EcoRadio

Category: Climate chaos

The atmosphere is to the earth as a layer of varnish is to a desktop globe. It is thin, fragile and essential for preserving the items on the surface.150 years of burning fossil fuel have overloaded the atmosphere to the point where the earth is ill. It now has a fever. Read the detailed article, Soothing Gaia’s Fever for an evocative account of that analogy. The items listed here detail progress on coordinating 6.5 billion people in the most critical project undertaken by humanity. 

  • Revealed: polluters’ fear tactics on climate

     

    In Australia, 20 companies who have already won the most concessions from the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme employ 28 lobbying firms with well over 100 staff, many of them former politicians, political advisers or government officials.

    In the US there are more than 2800 climate lobbyists, five for every member of Congress, an increase of more than 400 per cent over the past six years. From Washington to Canberra and New Delhi to Brussels, companies and their lobbyists are often raising the same widespread fears about jobs, power blackouts and economic losses unless governments weaken commitments to combat climate change.

    The report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists examined the climate lobby in eight countries including the US, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, China, Belgium and Brazil. It relied on more than 200 interviews, lobbying registers and political donation records. The Herald collaborated in the investigation for Australia.

    The findings come as hopes are fading that a binding climate change agreement will be reached at Copenhagen next month.

    This week African nations staged a day-long boycott of UN climate talks in the lead-up to the summit, demanding that rich countries make more ambitious pledges to cut emissions. And the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, bluntly told reporters: ”We are not going to have a full-fledged binding treaty – Kyoto type – by Copenhagen”. Instead, a political agreement is being flagged with a treaty not being concluded until at least next year.

    The consortium’s investigation found big greenhouse-polluting industries in all countries, developed and developing, are pushing back against ambitious targets to cut national emissions.

    In China, the Government’s plans to boost renewable energy has not been embraced by many of the nation’s power companies which rely on coal. Only one of the top power companies, all state-owned, will meet the Government’s goal to get 3 per cent of their power from renewable energy by 2010.

    In the US, chief executives of coal and power companies have hosted a public campaign against climate legislation which is being blocked in the Senate. The millionaire coal chief Don Blankenship appeared at a ”Friends of America” rally with country music stars and prominent Fox TV host Sean Hannity. The rally was designed to warn Americans ”how environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs”.

    In Europe, ambitious targets to cut greenhouse emissions were significantly reduced after lobbying by heavy industries protesting they would face unfair competition from the developing world.

    Industry lobby groups have also carved out a permanent role at the UN talks as representatives of the so-called BINGOS – Business and Industry Non-Government Organisations.

    While lobbyists for the renewable energy industry, the carbon traders and environmental groups are also becoming more prominent, the report finds that their voices ”can barely be heard above the clamour of the older, well-capitalised and deeply entrenched industries that have been lobbying on climate change for more than 20 years”.

    More reports www.icij.org

  • Energy entrepreneurs can plug the gap in our power supplies

     

     

    If we are serious about meeting our energy and climate targets we need to make sure that the market is fully opened up to support the legions of independent project developers, or energy entrepreneurs, who can seize this opportunity and help fill the void.

     

    The main problems with relying only on utilities to build the low-carbon solutions of the future are ones of size, speed, cost and diversity.

     

    In the case of renewable energy such as wind, utility companies are only really interested in investing in or developing projects of a particular size to achieve an economy of scale. These are very slow to get off the ground, take a long time for any decision to be reached within the organisation, and then a long time again to get through planning, order equipment supplies and so on. Large projects also carry a significant financial risk which, especially during a recession, even the most solid of utilities are unwilling to carry.

     

    Without a much higher price placed on carbon emissions or increased renewable subsidies, utilities argue they cannot make the investment necessary to meet renewable targets. We are already seeing large utilities deferring or even cancelling projects for this reason.

     

    By contrast, the independent developers are mostly focused on smaller projects, with lower financial risks, which are quicker to get through planning and buy the necessary equipment for. Each project may be smaller in output, but with a far higher number of potential developers, the aggregate results can plug a vital gap in our energy supplies – and do so far quicker than any company could build a nuclear power station.

     

    This brings us to the final point about the independent sector: diversity. Over the past year alone we have signed Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with developers covering wind, anaerobic digestion on agricultural sites, energy from waste, and small hydro, as well as corporate developers building on-site renewables.

     

    Each one of these project developers acts as an entrepreneur or small business outfit, generating not just electricity, but income and jobs too. They are a multiplier in the wider economy, helping to address two of the crises of our current age: recession and climate change.

     

    This decentralised model has the potential to grow exponentially if the UK corporate sector is given the right incentives and motivation to invest in their own generation capacity. While the government talks of providing these incentives, in reality policy and approach is still focused on the large utilities and centralised solutions, as the current push for nuclear shows.

    Larger utilities have dictated and monopolised the debate over energy policy for too long. No single company, developer or sector can tackle this energy gap alone. It will take a variety of solutions, including nuclear, from a variety of outlets.

     

    But to accelerate the decentralisation and decarbonisation of our energy supply, we will have to accelerate the decentralisation of ownership and generation first.

     

    • Jo Butlin is vice president of SmartestEnergy, a purchaser and supplier of electricity generated from renewable sources

  • India ‘arrogant’ to deny global warming link to melting glaciers

     

     

    Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.

     

    Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”.

     

    However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

     

     

     

    Ramesh said he was prepared to take on “the doomsday scenarios of Al Gore and the IPCC”.

     

    “My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem,” he added.

     

    The government report, entitled Himalayan glaciers (pdf), looks at 150 years’ worth of data gathered from the Geological Survey of India from 25 glaciers. It claims to be the first comprehensive study on the region.

     

    Vijay Kumar Raina, the geologist who authored the report, admitted that some “Himalayan glaciers are retreating. But it is nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear.”

     

    Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not “peer reviewed” and had few “scientific citations”.

     

    “With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.”

     

    In a remarkable finding, the report claims the Gangotri glacier, the main source of the River Ganges, actually receded fastest in 1977 – and is today “practically at a stand still”.

     

    Some scientists have warned that the river beds of the Gangetic Basin – which feed hundreds of millions in northern India – could run dry once glaciers go. However, such concerns are scotched by the report.

     

    According to Raina, the mistake made by “western scientists” is to apply the rate of glacial loss from other parts of the world to the Himalayas. “In the United States the highest glaciers in Alaska are still below the lowest level of Himalayan glaciers. Our 9,500 glaciers are located at very high altitudes. It is completely different system.”

     

    “As long as we have monsoons we will have glaciers. There are many factors to consider when we want to find out how quickly (glaciers melt) … rainfall, debris cover, relief and terrain,” said Raina.

     

    In response Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of “climate change deniers and school boy science”.

     

    “I cannot see what the minister’s motives are. We do need more extensive measurement of the Himalayan range but it is clear from satellite pictures what is happening.”

     

    Many environmentalists said they were also unconvinced by the minister’s arguments. Sunita Narain, a member of the Indian prime minister’s climate change council and director of the Centre for Science and Environment, said “the report would create a lot of confusion”.

     

    “The PM’s council has just received a comprehensive report which presents many studies which show clear fragmentation of the glaciers would lead to faster recession. I am not sure what Jairam (Ramesh) is doing.”

  • Clean coal unviable, says Macfarlane

     

    The Government is putting hundreds of millions of dollars towards championing the commercial use of carbon capture, regarded by many as a key to cutting greenhouse emissions from coal by storing the polluting gases deep below the surface.

    The technology was kicked off by the previous government but Mr McFarlane has gone cold on the idea and says there is mounting evidence to back his pessimism.

    The leadership of the Government and the Opposition are pulling out all stops to find enough common ground for the Senate to pass Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme later this month.

    Both want a deal and to remove the threat of a double dissolution election, but Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce is doing his best to scuttle the bill.

    “Last night I launched an online petition,” he said.

    “In the first couple of hours I got 1,054 signatures on it. That is incredible. This fight will go down to the wire.”

    Mr Macfarlane is no longer sceptical about humans causing global warming but he is now sceptical about carbon capture and storage, something he championed as resources minister in the Howard government.

    “The Government’s incentive is just that,” he said as minister.

    “It is an aim to bring forward the introduction of this technology into commercial plants as soon as possible.”

    Just three years on, he doubts it will ever take off.

    “What happened was nothing happened and that is really the problem for Australia,” he said.

    “The clean coal option has passed us by. Twenty years to wait before the technology is available. Thirty years before it is commercial. We will need to move on to other options by then.”

     

    ‘Technology will solve problem’

     

    The Government is counting on locking up a lot of carbon to help cut Australia’s emissions growth from 2035.

    Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has been travelling the world, promoting Mr Rudd’s brainchild – the $100 million a year Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.

    The Minister still thinks the technology will work if there is a carbon price to drive investment.

    “I actually think we are going to see a breakthrough on carbon capture and storage,” he said.

    “I think technology created the problem and technology will solve the problem in terms of reducing CO2 emissions. All the renewable options, including an initial growth in gas, we are gas rich.

    “So we don’t have all the eggs in one basket.”

    The two men see eye-to-eye on a lot of things. Mr Ferguson is a nuclear energy enthusiast but the Government has ruled it out. The Minister now argues Australia does not need to go down that path.

    “Our Government is focused on examination of all clean-energy options,” he said.

    “It does not include nuclear. Perhaps Ian Macfarlane has actually now come clean about the Coalition policy for the next election. Perhaps he needs to say yes or no to that question today.”

    “In the short-to-medium term, obviously we will use gas,” Mr Macfarlane said.

    “We could burn gas at the same emissions as clean coal but half the price, because gas is so clean. But in the longer term Australia will, like all our other economic partners, need to consider nuclear.”

    Tags: business-economics-and-finance, industry, oil-and-gas, climate-change, government-and-politics, federal-government, coal, emissions-trading, australia

  • Is Rudd the worst kind of climate sceptic

     

    Unless, of course, that leader is also a sceptic – of a sort.

    There has been a lot of discussion recently about the different kinds of climate change sceptics in our debate. The PM joined the fray in his Lowy Institute speech, defining three kinds of sceptics as follows:

    The opponents of action on climate change fall into one of three categories.

    • First, the climate science deniers.
    • Second, those that pay lip service to the science and the need to act on climate change but oppose every practicable mechanism being proposed to bring about that action.
    • Third, those in each country that believe their country should wait for others to act first.”

    As far as it goes, that is quite a useful analysis. But it leaves out the fourth, and, in my opinion, by far the most dangerous category of sceptic: those who profess to take the science seriously, seek to hold the moral and scientific high ground, and then utterly fail to take the kind of action the science requires.

    Those who claim to care but do too little are far more worthy of scorn and derision than those who profess not to care at all.

    Let me put forward a scenario to help us decide who is most culpable.

    A child swimming at a surf beach starts waving frantically from out in the waves. Corey Bernardi says “he’s not drowning, he’s just waving.” Nikki Williams says “oh, the poor dear, but I really couldn’t do anything to help, it’s just beyond my stength.” Mitch Hooke says “he might be drowning, I’m not 100% sure, but we’d be far better placed to wait for the lifesavers to get here and deal with it.” That’s Kevin’s three categories. But what does Kevin himself say?

    Kevin says “this is a crisis on a grand scale. Look at all these people milling around on the beach and cravenly refusing to do anything. We have a moral obligation to act.” He starts wading in. Everyone else breathes a sigh of relief because they think Kevin’s got it under control. But Kevin never gets anywhere near the child, as he only wades in 5% of the way. The child drowns.

    The fourth group of sceptics are by far the most dangerous because, through their protestations, by continually talking about how serious the issue is, they convince a great many people that the issue is under control. I believe, for example, that recent polling results by Lowy and others, which show an apparent reduction in levels of popular concern about climate change, are due in large part to the Rudd approach. Certainly, the growing chorus of scepticism helps, but far more insidious is the feeling that it is under control, that it is being taken care of. That is the power of  greenwash, which corporations (”Beyond Petroleum”, anyone?) have long understood.

    The core of this problem is that Rudd presents “two stark choices – action or inaction”. That is the point he made in his speech on Friday, and it’s his main rallying cry for the CPRS.

    But “action or inaction” is the kind of false dichotomy that can only be supported by the shallow, spin-over-substance brigade that is so powerful in this highly political, incredibly policy-cautious government. For those of us who are actually concerned about outcomes, about delivering something meaningful – in this case a safe climate for us and for all those who come after us – the choice is very different.

    The truly stark choice is “do we do what needs to be done, or do we fail?” Will we pull out all stops and do everything we can to protect the climate, or will we deny, faff around, equivocate or, worst of all, dissemble until it’s too late?

    Mr Rudd attacks sceptics as gambling with our future.

    Do you feel lucky?

  • WA sea level rises doubling world average

     

    The Opposition’s spokeswoman for regional development, Alannah MacTiernan says future planning needs to consider rising sea levels.

    “Our planning policies have been actually based on the global averages and now that we see from these figures the sea level rise in WA is more than twice that,” she said.

    “I think we’ve got to take some urgent action.

    “We need to look at what we need to do to protect existing housing and infrastructure and what we need to do to prevent development in vulnerable areas.”

    Tags: environment, climate-change, oceans-and-reefs, labor-party, states-and-territories, environmental-policy, wa