Category: Archive

Campbell big notes Australia’s role in shaping climate change protocol

admin /5 December, 2006

Federal Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell was rebuked recently in the house by the Greens’ Christine Milne for overstating his claims about Australia’s role at last month’s United Nations climate change conference in Nairobi.

Leading the world: Campbell first crossed swords with Milne by accusing the Tasmanian of belittling Australia at the international forum. "In Nairobi my team helped lead the world towards a review of the Kyoto protocol. We could not have worked harder in all of the forums in Nairobi. Senator Milne went over there and put Australia down all the time," Campbell told the senate.

Moving the world: "The team we had over there included Howard Bamsey, leading the international dialogue on future action, and Ambassador Adams. We worked hard, 18 hours a day, trying to move the world to a robust, timely review of the Kyoto protocol — working with our friends from Europe and the developing world and chairing the umbrella group."

Making world see sense: In the umbrella group we worked with Russia, Canada, Iceland, Norway and the United States, trying to get sensible outcomes, moving the world to a comprehensive agreement in the post-Kyoto period.

Big-noting called "ridiculous": Milne hit back by saying it was "ridiculous" to suggest Australia was leading the world on the future of Kyoto, when it had not signed the protocol and not entered the discussions on a review.

Review decided separately: "I will just clarify for Senator Ian Campbell that article 9 of the Kyoto protocol is the review of the protocol. Australia has not ratified the protocol. The discussions to review the protocol were dealt with under article 9, and the decisions were made on article 9 on the last night in Nairobi after the minister had left," she said.

Dialogue not negotiating: "Whilst I recognise the work of Mr Howard Bamsey — he was chairing the dialogue which, as the Chinese pointed out, was not a negotiating session — the only product to come out of the dialogue was an oral report in Nairobi, and there will be a written report next year.

Just an observer: "There is no process for bringing the two together. It is a parallel process, so it is quite ridiculous to suggest Australia is leading the world in that regard. We are not in the discussions. We are an observer to the protocol."

CSIRO, ABARE’s model for 50pc emissions cuts by 2050 rules out nuclear

admin /5 December, 2006

Australia’s farm sector and multi-billion-dollar metals processing industry risk decimation if deep cuts in domestic greenhouse gas emissions are put in place by 2050, reported The Australian (4/12/2006, p.1).

41pc wind, biomass by 2050: The grave warning is the result of modelling by the CSIRO and ABARE to be released this week. Renewables rather than nuclear or clean coal are projected to be the big winners from significant emissions cuts in the future, with wind and biomass providing up to 41 per cent of power by 2050.

Farm output to drop 44pc: The modelling forecasts cuts in greenhouse emissions up to 50 per cent lower than 1990 will result in reductions to domestic output in metals processing of up to 74 per cent and farm output of 44 per cent by 2050.

A whale of a saving – turn off your charger

admin /5 December, 2006

MANY of New Scientist’s UK readers have their electricity supplied by Southern Electric – and, not being ones to miss a trick, they have been quick to email us about a claim in the company’s recent customer service leaflet. Here, under the headline "Work wonders in a weekend", customers are advised: "Unplug your mobile phone charger. These little black boxes suck 100 kilowatt-hours a day from your socket, even when your phone is fully charged."

This, Kate Mount points out, means that mobile phone chargers belonging to Southern Electric customers must be rated at over 4 kilowatts – and that, we can’t resist adding, is enough to make a slice of toast every 30 seconds, producing a pile of toast equivalent to the length of a blue whale every day. The advice to unplug them seems sound.

 

Fed Gov deliberately weakens Environment Bill

admin /5 December, 2006

The Federal Government’s proposed amendments to environmental legislation would strip communities of the power to question or appeal ministerial decisions affecting wildlife, according to Labor Senator Jan McLucas.

Blow to consultation process: The shortcomings of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill went beyond its failure to deal with climate change, McLucas said. "It curtails third-party appeal rights, it undermines public consultation processes and it politicises the decision-making processes. It removes the checks and balances and makes the application of the Act much less transparent."

More power to minister: The proposed amendments before the senate bear on the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. They would give the federal environment minister broader discretionary powers and, McLucas claimed, less accountability. She said Labor would seek to overturn provisions that curtailed the ability to appeal decisions.

Poor law made worse: "Our experience at False Cape in Far North Queensland —an iconic piece of land on Trinity Inlet, in Cairns—has exposed the current limitations in the act," McLucas said. "Unfortunately, these amendments will extend those limitations so that any power that the community may have to question decisions made by the government will be further eroded.

Loss of appeal rights: "The bill contains five separate measures to strip away the right to appeal ministerial decisions before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. They relate to threatened species, migratory species, marine species, whales and dolphins and wildlife trade permits.

RSPCA campaign: "We have all had correspondence from the RSPCA urging us to change those measures which will strip away appeal rights. Labor will repeal the sections of the bill that remove the right to appeal ministerial decisions to the AAT."

NSW Govt rips off its electricity consumers

admin /5 December, 2006

For the last five years the average daily wholesale price of electricity in NSW has been significantly higher than the prices in Victoria and Queensland, writes Tony Harris, a former NSW Auditor-General, in The Australian Financial Review (5 December 2006, p62).

Vic, Qld significantly better off: In 2006, NSW prices were more than 10 per cent higher than in Victoria and more than 20 per cent higher than in Queensland. This price differential illustrates the limits to competition caused by high transmission costs and reduced spare generating capacity, he argues.

Infrastructure investment may not be damaged … Nevertheless, the NSW government is probably correct to claim that an additional $150 million in dividends is unlikely to curb investments or lead to higher prices in the short term. For a start, the rapaciousness of the State Government suggests that increased debt would be cheaper to service than increased equity.

… because utilities have spare borrowing capacity: At least interest on debt is tax deductible. The debt/equity ratio of the government electricity agencies – 1.8 for the distributors and 0.6 for the generators – does not suggest that they have reached the limit of their borrowing capacity.

But it’s consumers who pay: He continues: "What we can see, however, is that the NSW Government is abusing the industry’s monopoly-like powers to tax electricity consumers. That might reduce the budget deficit, but it hurts the State’s ailing economy. And of the two problems, it is the economy that needs the most attention. Massaging the budget deficit is important only for politicians."

Howard tap dances on shifting sands

admin /4 December, 2006

Paul Curnow, 35, a senior associate with law firm Baker & McKenzie is like any corporate lawyer advising on big investments – with one exception, reports The Age (18 November 2006 p4). The market his clients are investing in is made of air.

For example: Here is how it works. The German Government might order a steel company to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent to meet the country’s target for lower emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. It is costly for the company to redesign its European refineries to produce less carbon dioxide.

Cheaper in China? So it invests instead in a Chinese company that is ready to switch to cleaner energy but cannot or does not want to meet the higher cost of doing so. In return for finance and access to technology provided by the German firm, the Chinese company hands over the emissions credits it has created by using greener power.

A mad market … The German firm then uses the credits to reduce its emissions. It is, says the article, a weird trade.