silver bullet” technology it promotes in its energy policy, “Securing Australia’s Energy Future”, in the form of carbon geosequestration.

    The idea is simple. You capture emissions from the smokestacks of power stations and other large stationary sources, separate out the carbon dioxide then pump it underground to seal it away in deep saline aquifers, depleted oil reservoirs and uneconomic coal seams. Since coal and natural gas generate the great majority of our electricity needs, the advantage of geosequestration is that we could foreseeably continue to use our abundant fossil-fuel reservoirs while burying most of the offending emissions – a seemingly win-win solution. So alluring is this prospect that the Government says it will commit $500 million over the next decade to help develop these technologies through private investment
     

    Although the scheme certainly has long-term potential, closer scrutiny shows the emission reductions over the short-to-medium term to be very modest indeed. For example, based on the Government’s own estimates, existing generators are projected to cover 97 per cent of our electricity needs by 2010 and 75 per cent by 2020. Given that geosequestration is economically feasible only for new electricity generation plants, this means that only 3 per cent of our electricity needs can use this technology by 2010, and only 25 per cent by 2020. And since the electricity sector contributes only a third of our overall greenhouse gas emissions, geosequestration could only reduce the total by at best 1 per cent by 2010 and 8 per cent by the year 2020. So even if we take that path, rising energy demands mean that by 2020 Australia’s emissions will still be at least about 118 per cent of 1990 levels.

    The Government will need to do much more to defuse the climate change issue. The first and most obvious option is to boost the proportion of electricity generated by renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro, biomass or geothermal) which are being heavily promoted in Japan and Europe. Economically and environmentally, it makes sense to become an international market leader in this expanding global market. Our Mandatory Renewable Electricity Target of 2 per cent falls well behind the target of 10 per cent by 2010 for other developed countries, such as the UK and Canada.

    Substantial cuts in emissions are possible in the transport sector as well. We can’t capture exhaust fumes from moving motor vehicles, but hybrid petrol and electric vehicles are available and have been launched with great commercial success. Hybrids not only halve the amount of greenhouse gases coming from the tailpipe but also halve the amount of petrol going into the tank. Governments elsewhere, including the UK, Japan and Canada, have introduced tax credits – valued at up to A$3,500 per car – on these technologies as consumer incentives. Even the US Government has introduced a US$2,000 tax-deduction, but Australia has no such sweeteners. The Federal and State governments could lead the way in promoting hybrid cars, considering they lease about 100,000 new vehicles every year. Both greenhouse gases and taxpayer running costs will drop by up to half for each of these efficient cars, and demand for any oil imports will fall accordingly – a win-win scenario.

    In the late 1990s, British Petroleum (BP) pledged to cut its emissions by 10 per cent by 2010 and has already achieved this goal, all the while setting record profits. If a fossil-fuel company can achieve an economically viable drop in emissions, surely the Australian government could aim to do the same. The government must look far more seriously at other practical and economical ways to cut emissions in the short term, beyond simply burying our wastes underground. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with the silver bullet, it’s just that a much more diverse array of bullets are needed.

  • British Columbia could be energy self-sufficient

    A new report titled "The Endless Energy Project" reveals that the Canadian province of British Columbia could be self sufficient in energy by 2025, using a combination of hydro-electricity, domestic and neighbourhood fuel production and electricity generation. The report identified that 14 per cent of domestic energy can be generated in the home by fitting all new buildings with the capacity to capture wind, solar and bio-mass from the home. It also projected increasing localisation of energy sources to reduce losses and capture the energy from bio-mass entering the waste stream. British Columbia generates a significant portion of its electricity frin hydrioeklectric schemes.

  • The 911 Script and the Age of Terror

    No, the author of the script did not think the building had collapsed. He knew that it would, and the statement was read early as a miscue.


    If the BBC had not lost the video of that entire day, it would be easier to believe that this was some sort of a mistake. But the idea that an organization like the BBC, which prides itself on the record it keeps, would lose an entire day of some of the most historic footage it has ever shot is just very difficult to believe. It seems more likely that there was something on that footage that they wanted to bury.

    As, indeed, there was.

    I have long since abandoned the US media as a lost cause. Thank God we have the internet, because the American press are just a bunch of whores, frankly. I spent 45 minutes yesterday with CNN Headline News today, looking for news of Iran. 31 of those minutes were spent on Anna Nicole Smith, and the rest was fluff.

    Pravda did better during the height of the Soviet Union. At least it didn’t insult the intelligence of its readers, but only bored them with its obvious lies. The American media goes it one better, by ignoring the real news and running the silly stuff. And the papers that should be doing better, such as the New York Times, have been singing the "no conspiracy here" song since the days of the Kennedy assassination. Because of what appears to be an almost surrealistic belief that people cannot do bad things in concert, they missed Watergate. And they are missing 9/11 as well. They all are, and, in the end, they will be abandoned by the public because their silence and refusal to investigate are, in effect, lies spoken without words on behalf of what is coming to seem a devastating and widespread conspiracy against the lives of thousands of people, against western civilization and against human freedom at the deepest level.

    At present, virtually every street in Britain is watched by video, and there is a bill on its way into parliament that will ban public photography. Can you imagine, not being able to take a picture outdoors? What madness is this, what evil insanity? But it’s real, and it doesn’t end in Britain. Last October, without debate and in the dead of the night, the president was given the power by language buried in the budget bill to use the military as a police force within the United States, and to nationalize the National Guard without consulting governors. In other words, the Posse Cometatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807 were usurped without a single word of debate and without the least whisper from the American press.

    To its credit, the New York Times did pick up on this story recently, reporting the event on February 19, many months after it happened. But why wait? These two acts are cornerstones of American freedom, but they have gone the way of habeas corpus, sacrificed to what now appears to be a self-generated war on terror, the purpose of which could not be more clear: it is not to protect us, it is to take away our freedom and turn this country into a dictatorship, and its little sisters the United Kingdom and Australia into the bargain.

    And the scale of the thing is terrifying. If the BBC was reading a script, as it must have been, then they were all reading scripts, and not one reporter has come forward, not one editor, and there is not a breath of suggestion in the 9/11 Commission report that any such thing might have been happening.

    And yet, one cannot forget that there was substantial trading in puts on the stock of insurance companies and airlines prior to 9/11, and that some of this trading was traced to individuals who had been associated with the CIA, as Jim Marrs reports in the Terror Conspiracy.

    One also cannot forget that Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission that the National Security Council was blindsided by the attack, even as the 11 memos warning of it that the FAA sent to her while she was its chairman were classified until after the last presidential election.

    How long can this go on? How much more can we stand? I find it utterly fantastic that conservatives are not outraged about the usurpation of Posse Cometatus and the Insurrection Act, and the attack on habeas corpus, not to mention the wholesale use of torture and atrocity as a matter of national policy.

    The Bush presidency is a burnt-out rump, it would seem, reduced to this odd recent practice of sending its officials into harm’s way in the apparent hope that any misfortune befalling them will gain it some sympathy, even as the president prepares for the future by buying a large estate in Paraguay. (However, he might have done a little more research about that country before he bought, given that the Colorado Party, which has been in power since it was set up by Nazi sympathizers and German immigrants in 1947, is now facing a serious threat from Msgr. Fernando Lugo Méndez, a populist bishop who is likely to win the next general election.)

    And then there is the terrifying prospect that another 9/11 will take place, but this time one so terrible that we will all desperately cleave to authority in the hope of preserving our lives, no matter who we think might be responsible. Anything less than a nuclear attack on one or more American cities would drive Bush from office, because it would reveal his entire anti-terrorism apparatus for the gimcrack sham that it is.

    And when I say sham, I mean sham. Right now, they are just getting around to installing equipment that would detect nuclear weapons being brought, for example, into the Port of Los Angeles­equipment that should and could have been in place every American port six months after 9/11.

    So it’s perfectly possible that nuclear weapons are already in our cities, and have been there for years. As the Bush presidency winds down, the only real question is, will they be used to bring the American people to heel, or will he choose the Paraguay option?

    I used to believe that the Administration let 9/11 happen so that it could have an excuse to attack Iraq and destroy our freedoms. Condoleeza Rice ignored the FAA warnings because she knew that an attack would transform an unpopular president into a beloved leader­which it did…for a time.

    Given this latest piece of news, I think that anybody who seriously thinks that the whole event wasn’t carefully planned and fed to us as a scripted "news event" needs to have their head examined. It was planned, period. Otherwise this reporter wouldn’t have been announcing one of the disasters before it happened. It’s inescapable.

    This gets me to a subject I have been visiting for years, the Valerie Plame affair. As I write this, a Washington jury is deciding the fate of Administration scapegoat Lewis Libby. If he is convicted, it will be for lying to a grand jury and to the FBI, not for the real crime, which was revealing the agent in the first place. And, presumably, that will be an end to the matter.

    But, hold on, it might be something similar to Condi Rice’s ignoring those FAA memos. How, you may ask? This is how: Valerie Plame was a non-official cover, which is a CIA officer working abroad outside of the diplomatic context. She was an "energy consultant" for a front company called Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was allegedly involved in, among other places, Iran. Shortly after she was ‘outed,’ there were brief stories here and there in the media to the effect that US intelligence in Iran had been compromised. Of course, the moment the Iranians discovered that the Brewster Jennings employees in that country were actually US agents, they would all have been rounded up.

    Given the extraordinary fact that 9/11 now appears almost certainly to have been pre-scripted and therefore planned, dare we ask the question: was Valerie Plame’s name revealed IN ORDER TO destroy our intelligence apparatus in Iran?

    This would put out our intelligence eyes in a very crucial respect. It would make it impossible for us to find the vents and air intakes of buried Iranian nuclear facilities, meaning that we cannot send conventional bunker buster bombs down those points of access. As Iran has buried and hardened its crucial facilities against any conventional attack except one that uses those weak points, we have been left helpless. There is only one type of weapon available to us that will certainly disrupt the centrifuges crucial to the manufacture of U-235. They must be shaken so hard that they break, and right now the only weapon in any western arsenal that will guarantee this without causing massive collateral damage is a neutron bomb.

    So, if somebody has been spoiling for a nuclear war–dare I say in hopes of inducing the Rapture–then the destruction of US intelligence capabilities in Iran would be the best possible way to gain that result. And the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name might have been what would get that job done.

    Too conspiratorial, Mr. Reporter? Time to snort derision at the internet nut? YOU do your homework–but of course you won’t, because you report to an editor who is telling you to turn up your nose, and if you fight back, you’ll lose your job. And as for that editor–who calls the shots in his life?

    Well, that’s easy, because we’re now down to about twenty high-level managers across the whole American press! The outrageous flaunting of the Sherman Anti-Trust act over the past few years has enabled this situation to be engineered.

    So, do we have a free media? Of course not. And will they continue to march to the tune of higher powers? Certainly they will.

    And the situation is dangerous right now. It is very dangerous. A few days ago the president of Iran announced that his country would not stop its nuclear weapons program. Middle Eastern elements threatened devastating retaliation if Iran is attacked.

    If it is attacked, and the attack is nuclear, then I fear that we can expect a nuclear attack in the United States, from a bomb or bombs that have been put in place, or allowed to be put in place, by our nation’s enemies, who, I believe, are shockingly close to home.

    If you want to know what will happen after that­well, I suggest you read the script.

    Related Stories:
    02-Feb-2006: Was 911 a Hoax?
    10-Feb-2003: Official Terror Worse than ‘Night and Fog’
    28-Oct-2001: Bin Laden’s Objective
    13-Oct-2001: Conspiracy Theories: Should We Listen Now?
    27-Sep-2001: The Terrorism Problem–How We Can Solve It
    12-Sep-2001: What Next?