EcoRadio

Category: Sustainable Settlement and Agriculture

The Generator is founded on the simple premise that we should leave the world in better condition than we found it. The news items in this category outline the attempts people have made to do this. They are mainly concerned with our food supply and settlement patterns. The impact that the human race has on the planet.

  • NSW minister quits, Keneally faces another reshuffle

    NSW minister quits, Keneally faces another reshuffle

    ABC June 4, 2010, 12:20PM

     

    The New South Wales Premier is facing another cabinet reshuffle with today’s resignation of the Juvenile Justice Minister, Graham West.

    A spokesman for the Minister says Mr West has become frustrated with political process and the daily commute from Campbelltown has also taken a toll on his family.

    He says his resignation as minister is effective immediately and he will not be contesting his seat at the March election.

    In a brief statement Premier Kristina Keneally has thanked Mr West for his contribution to the community and the cabinet.

    “Mr West has served the people of NSW well, and I am sure he will continue to do so in the future,” she said.

    Former juvenile justice minister Barbara Perry will act in the role for the time being.

    The Government says it will not announce a replacement for Mr West until after the state budget on Tuesday.

    The New South Wales Government has lost a parliamentary secretary and two ministers in the past month.

    At the start of May, Karyn Paluzzano resigned as a parliamentary secretary and then stepped down as an MP after a public hearing by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

    David Campbell resigned as transport minister on May 21 after he was filmed leaving a gay sex club. He remains the member for Keira.

     

  • No Disaster declaration for storm

    No disaster declaration for storm

    AAP June 3, 2010, 5:00 pm

     

    Related Links

     

    Storm victims in northern NSW are being told to contact their insurers, with the state government unlikely to declare it a natural disaster area.

    Emergency Services Minister Steve Whan said agencies were in the process of assessing the extent of damage in Lennox Head after the town was hit by a waterspout and 150km/h winds.

    “At this stage it looks like most of the damage is to private properties rather than public infrastructure,” Mr Whan said in a statement on Thursday.

    “That means it does not appear the event meets the fixed national criteria for natural disaster relief, but we will wait for the assessments to be completed before making any determination.

    “I encourage those with damage to their homes to contact their insurers or appropriate authorities to report the damage.”

    The wild weather tore roofs from buildings and destroyed at least 12 homes, leaving six people injured.

    The town has since been shut down with downed powerlines cutting electricity supply to about 500 homes.

    Lennox Head Mayor Phillip Silver was expected to appeal to the minister to make a natural disaster declaration.

    Such a declaration typically means that councils, not-for-profit organisations, small businesses, primary producers and some other organisations are able to apply for funding or loans to aid essential repair works.

    Mr Whan said Community Services could provide assistance for low-income earners who are uninsured and whose primary residence has been damaged.

    “This assistance helps with the cost of replacing essential household items and structural repairs,” he said.

    “People can contact the disaster welfare line on 1800 018 444.”

    Premier Kristina Keneally is preparing to fly to Lennox Head where she will join Mr Whan about 7.30pm (AEST) on Thursday.

    She will inspect the storm damage and speak with affected residents, many of whom are at the town’s Bowling and Sports Club which has been set up as an evacuation centre.

    Volunteers are on standby in the region for possible further flooding and damaging weather conditions.

    “Some people are likely to be isolated so if possible they should stock up on essential food and medical supplies now,” Mr Whan said.

    “Farmers and others living and working along the rivers should immediately lift pumps and relocate livestock and equipment to higher ground.

    “The SES has already carried out two flood rescues at Ballina and I would again urge people not to drive, ride or walk through floodwaters or allow their children to play in swollen creeks or stormwater drains.”

     

  • Countries agree to spend big to save world’s forests.

     

    The Oslo Climate and Forest Conference, attended by representatives of 52 countries, agreed on a non-binding framework to funnel aid promised by the rich world and set up monitoring standards to ensure money flows are based on solid results. Such frameworks are known as Redd (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) programmes.

    “The outcome of this meeting could be the first comprehensive component for a future international agreement on climate change [since Copenhagen],” World Bank chief Robert Zoellick said in a televised address from Washington DC.

    In Copenhagen, global leaders failed to deliver a legally binding deal on manmade emissions. Rich nations did agree, however, to provide $30bn from 2010-12 to help poor states combat global warming, rising to $100bn a year by 2020.

    The US, the UK, Australia, France, Japan and Norway had specifically agreed on $3.5bn from 2010-12 to save forests, a pool of money which has now grown to $4bn (£2.75bn), according to Norway.

    “There is no way to mobilise that much money without mobilising the private sector,” Norway’s prime minister Jens Stoltenberg said, referring to a plan to spend $30bn on forests and other fast-track green financing until 2012.

    Deforestation and forest degradation wipes away an area the size of England each year and is responsible for 17% of global carbon emissions – more than that made by the world’s cars, trains and planes combined, according to UN data.

    “Reducing deforestation and forest degradation can provide the largest, fastest and cheapest cuts in carbon emissions,” Stoltenberg said. Such efforts could achieve “a third of the cuts in carbon emissions needed by 2020”, he added.

    Norway, which is rich in oil, yesterday formally announced $1bn in aid to Indonesia to help protect forests in the south east Asian nation, which has been quickly clearing trees for palm oil plantations. It has a similar deal with Brazil.

    Growing populations, agriculture and the timber industry have all reduced tropical forests from the Amazon to Indonesia, where it has become more profitable to cut down natural forests.

    “Today, the market values forests more destroyed than standing,” said Papua New Guinea prime minister Michael Somare.

    “We must find a way to value forests more alive than dead.”

    To push people to protect forests, as well as to attract private sector financing, it will be essential to set up a global price for carbon emissions, either via a market or a carbon tax.

    “This is a good day – it rebuilds trust in the international community’s ability to confront climate change,” said Abyd Karmali, global head of carbon markets at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

    “What is needed is a bit more assurance that the carbon price will be there and that the private sector will have input how the system of green financing is set up.”

    Prince Charles was among the speakers at the conference, after being invited by Stoltenberg.

    The prince told the delegates that three years ago experts warned him how serious the deforestation problem had become.

    He said: “However, the great positive difference between the summer of 2007 and today is that we now have a serious group of governments – with none showing greater leadership than Norway – who are prepared to work together to find a durable solution which will effectively tackle the drivers of tropical deforestation.”

  • Finally: Obama halts new offshore leases and stumps for climate bill

     

    “This disaster should serve as a wake-up call that it is time to move forward on this legislation,” he said. “I call on Democrats and Republicans in Congress, working with my administration, to answer this challenge once and for all.”

    He also spoke about pushing for an energy-climate bill in a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday. Notably, he didn’t say whether they expressed willingness to cooperate. They’re still the crucial barrier to progress on the issue.

    Obama’s comments echo his message yesterday at a solar-panel plant in California, where he said, “I’m going to keep fighting to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation in Washington.” But today’s D.C. presser should give the message more media attention.

    He also stressed that his administration is trying really hard to find a way to stop the Gulf leak and cope with the mess it’s created.

    “Those who think we were either slow in our response or lacked urgency don’t know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred,” he said.

    “We are relying on every resource and every idea, every expert and every bit of technology to work to stop it. We will take ideas from anywhere but we are going to stop it. I know that doesn’t lessen the enormous sense of anger and frustration felt by people on the Gulf and so many Americans.”

    Now — with encouraging signs that the “top kill” might finally be plugging up the Gulf gusher — Obama needs to make the larger energy crisis his administration’s highest priority, tapping every resource and every expert and every bit of technology to move the nation to a clean energy economy. There’s still time to make use of this crisis.

  • EPA’S ”Tailoring Rule’ and the Biomass Industry

     

    Including biomass power plants under the EPA’s tailoring rule is a clear policy shift and may imply a change in position for future policy.  The lack of distinction between renewable biomass as an alternative fuel to traditional fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas means that biomass may no longer be considered more attractive as an option for increasing the nation’s alternative energy portfolio from a carbon emissions perspective.  In the New York Times article, “Biomass Industry Sees ‘Chilling Message in EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rule” policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Franz Matzner  points out his view that there is an important difference between biomass that increases greenhouse gas emissions (such as trees in a forest) and biomass that leads to reductions such as waste biomass (i.e. agricultural crops, wood waste).  The environmental sustainability of widespread use of forest trees for energy production has been questioned by some policy advocates in recent years and is being actively debated in many policy circles.

    Using biomass waste for energy production offers significant environmental benefits.  Real reductions in CO2 emissions occur when waste is used to replace fossil fuels, instead of being left to decompose in landfills or on fields. When wood waste is left to decompose in landfills, the decaying wood releases methane which is 21 more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.  Failing to make the distinction between different types of biomass for energy production threatens to deter efforts to reduce fossil fuel usage for energy production that also have positive benefits for carbon emissions. 

    When issuing the final statement on the “tailoring rule,” the EPA stated that it does not have enough evidence to exclude CO2 emissions from biogenic sources at this time, but that they recognize the issue warrants further explanation, and they plan to seek further comments on addressing the issue.  It is important that the EPA examine this issue further.  Retaining the carbon neutral status of biomass and exempting biomass from the tailoring rule may help to decrease the nation’s reliance on fossil fuel by making use of a domestic renewable resource.  Policymakers must be careful not to create maligned incentives in carbon policy that would stem this transition toward increased renewable fuel use in our nation’s energy mix.

  • Gillard content to play waiting game

     

    Related Coverage

    Equally, although Gillard expects Rudd to win the next election and knows when he does Rudd will be on borrowed time, even if Labor did lose Gillard believes a Tony Abbott government would be so inherently unstable that she could get her party back into power swiftly (no doubt by putting the blame for the defeat at the feet of a vanquished Rudd).

    For all the increasing talk of leadership tensions at the top of the government following recent backdowns in policy positioning, accompanied by a slump in the polls, Rudd and Gillard continue to get on quite well. She is one of the few senior government figures Rudd has allowed himself to get close to, the other two being Anthony Albanese and Mark Arbib.

    So the plan of action between now and polling day is for Labor to stay united and ensure Rudd wins a second term.

    From that point, however, all bets will be off. Expect a less disciplined Labor government in its second term.

    Let’s look at the numbers in the event of a leadership showdown. (I can assure you, as unlikely as a challenge is, senior Labor powerbrokers are doing the same thing.)

    The Labor Left in Victoria is split. Most of them back Gillard; however, those close to Tanner probably wouldn’t, and they constitute a sizeable number of MPs. While Gillard is supported by some NSW left-wingers such as Laurie Ferguson, whose preselection she saved, one of the leaders of the Left in NSW, Albanese, would back Rudd strongly.

    Across the rest of the nation the Left, by and large, would back Gillard. On the Right, the NSW faction is known for its motto, “It doesn’t matter who you support as long as they win.” For that reason, Arbib and his lieutenants would wait and see how any Gillard push was shaping up before declaring their hand.

    The difficulty with assessing numbers in the NSW Right is that since 1996 it has had a tendency to split. What makes it likely that, by and large, they would go with the challenger is if the Right in Victoria and Queensland backed Gillard, which would happen.

    Victoria’s right faction overwhelmingly supports a Shorten play on the leadership one day. Given that he has been shut out by Rudd, and his best chance of promotion would come with a change of leader and a hurrying up of contenders such as Gillard getting their chance, Victoria’s Right would favour a change of leadership. So would most of the Queensland Right.

    Queensland may be Rudd’s home state, but there is little love for him there. (Don’t forget most of Queensland Labor backed Kim Beazley over Rudd when Bill Ludwig directed them to do so.)

    The only complication would be if Swan threw his hat into the contest, splitting the right faction, thereby costing Gillard the important perception of a high first-round vote (knowing that incumbents invariably hold on to some MPs who always vote for the leader).

    Always important to the NSW Right is its proximity to power. Arbib’s closeness to Rudd is considered valuable by the faction. But he is also Gillard’s junior minister and therefore is close to her as well.

    Once upon a time the NSW Right wouldn’t have been prepared to back a leftie into the leadership, even if opposition caused it to fall foul of its motto. But when Arbib and his faction (albeit with splintering) supported Nathan Rees replacing Morris Iemma for the premiership in NSW, it was a sign Gillard wouldn’t even need to start formally caucusing with the Right to win its support in a challenge.

    Someone such as Immigration Minister Chris Bowen would be uncomfortable with knifing Rudd but would ultimately fall into the factional line, if for no other reason than to keep his own ambitions fertile.

    Someone such as Burke would know a change of leader moves him one step closer to becoming a candidate in the future, assuming he can repair some damage done to his union support in recent times.

    A celebrity candidate such as Maxine McKew would stay loyal to the leader who enticed her into politics in the first place. Another, such as Peter Garrett, would be less inclined to back Rudd because of the way he ultimately used him as a scapegoat in the botched home roof insulation scheme.

    The union movement is always important to Labor leadership challenges.

    While Gillard has put some unions off side with aspects of her Fair Work Act, for the most part she is a more appealing figure in the top job than Rudd. She has always been careful to maintain good cross-factional links, knowing that her left-wing positioning would one day be a barrier to the leadership she would have to overcome.

    So, in the event of a challenge, Rudd would rely on ad hoc support from non-aligned MPs, newcomers who have only seen him as the authority figure a PM always is and sections of the Left, mostly from Victoria, partly from NSW.

    Despite being a left-winger, Gillard would win the support of most of the Right nationally as well as much of the Victorian Left. There would also be a quotient of women who would give her a solid personal following. The swinging numbers would be the NSW Right, just the way they like it, but they would vote for Gillard, knowing she was likely to win and because Arbib’s closeness to Gillard would transfer his influence to the new prime minister.

    That Gillard in all probability has the numbers to roll Rudd even now explains why the Prime Minister is so weak when his personal satisfaction ratings for much of his first term in power should have made him strong.

    Rudd doesn’t have a factional support base like Gillard or Swan. He relies on MPs and ministers sticking by him in the belief he is the best chance of ensuring Labor stays in power: marginal seat MPs don’t lose, ministers keep their portfolios and the patronage of government continues. And a first strike against a prime minister is very dangerous.

    But when support wanes, a celebrity PM (think Kevin07) always looks cheap.

    Gillard’s only concern needs to be avoiding contagion by an increasingly unpopular Rudd.

    Watch closely because, for Gillard, this election campaign will be as much about positioning herself for a future promotion as it is about positioning Labor for a victory on polling day, even if she hopes the coup of the future turns out to be bloodless.