Category: Archive

Archived material from historical editions of The Generator

  • Nigerian Oil Spill Sparks Crisis

    –

    Want to know why the price of oil is climbing again?

    For part of the answer, drive three hours from Port Harcourt, the
    capital of Nigeria’s oil-rich delta region, past swampy rivers with
    fishermen in dugout canoes, down a bumpy dirt track to Iwhrekan, where
    1,000 villagers live in run-down concrete and mud-brick buildings.





    (Photograph)
    FISHING GONE:
    A resident of Iwhrekan shows how an oil spill ruined one of the village’s key fishing creeks.
    ABRAHAM MCLAUGHLIN / THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
    Reporters on
    the Job

    The Monitor gives the story behind the story.

    E-mail this story

    Write a letter to the Editor
    Printer-friendly version
    Permission to reprint/republish


    On July 21, 2005, the pipeline that runs near here ruptured. Streams
    of black goo oozed into farmers’ fields and a fishing creek. Because of
    a complicated dispute between villagers and the major oil company in
    this region, Royal Dutch Shell, the oil hasn’t been cleaned up. Black
    residue still covers thousands of plants.

    Residents are angry. “We will face Shell,” says village chairman
    Daniel Oweh surrounded by agitated young men. “The next stage will be
    violent.”

    Threats like this are increasingly being carried out – helping drive
    oil to $66 per barrel this week. Four international oil workers were
    taken hostage by armed men in speedboats last week. Nigeria’s
    production has dropped by nearly 10 percent.

    It could get worse. “The loss of more Nigerian oil could send the
    price to $80 or $95 per barrel or higher,” says David Goldwyn, a former
    US assistant energy secretary who now consults in the region. Given the
    instability here, he says, “The likelihood of a significant disruption”
    to Nigeria’s output of about 2.6 million barrels per day “always has to
    be counted as relatively high.”

    Read the full story at Christian Science Monitor 

  • Murry-Darling Basin Agreement stalled again due to weak leadership

    Less than half of target accounted for: There was good news for
    the Murray this week when Victoria announced a $93 million plan to
    conserve 145 billion litres for return to the river. But this was the
    first such project to receive Commonwealth approval. Victoria has
    identified another similar sized water saving, but NSW – again – is yet
    to do its bit. This means little more than half the 500 billion litres
    supposed to be returned to the Murray has been identified.

    Next month’s council holds the key: The National Water
    Commission was set up to circumvent this and has the lever of
    withholding national competition payments but cannot actually knock
    state heads together to get agreement. In the end, the Council of
    Australian Governments, due to meet next month, holds the key to the
    success or failure of water reform. The premiers – in particular,
    Morris lemma in NSW – and Prime Minister John Howard need to show
    leadership to match their rhetoric.

    The Australian Financial Review, 20/1/2006, p. 86

    Source: Erisk – www.erisk.net 

  • NSW Greens demand key documents on Sydney’s desalination

    9c/kL cheaper: The project, which also involves one of the
    bidders for the desalination plant, the French water giant Veolia,
    would produce roughly two-thirds as much water as the desalination
    plant. AGL estimates it would cost $1.35 a kilolitre to recycle water,
    compared with Sydney Water estimates of about $1.44 for desalinated
    water.

    The Sydney Morning Herald, 20/1/2006, p. 1

    Source: Erisk – www.erisk.net 


     

  • US agencies demand White house cap CO2

    “This is not a sort of short-term cycle
    problem. This is a major disaster for the world,” said Russell E.
    Train, who served as EPA administrator under Presidents Richard M.
    Nixon and Gerald R. Ford from 1973 to 1977. “To say we’ll deal with it
    later and try to push it away is dishonest to the people, and
    self-destructive.”

    Lee M. Thomas, who headed the agency from 1985
    to 1989 under Ronald Reagan, said U.S. businesses would welcome federal
    regulation at this point because it would allow them to plan for the
    kind of investments that will be needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions
    linked to climate change.

    Companies want “certainty as to what is
    required down the road,” Thomas said. “You’ve got to put an
    international scheme in place that says ‘We’re going to start action
    today’ and periodically we’re going to review these things and see if
    we need to tighten things or loosen them. You can’t wait until you have
    certainty on these issues. Then it’s way too late.”

    The only
    living former administrators who did not join in the panel were Mike
    Leavitt, who now heads the Department of Health and Human Services and
    could not attend because of a scheduling conflict, and Douglas M.
    Costle, who served under President Jimmy Carter. Costle could not
    attend for health reasons.

    Carol M. Browner, the lone Democrat
    present, told reporters after the session that the panel’s consensus on
    the need for regulation is “huge,” calling it “a testament to the
    reality of the issue and a recognition that it’s time to do something.”

    But
    the agency’s current head, Stephen L. Johnson, said the administration
    remains committed to pursuing voluntary emission reductions and
    technological innovation rather than requiring mandatory cuts. Noting
    that automobiles account for a significant portion of carbon dioxide
    emissions, Johnson said: “Are we going to tell people to stop driving
    their cars, or do we start investing in technology [to cut emissions]?
    That’s the answer, investing in those technologies.”

    Just
    yesterday, the EPA announced that four corporations — Baxter
    International Inc., General Motors, IBM, and SC Johnson — and the
    Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory had met their
    voluntary greenhouse gas reduction goals through the government’s
    Climate Leaders program. A total of 79 American firms, which generate
    roughly 8 percent of the nation’s total output of greenhouse gases,
    primarily carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, have vowed to
    reduce their emissions by an amount equal to taking 5 million cars off
    the road each year.

    Environmentalists said the fact that so many
    EPA administrators could agree on the importance of mandatory carbon
    limits shows the extent to which most policymakers want more sweeping
    action on climate change.

    “I can’t remember anything quite like
    it,” said Jeremy Symons, who directs the global warming campaign for
    the advocacy group, the National Wildlife Federation. “It should be an
    unprecedented wake-up call for anyone concerned about our planet. The
    question is whether President Bush is going to listen, since he’s
    ignored scientists in the past.”

    But the administrators’
    statements failed to move Myron Ebell, who heads the Competitive
    Enterprise Institute’s global warming policy program.

    “EPA
    administrators like to regulate things,” said Ebell, whose think tank
    receives contributions from companies opposed to mandatory carbon
    limits. “That what EPA does. That’s their only approach to anything.”

    See Washington Post story 

    By Juliet Eilperin

    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A04

  • Vic’s Country Energy adds another windfarm to its green portfolio

    10-year contract: Under a 10-year power purchase agreement with
    Regional Wind Farms, Country Energy will purchase all of the
    electricity and renewable energy credits generated by the wind farm.
    Regional general manager Guy Chick said Country Energy’s comprehensive
    renewable energy strategy included the purchase of more and more energy
    from renewable sources.

    Other green energy sources: In addition to wind farm projects in regional NSW and SA, Country Energy also purchases:
    – hydro-electricity from stations throughout NSW;
    – biomass energy (energy generated from natural materials such as
    plants and organic landfill) from NSW’s Far North Coast, Queensland and
    Sydney;
    – a food waste to energy plant in Sydney; and
    – solar farms and rooftop solar systems across NSW.

    Further information: To enquire about countrygreen energy phone 13 23 56, fill out an on-line form at http://www.countryenergy.com.au/green or visit a local Country Energy customer service centre.

    Reference: Country Energy, January 2006. Media contact: Caron
    Lasscock, Public Affairs Advisor, Far West, on 08 8082 5329 or 0428 161
    680.

    Erisk Net, 19/1/2006

  • NSW govt gets desalination decision wrong but won’t back down

    Panel suggests gas-fired power plant: The Drought Expert Panel
    also said that a desalination plant would have to be powered by a
    gas-fired power plant to reduce greenhouse emissions.

    Govt says no: The government has now opted for a 125
    megalitre-a-day plant at a cost of $1.3 billion. It also ruled out a
    gas-fired power plant.

    The Daily Telegraph, 17/1/2006, p. 10