Category: Archive

Archived material from historical editions of The Generator

  • We regret to inform you

    Before you argue with me (and you are both welcome and encouraged to), I’d like to post something a bit out of my usual style – it is simply a description of what has happened with food and energy in the last year – that’s all it is. Then tell me what you think – because it wasn’t until I began to write this introduction to the present food situation that I suddenly was struck by the fact that even a fast crash doesn’t always look fast when you live it – new normals arise and it turns out we assimilate faster than we panic.

    So here we are – the “We regret to inform you that what you have imagined to be ‘civilization’ is now falling apart” post. See if it strikes you the way it struck me.

    I would also note two things. The first is that the general political consensus is that neither the food nor energy crisis will do anything but grow more acute anytime soon – we’re really in the early stages. And that this only covers the first 4 months of 2008.

    _______________________________________________________

    In early 2008, the world’s food and energy train came off the rails. What was startling was that it didn’t happen either gradually or in a linear way – instead, things simply fell apart at an astounding rate, faster than anyone could have predicted without being accused of lunacy.

    It started with biofuels and growing meat consumption rates. They drove the price of staple grains up at astounding rates. In 2007, overall inflation for food was at 18%, which created a new class of hungry, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. In 2008, the month to month inflation was higher than 2007’s annual inflation. At that rate, the price of food overall was set to double every other year. Rice, the staple of almost half the world’s population rose 147%, while wheat grew 25% in just one day. Price rises were inequitable (as was everything else) so while rice prices rose 30% in rich world nations like the US, Haitian rice prices rose 300%.

    Haiti was an early canary in the hunger coal mine. Desperately poor, by early 2008, tens of thousands of impoverished Haitians were priced entirely out of the market for rice and other staples, and were reduced to eating “cookies” made of nutrient rich mud, vegetable shortening and salt to quiet their hunger pangs. Women stood on the street, offering their children to any reasonably well fed passerby, saying “Please, pick, take one and feed them.” Thousands of Haitians marched on Port Au Prince, yelling, “We’re hungry.” And indeed, the Haitian government was complicit, allowing food relief to rot on the wharves. But Haiti was just the start.

    After riots over long bread lines threatened to destabilize Egypt, the Egyptian government set the army to baking bread for the hungry. Forty nations either stopped exporting grains or raised tariffs to make costs prohibitive. Food prices rose precipitiously as importing nations began to struggle to meet rising hunger. The UN warned that 33 nations were in danger of destabilizing, and the list included major powers including Pakistan, Mexico, North Korea India, Egypt and South Africa. Many of these hold nuclear weapons.

    The crisis didn’t stop among the already-poor, however. An article in The Economist reported that the crisis extended well into the middle class – Joanna Sheeran, director of the World Food Project explained, “For the middle classes,…it means cutting out medical care. For those on $2 a day, it means cutting out meat and taking the children out of school. For those on $1 a day, it means cutting out meat and vegetables and eating only cereals. And for those on 50 cents a day, it means total disaster.”

    Up to 100 million people who had managed to raise their incomes above $2 a day found themselves inexorably drawn back to the world poverty level, while millions of those who called themselves “middle class” began, slowly, to realize that they were no such thing. Reports noted that many of the supposed middle class in rich world nations were actually the working poor who had overextended their credit to keep up appearances. And the appearances – and credit access – were fraying

    In 2007, a major American newspaper reported the growing problem of seasonal malnutrition affecting poor children in the Northern US – the rising price of heating oil meant that lower class families were struggling to put on the table. Hungry, low weight children were unable to maintain their body temperature in chilly houses, and a vicious circle of illness, hunger and desperation ensued. Malnutrition bellies began to be regularly seen by pediatricians treating the urban poor in cold climates.

    Shortages were a chronic problem in the poor world, but by early spring of 2008, they began to arrive in the rich world – despite Japan’s deep pockets, a shortage of butter and wheat reminded the rich world of its dependence on food import. Many of the supply problems were due to climate change and energy issues, as Australian dairy farmers struggled with high grain prices and the extended drought that destroyed their pastures.

    Following up on anecdotal reports of limits at bulk warehouse stores, in late April of 2008 rationing went official. Many Costco stores were limiting purchases of flour, rice, cooking oil and other staples to avoid shortages – and the stores tracked purchases electronically to prevent customers from visiting other Costco stores. This was the first example of food rationing, but probably not the last – at least one financial analyst was predicting corn shortages in the fall of 2008.

    The energy train and the food train were inextricably linked, and indeed directly (as the costs of diesel rose rapidly) and indirectly (rising energy costs created the biofuels boom) drove the food crisis. They were linked in other, complex ways as well – the housing collapse that threatened to plunge Europe and the US into a major depression was in part due to the high costs of commuting from suburban infrastructure. Exurban housing collapsed hardest, while housing closer to cities remained desirable – for a while.

    While the food crisis in the poor world made headlines, the energy crisis there went almost unnoticed. <ore and more poorer nations simply could not afford to import oil and other fossil fuels, and began to slowly but steadily lose the benefits of fossil fuels. Nations suffered shortages of gas, electricity and coal. Tajikistan, experiencing a record cold winter found itself with inadequate supplies of heating oil and a humanitarian crisis. South African coal supplies were so short that electricity generation dropped back to intermittency.

    Industrial agriculture, described as “the process of turning oil into food” began to struggle to keep yields up to match growing demand. Yield increases fell back steadily, with more and more investment of energy (and higher costs for poor farmers trying to keep yields up). Yield increases, which had been at 6% annually from the 1960s through the 1990s fell to 1-2%, against rapidly rising demand. Climate change threatened to further reduce yields in already stressed poor nations – Bangladesh struggled with repeated climate change linked flooding, the Sahelian African countries with growing drought, China with desertification.

    All future indications were that both food and energy supplies would fail to keep up with demand. Unchecked (the only kind we’ve got) climate change is expected to reduce rice yields by up to 30%, and food production in the already starving Sahel is expected to be reduced by half. GMOs, touted as a solution, have yet to produce even slightly higher yields. Arable land is disappearing under growth, while aquifers are heavily depleted – 30% of the world’s grain production comes from irrigated land that is expected to lose its water supply in the next decades.

    Meanwhile the costs of fossil fueled agricultural skyrocketed, with Potash rising by 300% in less than a year. What should have been a boom for farmers was actually the beginning of an increasingly precarious spiral of high prices, high indebtedness and market volatility. Agricultural indebtedness rose dramatically.

    Meanwhile, the ability of nations to transport food supplies began to be called into question. Early trucker protests were intermittent and largely ineffective, but real predictions of diesel shortages and a shortage of refining capacity made it a real possibility that food might not reach store shelves.

    And so how does the story end? If you were reading this in a history book, what ending would you expect to see? Because just because the crash doesn’t quite read like a post apocalyptic novel doesn’t mean that we aren’t the new Po-Apoc (like Po-Mo, only darker) generation.

  • Youth slam 2020 Summit

    I was there as a representative of the youth movement – with the simple message that we are running out of time to act on climate change, we must make fundamental changes to our economy now, and that we urgently need to do whatever is most effective to safeguard our climate and our future.

    So I came to the Summit willing to listen to new ideas and creatively brainstorm around a few I’d been thinking about – a personal carbon allocation scheme, and a nation-wide green job creation scheme. We could design a massive green job program that would inspire Australians to get involved, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, and make Australia a world leader in renewable energy and energy efficiency. These were just two of my ideas: I was excited to hear what others had come up with.

    However, it became clear at the start of the summit that members of the coal industry and their ‘business as usual’ allies had pre-determined their position and approach – and it was one that aggressively pushed so-called ‘clean coal’ and argued for more subsidies to the coal industry for them to build clean coal plants. At one point a delegate argued against reducing Australia’s carbon footprint (ostensibly because we have a ‘special place in the world’ and could provide energy for the rest of the world – I was unsure why we couldn’t still do this while reducing our emissions if we move to renewables). Peter Coates, from the giant coal mining company Xstrata, even argued to abolish the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. This is the position of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, who are focusing all their efforts this year on undermining the emissions trading scheme by proposing free permits to coal-fired power generators – which totally undermines the point of a trading system.

    One of the coal industry members stated that he wanted a level playing field for so-called ‘clean coal’ and that the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target is unfair. This is laughable considering that the fossil fuel industry in Australia already receives $9 billion in federal subsidies each year – 28 times more than what is spent on renewable energy.

    The day before the Summit, twenty 20-year-olds representing all major Australian youth organisations presented a Statement calling for urgent and immediate action on climate change to Minister for Youth, Kate Ellis, in Canberra. The Statement urges the government to give young Australians a real chance of a safe future by urgently adopting much deeper greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The organisations call on the government to make Australia a world leader in energy efficiency and renewable energy, which would create thousands of jobs for young Australians.

    At the end of the Summit, youth delegates re-grouped and voiced our frustration and disappointed at the way the coal industry had hijacked the climate agenda. They did not act in good faith, but rather pushed their business agenda, meaning a small minority silenced the majority of people in the room who pushed for a statement calling for no new coal-fired power stations in Australia (unless or until carbon capture and storage was proven to work, proven safe, efficient and commercially viable – which it is not at this stage, and the majority of the climate movement believe it will never be). We believe that the sense of urgency – our future is at stake – was lost. We released a statement to the media congratulating the Rudd government for their willingness to hear our ideas, but condemning the coal lobby for their intervention, which obstructed discussion of some really new ideas. 

    Youth certainly don’t blame Penny Wong or Kevin Rudd for the weak outcomes on climate change from 2020. I was excited to be involved and thought the idea of an ideas-generating summit was excellent. The coal industry, however, used the Summit to push their agenda through an organised attempt – strategically, in the lead-up to the federal budget – to position so-called ‘clean coal’ as the solution to climate change and one in need of more federal subsidies to coal. We do not need new coal in Australia. We can deploy energy efficiency and renewable energy, and fundamentally change our society and economy – for example through distributed energy systems rather than the centralised grid. And we could do it tomorrow, long before ‘clean’ coal has been proved or disproved (In fact, the majority of the climate movement say it has already been disproved).

    Our generation expected – and needed – better outcomes from the 2020 Summit for our climate, and our future. As Friday’s youth statement reads, "We have one climate, one future, and one chance to save it".

  • Minister fails on plastic bags

    The failure of environment ministers to take action on plastic bags and recycling underscores their hopeless capture by the big food and beverage corporations, Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said today.

    "This is a plastic-wrapped, recycled failure to take action. With the exception of South Australia, it is no different to repeated failures to take action by Howard-era ministers for the environment," Senator Brown said.

    "Australians throw away 4 billion plastic bags every year. The ministers have instead decided to continue to support voluntary action from retailers, which last year saw plastic bag use skyrocket by almost 40%."

    The Greens support an outright ban or a levy and have re-introduced a private members’ bill to the Senate which applies a 25c levy on plastic bags. Similar levies have reduced the use of plastic bags by up to 90% in countries like Ireland.

    "Shoppers who don’t want to pay a levy would have the option of bringing their own ‘green’, canvas or string bags to the shops," Senator Brown said.

    Senator Brown also said the Australian Greens were working with state Greens parliamentarians to introduce state and federal legislation to pave the way for a national container deposit scheme.

  • Greenpeace calls GM approval corrupt

    Environmental scientist Jo Immig and canola grower Juliet McFarlane, who both sat on the committee, said the go-ahead to plant GE canola should not have been given. They argue that the segregation of GE and non-GE canola cannot be guaranteed and non-GE farmers have no legal protection if their crops are contaminated by GE.

    Appallingly, Primary Industries Minister Ian McDonald’s decision to introduce GE canola into the state is effectively beyond reproach, since he introduced legislation to ensure that his decision to approve the crop could not be challenged in court. This is unprecedented for legislation of this nature and Greens MP Ian Cohen has accused the minister of “treating the parliament as his own fiefdom.”

    The NSW government established the committee to “assess whether industry is prepared and capable of segregating genetically modified (GM) and non-GM food crops”. However, the committee is cloaked in secrecy – with the identity of committee members not being publicly revealed. Committee members can face prison sentences of up to three months for divulging committee discussions. Having such a gag order on a public committee is also unprecedented.

    The government was required by law to record the pecuniary (vested) interests of the committee in a book that could be viewed by the public, however, this is stored in Tamworth.
    On two occasions Mr Cohen unsuccessfully asked minister McDonald to provide the names of the committee and declarations of pecuniary interest. It is clear why the minister did not want to reveal them – the book shows that the majority of committee members have vested interests in GE crops. This is tantamount to letting the fox look after the chickens.

    Immig said that the representatives on the committee were quite clearly very pro-GE people. "It’s hard to imagine that the committee would come up with any other outcome other than to eventually approve, or suggest to the minister that he approve the genetically modified canola,” she said.

  • EU backs off biofuels

    ian Traynor – The Guardian  

    The European commission is backing away from its insistence on imposing a compulsory 10% quota of biofuels in all petrol and diesel by 2020, a central plank of its programme to lead the world in combating climate change.

    Amid a worsening global food crisis exacerbated, say experts and critics, by the race to divert food or feed crops into biomass for the manufacture of vehicle fuel, and inundated by a flood of expert advice criticising the shift to renewable fuel, the commission appears to be getting cold feet about its biofuels target.

    Under the proposals, to be turned into law within a year, biofuels are to supply a tenth of all road vehicle fuel by 2020 as part of the drive to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the same deadline.

    The 10% target is "binding" under the proposed legislation. But pressed by its scientific advisers, UN authorities, leaders in Europe, non-government organisations and environmental lobbies, the commission is engaged in a rethink.

    "The target is now secondary," said a commission official, adding that high standards of "sustainability" being drafted for biofuels sourcing and manufacture would make it impossible for the target to be met.

    Britain has set its own biofuels targets, which saw 2.5% mixed into all petrol and diesel fuel sold on forecourts in the UK this week. The government wants to increase that to 5% within two years, but has admitted that the environmental concerns could force them to rethink. Ruth Kelly, transport secretary, has ordered a review, which is due to report next month.

    A commission source indicated that the EU executive would not object if European governments ordered a U-turn.

    "This is all very sensitive and fast-moving," said a third commission official. "There is now a lot of new evidence on biofuels and the commission has become a prisoner of this process."

    The target is being strongly criticised by the commission’s own scientific experts and environmental advisers to the EU.

    "The policy may have negative impacts on soil, water, and biodiversity," said Professor Laszlo Somlyody, who led a team of climate scientists analysing the policy for the Copenhagen-based European Environment Agency, which advises the EU. "This can lead to serious problems," he told the Guardian.

    His report, published last week, calls on Brussels to freeze its biofuels policy because of the potential risks to the environment. "The over-ambitious 10% biofuel target is an experiment whose unintended effects are difficult to predict and difficult to control," the scientists found.

    In March last year, European leaders sought to seize the global moral high ground by backing the commission’s climate change package aimed at making Europe the world’s first low-carbon economy. In January, the commission fleshed out the details of the measures, based on a carbon trading scheme which is to supply the bulk of the cuts in greenhouse gases.

    But since then there has been a torrent of expert reports citing biofuels as part of the climate change problem.

    This week, Jean Ziegler, the UN’s rapporteur on the right to food, dubbed biofuels "a crime against humanity" because they allegedly divert food from the poor to provide fuel for the rich.

    "The diversion of crops to fuel can raise food prices and reduce our ability to alleviate hunger," warned a 2,500-page analysis of global food trends from UN agricultural scientists.

    While Germany recently announced a retreat from its biofuel policies, Alistair Darling, the chancellor, asked the world’s wealthiest countries to assess the impact of biofuel development on the food crisis for a G7 summit this summer.

    An ad hoc group of EU experts will meet next month to wrangle over the sustainability criteria to be entered into the legislation. The commission is proposing that the overall impact of biofuels – produced from biomass from rapeseed, corn, sugar cane or palm oil – results in carbon dioxide cuts of 35% compared to fossil fuel equivalents.

  • Citizens call for ban on coal generators

    In a recent widely circulated letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Dr James E Hansen, world-renowned climate scientist states:

    "The solution to global warming must include phasing out coal
    unless the CO2 is captured and sequestered.

    Yet there are plans for continuing mining of coal, export of coal
    and construction of new coal-fired power plants around the world,
    including in Australia, plants that have a lifetime of half a century."

    Here is a copy of
    Dr. Hansen’s letter

    It is a 133KB PDF, and contains a wealth of Climate Change information.

    However, John Boshier of the National Generators Forum, talking of the Otway Basin project, Australia’s world-first experiment in storing carbon dioxide underground, said:

    "It would be quite risky to assume that you can have carbon storage at the moment….

    We all felt a few years ago that clean coal was do-able and was a great option for Australia. We’re now worried about how long it will take and how much it’s going to cost on the scale that we’re talking about.

    We shouldn’t kid ourselves it’s going to be available in the near term. We think that 2020 is the earliest it can really be commercialised."    (ABC 7.30 Report 7.4.08).

    A Federal emissions trading system would make a conventional coal-fired power plant economically unfeasible.

    When the Australian Government brings in its promised scheme, it will prevent the state governments from approving conventional new coal-fired power plants.

    Unfortunately, the NSW government may act to approve a new power station before the introduction of such a scheme.

    The Rudd Government must move quickly to legislate for maximum emission levels for all new power plants, to ensure that if new energy generation is needed it is derived from energy efficiencies, natural gas, co-generation and proven renewable technologies.

    Only when carbon capture and storage technology eventually proves itself can coal be part of Australia’s energy future.


    We have prepared a message that can be sent to the Prime Minister.

    However you cannot email him, you will need to go to his website and fill out a form.

    Click here to go to the Prime Minister’s website. Then fill-out the form and cut-and-paste the message below.

    Including comments of your own would show your personal concern about this issue, and would make it look different from the hundreds of others we hope will be sent.

    I would like to add my voice to that of Dr James E. Hansen who, in his recent letter to you said "The solution to global warming must include phasing out coal unless the CO2 is captured and sequestered."

    Even a spokesman for the National Generators Forum, John Boshier, conceded on the 7.30 Report that 2020 is the earliest that carbon sequestration can be commercialised.

    Unfortunately, the NSW government may well act to approve a new power station before the introduction of a Federal emissions-trading system, by which any new conventional coal-fired power plant would be made uneconomic.

    Please take action to legislate for maximum emission levels for all new power plants, to ensure that if new energy generation is needed, it is derived from energy efficiencies, natural gas, co-generation and proven renewable technologies.

    Only when carbon capture and storage technology eventually proves itself can coal be part of Australia’s energy future.

    (your name)

    Regards from the Citizens Climate Campaign Committee