EcoRadio

Category: Articles

  • Congestion the ulimate cost of people ingestion

     

     

    When Victorian Premier John Brumby was state treasurer he saw things differently. Population growth in Melbourne was not to be shunned, but a political virtue trumpeted at every opportunity.

    Melbourne’s runaway population was, Brumby liked to say, proof that Victoria was a ”great place to live, work and do business” (or some variation thereof).

    You won’t hear Brumby crowing today. People have spent too much time stuck in traffic in recent years thinking about housing affordability, congestion, hospitals, public transport, water security and environmental degradation.

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s rhetoric on the issue, too, has changed. Last year, as Treasury began to increase its predictions about our future size, he branded himself a big-Australia man. ”I think it’s good for us, it’s good for our national security long-term, it’s good in terms of what we can sustain as a nation,” he said.

    Then came Treasury’s Intergenerational Report this month and its prediction that Australia would swell from about 22 million people to 35.9 million people in 2050. Rudd was no longer so sure a large population was a good thing, so he instead sat on the fence as the opposition increased a get-tough-on-asylum-seekers theme.

    Despite changing rhetoric, the reality is our leaders remain hopelessly addicted to population growth. It is a drug they are unlikely to kick any time soon.

    Size, for some misguided reason, has long been equated with importance. But there is another, more intrinsic reason for the addiction. Population growth is one of the simplest ways for a government to boost economic growth, which is in turn regarded as a key measure of political success. More people means more houses, more cars, more food consumed and more petrol burnt. All this is dutifully recorded by the Bureau of Statistics as an increase in Australia’s gross domestic product, which is in turn associated with prosperity.

    An apparently circular need to feed economic growth with population growth represents a significant flaw in our political system.

    First, economic growth for its own sake is not necessarily a good thing. Rebuild a town flattened by bushfires and it’s recorded as economic growth. Yet can you really argue that the town’s population, or society as a whole, is better off?

    Second, even if you assume GDP is a good measure of progress, the focus should not be on GDP growth per se, but GDP growth per person. The economic pie may be expanding, but if the number of people sharing it is growing at an even greater rate, then everyone gets a smaller slice.

    This is exactly what has happened in Australia. We may have been one of the few economies in the developed world to have grown over the past year (just ask Treasurer Wayne Swan). But because the population grew faster, GDP per person slipped by about 1.7 per cent over the year to September 2009. But don’t expect to hear Swan talking about that.

    Labor backbencher Kelvin Thomson, who is arguing for a cut to Australia’s skilled migration intake, says there are many costs of population growth not factored into economic growth measures, including environmental degradation, loss of urban amenity, and congestion.

    ”I believe very strongly that if we add another million, or 2 million, or 3 million people to Melbourne over the course of the next few decades, that will be a poorer city than the one that I have had the privilege to live in,” Thomson says.

    There are other issues, too. About 64 per cent of Australia’s recent population growth has been due to migration. As opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison points out, the states have little influence over migration levels, despite being responsible for many areas that are affected, including planning, infrastructure and environment.

    ”Growth is good only if it is managed well,” Morrison says. ”If it is not managed well it can be very counterproductive.”

    The prediction that the population will hit 36 million by 2050 may even be too conservative. The Intergenerational Report assumes an annual net overseas migration for the next 40 years of 180,000. The intake last financial year was about 285,000.

    As Morrison says, it would be intriguing to know when the government intends to cut the intake to bring about this average figure of 180,000.

    None of this is to say that immigration is a bad thing. What we do need is to have a sensible debate about how big we want to get. Once we decide this, our politicians will need to make some brave decisions, including acknowledging that economic growth isn’t always worth pursing for the sake of it. After all, as former treasurer Peter Costello liked to say, demography is destiny.

    Josh Gordon is The Sunday Age national political reporter.

  • Preparing for 2014-15 “Oil Crunch” Forecast by UK Industry Group

At the state and national government level, preparations for another “oil crunch” similar or worse than 2008 and 1980 should include: 

  • Ending subsidies for oil in order to reduce economic dependence on oil-based industries.
  • Transition agriculture and food production from operations highly dependent on the use of oil-based products such as diesel fuel, fertilizers and crop treatments, while encouraging bio-regional food production from urban foodsheds for nearby population centers. 
  • Planning and support for high-speed rail networks (though this would be a longer-term preparation for post-carbon transportation era beyond 2020)

Daniel Lerch of the Post Carbon Institute authored a guidebook for cities and local government on how to prepare for an oil crisis. I have also written a study looking at US oil crisis readiness in the largest 50 US cities, “Major US City Post-Oil Preparedness Ranking” (second publication from top).

Whether, it is called “peaking oil” or an “oil crunch,” many experts see total global oil production reaching a plateau of around 91-92 million barrels a day by 2012-2014 unless, as the report says, “some unforeseen giant, and easily accessible, finds are reported very soon.”

 With fast-growing demand for oil in developing economies such as China (which overtook the US in 2009 for total automobile sales), India and the Middle East, developed nations in North America and Europe need to consider wholescale industrial and societal shifts.

The United State and Canada in particular should start reducing oil dependency now in preparation for oil price volatility and possible supply disruptions that would force such shifts without warning, with dire consequences for the economy, nationally and locally. Many cities (New York, Toronto, Vancouver, Washington, D.C.) are already somewhat prepared to make this shift because of infrastructure for public transit and other oil-free mobility options.

The world is heavily dependent on 120 oil fields that account for 50 percent of world production, and contain two-thirds of remaining reserves of fields in production. New discoveries of oil fields off Brazil’s coast, under the Arctic and elsewhere, will not be enough to replenish the “drawdown” that is occurring. Besides, many of these fields take investments that require oil to be priced over $100 or $120 a barrel, so they will not be producing for a number of years after such investments are made: in other words, far beyond 2015.

“The challenge is that if oil prices reach the levels necessary to justify these high-cost investments, economic growth may be imperiled,” says the Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security.

Another so-called energy “ace in the hole,” oil sands deposits in Canada, are not a viable option. Oil sands produce at least three times the amount of atmospheric carbon over conventional oil when they are processed and used, which would exacerbate global climate change significantly, while also fouling the region’s water supply.

What is being raised by this report is that the era of cheap oil is over, and that the consequences will be ugly, unless we start preparing for this profound change.

“Don’t let the oil crunch catch us out in the way that the credit crunch did,” said Virgin CEO Richard Branson and other corporate executives in the introduction to the report

Warren Karlenzig is president of Common Current, an internationally active urban sustainability strategy consultancy. He is author of How Green is Your City? The SustainLane US City Rankings and a Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute.

Originally published February 22, 2010 at the Green Flow blog of Common Currents. Republished February 23, 2010 at Worldchanging

  • NSW govt does hybrid tax backflip

    (NB) Carefully read last line re “Fully Funded”.

    NSW govt does hybrid tax backflip

    By Adam Bennett, Leah McLennan and Lisa Martin, AAP February 24, 2010, 6:30PM

    Related Links

     

    The NSW government is being accused of incompetence over a decision to exempt hybrid vehicles from an increased weight tax just days after the release of its transport blueprint.

    The vehicle weight tax changes were announced as part of the blueprint, released on Sunday, with motorists slugged up to $30 a year more to help pay for the $51.2 billion plan.

    The policy targets large cars over 975kg, but because it was based solely on weight, it also hit hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius.

    On Tuesday, Premier Kristina Keneally announced hybrids were to be exempted from the tax increase, a belated change seized on by the opposition.

    Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell accused the government of “making it up as it goes”, while opposition transport spokeswoman Gladys Berejiklian said Ms Keneally was guilty of “mistake after mistake”.

    The opposition has described the tax change as unfair on regional motorists, who will get no benefit out of improved Sydney transport.

    “She can’t tell us why she keeps making exemptions to the $30 tax on cars because they got that so wrong,” Ms Berejiklian told reporters on Wednesday.

    “They make an announcement and then try to fix it up.”

    Ms Keneally said the government decided to exempt hybrid cars after “listening to the community and responding”.

    “I would have thought the opposition would have welcomed that hybrids were exempted from this scheme,” she said.

    “We recognise that people who buy hybrid vehicles are already very mindful of carbon emissions.”

    The transport blueprint again dominated question time, with Ms Berejiklian calling for Mr Campbell to resign over the hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars spent on the scrapped CBD Metro.

    “If this was the private sector the person would have been sacked long ago,” she said.

    The premier was also grilled over the funding details of the blueprint, and proposals such as the $6.7 billion northwest rail link.

    “It’s a $50 billion plan, fully funded, written into our budget, written into the state infrastructure strategy,” Ms Keneally repeated.

    “It is the reallocation of the money we would have spent on the CBD Metro, and we are allocating money from the forward estimates.”

    The stock response prompted an exasperated shadow Leader of the House, Andrew Piccoli, to his feet.

    “The question was about detail. Just saying it is fully funded doesn’t mean it is fully funded,” he said

  • It’s time for a solar revolution

     

    That is why I was joined by 10 of my colleagues (Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, Gillibrand, Merkley, Lautenberg, Leahy, Boxer, Menendez, Specter, and Harkin) in introducing the Ten Million Solar Roofs Act. The bill is all of 9 pages and is pretty straightforward. It calls for 10 million new solar rooftop systems and 200,000 new solar water heating systems over the next 10 years. When fully implemented, this legislation would lead to 30,000 megawatts of new photovoltaic energy, triple our total current U.S. solar energy capacity. It will increase by almost 20 times our current energy output from photovoltaic panels. The legislation will rapidly increase production of solar panels, driving down the price of photovoltaic systems. It also would mean the creation of over a million new jobs. The passage of this bill would dramatically reorient our energy priorities and would be a major step forward toward a clean energy future for the United States.

    What the Ten Million Solar Roofs Act does is provide consumer rebates for the purchase and installation of solar systems. Here is how it works: Take the example of a homeowner who decides to install a 5 kilowatt solar system which, depending on location, would produce enough electricity to cover most, if not all, of an average electric bill (the solar panels would produce excess power during the day which can be sold back to the utility, covering some or all of the cost of electricity when the sun is not shining). That system today costs roughly $35,000 to purchase and install. The federal tax credit of 30 percent reduces the system cost to $24,500. Many states offer additional incentives. In Vermont, for example, a homeowner could get an additional rebate of $1.75 per watt, which would further reduce the system cost to $15,750. Our bill would provide an additional rebate of as much as $1.75 per watt, covering up to 50 percent of the remaining cost. The result: the consumer now pays $7,875 for the solar system.

    This is a pretty good deal for a family that plans to stay in their home or wants to increase their home value, or a small business looking to stabilize its energy costs. It’s also a good deal for the nation because we save money by preventing the expensive construction of new power plants, we eliminate large health care and other costs associated with air and water pollution, and we take a big step to address global warming.

    We know this concept works because it is already being implemented on a smaller scale in California. This legislation extends nationally the California Million Solar Roofs initiative, started by Gov.  Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. Now several years into the program, California is on track to meet its goal of installing 3,000 megawatts of new solar by 2016.

    Interestingly, while solar has a great deal of public support, you might not know that from listening to energy debates in Congress. As a member of both the energy and environment committees, I am constantly astounded by how many of my colleagues prefer to focus on what the government can do for the nuclear or coal industries, rather than why the government should support clean and sustainable energy. In fact, many senators and congressmen are fighting for a “nuclear renaissance” and want the federal government to offer loan guarantees covering the cost to build 100 new nuclear plants.  This could place at risk up to $1 trillion in taxpayer money.

    In my view, this is an absurd proposal. First, it is enormously expensive and financially risky. Second, if we don’t know how to safely dispose of the highly toxic nuclear waster we currently have, what are we going to do with the new waste generated by 100 additional plants?

    You may not hear much discussion of this in Congress, but the construction of new nuclear power plants is the most costly approach to producing new energy. Each new plant costs $10 to $17 billion to construct, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the risk of default on taxpayer supported loan guarantees is more than 50 percent. The simple truth is that building new solar capacity is a lot cheaper than building new nuclear plants. The cost to produce electricity from new nuclear plants is estimated to be 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour. Compare this to the cost of producing electricity from solar photovoltaic panels at 13 to 19 cents per kilowatt hour. Also, importantly, the price of solar is coming down, whereas the price for new nuclear keeps going up. You do not have to be a financial wizard to figure this one out.

    The time is now to reorder our energy priorities. Between 2002 and 2008 we put $70 billion of federal tax dollars towards fossil fuels, and just $1.2 billion towards solar power. New nuclear plants get more than triple the government subsidy that new solar plants get (and this does not fully account for the huge subsidy nuclear plants get through the Price-Anderson Act, which caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic event at a nuclear plant). This is not right. 

    If we are serious about moving toward energy independence in a cost-effective way, we should invest in solar energy.  If we are serious about cutting air and water pollution and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we should invest in solar energy. If we are serious about creating a significant number of good paying jobs and making the United States a world leader in the production of sustainable energy, we should invest in solar energy. And, as we move forward in the solar revolution, a very good step forward would be the passage of the Ten Million Solar Roofs Act.

  • Bigger engines, two car households and school runs on rise

    At the same time there has been continued growth in the number of households with access to two or more cars, from around 2 per cent in the 1950s to more than 30 per cent in 2008.

    The number of journeys made by public transport has risen slightly since the 1990s from around six to seven billion, but is still well below the 12 billion figure of the 1960s.

    Richard George, from the Campaign for Better Transport, said the rising trend towards bigger engines showed improved engine efficiency was not persuading people to slim down in their choice of car.

    ‘The style of vehicle people are buying does not reflect the type of journeys they are making. You might need a bigger engine if you are towing a caravan but not for driving to Tesco,’ said George.

    He said only by increasing the cost of motoring (which the ONS statistics revealed had fallen over the past decade) and making cars a less attractive alternative to public transport and walking could you tackle the trend.

    The statistics also revealed that the number of primary school children walking to school had fallen below 50 per cent.

  • EU biofuels significantly harming food production in developing countries

     

    The report says the 2008 decision by EU countries to obtain 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020 is proving disastrous for poor countries. Developing countries are expected to grow nearly two-thirds of the jatropha, sugar cane and palm oil crops that are mostly used for biofuels.

    “To meet the EU 10% target, the total land area directly required to grow industrial biofuels in developing countries could reach 17.5m hectares, over half the size of Italy. Additional land will also be required in developed nations, displacing food and animal feed crops onto land in new areas, often in developing countries,” says the report.

    Biofuels are estimated by the IMF to have been responsible for 20-30% of the global food price spike in 2008 when 125m tonnes of cereals were diverted into biofuel production. The amount of biofuels in Europe’s car fuels is expected to quadruple in the next decade.

    The report attributes the massive growth in biofuel production to generous subsidies. It estimates that the EU biofuel industry has already received €4.4bn (£3.82bn) in incentives, subsidies and tax relief and that this could triple to over €13.7bn if the EU meets its 2020 target.

    The greatest support to the industry is exemption from excise duties. Duty at the pump is 20 pence less per litre compared to conventional fuels although this exemption due to end in 2010, a change which supermarket Morrisons cited last week as the reason for dropping one of its biodiesel blends. In 2009, the duty on low- sulphur petrol and diesel in the UK was 54.19 pence per litre; for biodiesel and ethanol it was 34.19 pence per litre.

    “Biofuels are driving a global human tragedy. Local food prices have already risen massively. As biofuel production gains pace, this can only accelerate,” said report author Tim Rice. He added thatbiofuels are not even an answer to climate change: “Most biofuels are worse than the fossil fuels they are supposed to replace.” . Large scale biofuel plantations can increase carbon dioxide emissions, either directly by cutting down forests or ploughing up other carbon rich habitats, or indirectly by forcing farmers to move into these areas. Separately, the UK Nuffield Council on Bioethics is currently consulting on the ethics of biofuels – how to ensure a new generation of biofuels don’t increase greenhouse gas emissions and take food from the poor to fuel cars.

    The ActionAid report says Europe is just one region now greatly increasing the amount of biofuels in transport fuel. Analysis of US farm data last month by the Earth Policy Institute in Washington showed that one-quarter of all the maize and other grain crops grown in the US now ends up as biofuel in cars. The grain grown to produce the fuel in the US in 2009 was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels.

    If all global biofuel government targets are met, says ActionAid, food prices could rise by up to an additional 76% by 2020 with an extra 600 million extra people going hungry – six times as much as European policies alone.