Category: News

Add your news
You can add news from your networks or groups through the website by becoming an author. Simply register as a member of the Generator, and then email Giovanni asking to become an author. He will then work with you to integrate your content into the site as effectively as possible.
Listen to the Generator News online

 
The Generator news service publishes articles on sustainable development, agriculture and energy as well as observations on current affairs. The news service is used on the weekly radio show, The Generator, as well as by a number of monthly and quarterly magazines. A podcast of the Generator news is also available.
As well as Giovanni’s articles it picks up the most pertinent articles from a range of other news services. You can publish the news feed on your website using RSS, free of charge.
 

  • Domestic violence murders one woman every week

    Domestic Violence
    Photo: Keith Knight – NYC News and Views

    By Women’s House, Woollongabba

    Across Australia, on average, one woman is killed every week by a violent partner or ex-partner.

    In Queensland this year, to date, domestic violence has been responsible for 18 deaths.

    The most dangerous time for women and children attempting to leave violent partners is at the time of separation; of those women killed, it is usually within three months of their leaving the relationship. Women’s refuges provide a safe space for women and children who need to escape from persistent and dangerous perpetrators.

    Women’s refuges in Australia have a proud legacy and wealth of experience and skills in working with women and children who have experienced violence and abuse. Refuge workers have a well developed understanding of the nature and impact of violence against women and children. They understand that women are not to blame for the violence perpetrated against them and that rather, it is part of a much wider systemic problem.

    Refuges provide more than just a bed. They provide 24 hour support to vulnerable and isolated women who may be facing harassment and pursuit by controlling ex-partners.

    Domestic violence refuges support women to obtain Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPO) and address the issue of lack of police response to breaches of DVPOs. They provide advocacy to enable access to housing, healthcare, independent income and relief from debt caused by DV.

    Refuges provide assistance to women whose visas make them ineligible for social security support or public housing and assist with immigration issues. They provide advocacy in relation to children with Child Protection authorities’ involvement due to domestic violence, assistance to deal with continuing violence post separation, including the abuse of children on contact visits.

    Further, refuges offer assistance to women whose DV experience is compounded by drug and alcohol issues, mental health issues or intellectual/physical disabilities which make it more difficult to establish a life free from violence.

    Women’s refuges aim to be responsive to the needs of women whose lives have been affected by domestic violence and therefore will attempt to provide advocacy to access everything needed to build an independent and violence free life.

    In addition to advocating on behalf of individuals, women’s refuges have a strong tradition of lobbying and campaigning for law reform and improved institutional responses to domestic violence (e.g. CentreLink, Police, Immigration, Child Safety etc.), as well as providing community education about domestic violence. From their activism and inspiration, other specialist domestic violence services have emerged, laws have been established and lives have been saved.

    Women’s House opened the first domestic violence refuge in Queensland in 1974. It has a public office in Woolloongabba and provides services for women who have experienced domestic violence and sexual assault.

    Women’s House is outraged at the recent loss of many valuable services for women and children, in particular, domestic violence refuges in New South Wales. Staff at Women’s House believe that women’s refuges in Queensland will be put out to tender next year.

    Women’s refuges were put out to tender earlier this year in NSW. This process saw the redirection of funding away from smaller specialist domestic violence refuges to big generic religious charities (which, as the recent Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has revealed, have an appalling record in relation to survivors of violence).

    These organisations are able to submit cheaper tenders by cutting specialised support available to women and children. Over 20 women’s refuges have been defunded. In stripping funding from specialist domestic violence refuges, the NSW government has put the lives of women and children at risk.

    Without specialist domestic violence support, women and children are less likely to leave abusive relationships and far more likely to return to abusive relationships, thus compounding the devastating effects that violence has on their lives. Ironically, for a government focused on cutting costs, this will, in the longer term, result in greater costs to statutory services including police, health departments and social services.

    For the sake of women and their children who are desperate to break free from abuse, Women’s House urges the Queensland government not to follow the course taken by NSW. It is essential that the Queensland government funds refuges that have a specialised focus on women and children and a diversity of services which meet the variety of needs required by those affected by violence.

    Womens House is a cooperative that runs Women’s Shelters in and around Woollongabba in Brisbane’s inner South.

  • How the Global Population Boom Really Began

    How the Global Population Boom Really Began

    The Industrial Revolution gets credit for kicking off the world’s human population explosion, but new research suggests we should look further back.

    Image
    Vladimir Wrange/Shutterstock.com

    1804: that was the year the world population reached one billion, after hundreds of thousands of years of human existence. Today, just a couple hundred years later, we’re primed to hit 8 billion.

    It’s well-documented that humanity’s numbers have surged exponentially—and relatively recently. A chart from populations scientist Joel Cohen’s book, How Many People Can the Earth Support?makes that startlingly clear:

    (How Many People Can the Earth Support?)

    But what about the foundations of that boom? The Industrial Revolution was at its height when we hit the one billion mark, and that’s partly why it’s often cited as the spike’s origin. Seismic changes in agriculture, manufacturing, technology, and communication facilitated unprecedented growth in average life expectancy and in the world’s population.

    But a new study in PLOS One argues that the Industrial Revolution’s advances are merely proximate reasons our numbers started to scale. Aaron Jonas Stutz, an anthropologist at Emory University, points to 1,500 to 2,000 years ago as when the essential groundwork to support our growth was laid.

    “If you dig further in the past,” Stutz told Emory University, “the data suggest that a critical threshold of political and economic organization set the stage around the start of the Common Era. The resulting political-economic balance was the tipping point for economies of scale: It created a range of opportunities enabling more people to get resources, form successful families, and generate enough capital to transfer to the next generation.”

    Stutz created a new population growth trajectory model that differed from previous models, in that it accounted for how consumption costs (i.e., amount of resources used and how that degraded the environment) influence carrying capacity elasticity (how many people the Earth can support) over time. Stutz’s model is a variation on one by Cohen, which posits population growth is determined by an elastic carrying capacity.

    Or, to draw from Nathanael Johnson’s recent post, there’s a global pie, and a growing number of people. How many people can eat up that pie (population growth) depends on how we divvy it up (elastic carrying capacity): We make a bigger pie (i.e., we increase resource availability through scientific advances), we set out fewer forks (try to reduce population), or better table manners (demand a more equitable society).

    Stutz used extensive demographic and archaeological data to show consumption patterns began shifting around the dawn of the Common Era, in ways that reflected changing political-economic mores.

    “The increasingly complex and decentralized economic and political entities that were built up around the world from the beginning of the Common Era to 1500 CE created enough opportunities for individuals, states and massive powers like England, France and China to take advantage of the potential for economies of scale,” Stutz said.

    Top image: Vladimir Wranger/Shutterstock.com

  • No more pause: Warming will be non-stop from now on

    Home |Environment | News

    No more pause: Warming will be non-stop from now on

    Enjoy the pause in global warming while it lasts, because it’s probably the last one we will get this century. Once temperatures start rising again, it looks like they will keep going up without a break for the rest of the century, unless we cut our greenhouse gas emissions.

    The slowdown in global warming since 1997 seems to be driven by unusually powerful winds over the Pacific Ocean, which are burying heat in the water. But even if that happens again, or a volcanic eruption spews cooling particles into the air, we are unlikely to see a similar hiatus, according to two independent studies.

    Masahiro Watanabe of the University of Tokyo in Japan and his colleagues have found that, over the past three decades, the natural ups and downs in temperature have had less influence on the planet’s overall warmth. In the 1980s, natural variability accounted for almost half of the temperature changes seen. That fell to 38 per cent in the 1990s and just 27 per cent in the 2000s.

    Instead, human-induced warming is accounting for more and more of the changes from year to year, says Watanabe. With ever-faster warming, small natural variations have less impact and are unlikely to override the human-induced warming.

    “The implication is that we will get fewer hiatus periods, or hiatus periods that last for a shorter period,” says Wenju Cai at the CSIRO in Melbourne, Australia, who wasn’t involved in the work.

     

    Stop it

    According to another recent study, the current hiatus may be our last for a while. Matthew England and his colleagues at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, tried to quantify the chance of another pause. “It’s looking to us that it’s probably going to be the last one that we’ll see in the foreseeable future,” says England.

    Using 31 climate models, they showed that if emissions keep rising, the chance of a hiatus – a 10-year period with no significant warming – drops to virtually zero after 2030. The current hiatus will probably be followed by rapid warming as the heat trapped in the ocean escapes back into the atmosphere, so we are unlikely to get another decade of no warming before 2030. England believes it could be another century or more before the next hiatus.

    But that could change if we slow greenhouse gas emissions now. If we can reach peak global emissions by 2040, the temperature rise will slow by the end of the century, and hiatus periods will become more likely.

    Hiatuses can also be triggered by volcanic eruptions that spew particles into the air, reflecting sunlight away from Earth, as happened after the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption. But even if a volcano erupts it will make little difference. “After 2030, the rate of global warming is likely to be so fast that even large volcanic eruptions on the scale of Krakatoa are unlikely to drive a hiatus decade,” says team member Nicola Maher.

    Journal references: Watanabe: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2355; Maher: Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060527

  • ACT’s Corbell to rally states on renewable target Giles Parkinson

    Click here to enable desktop notifications for Gmail.   Learn more  Hide
    1 of 3
    AdPerth Solar Installswww.brightonsolar.com.au – Reduce your energy costs now WA’s most affordable packages

    Daily update: ACT’s Corbell to rally states on renewable targets

    Inbox
    x

    Renew Economy editor@reneweconomy.com.au via mail62.atl51.rsgsv.net

    3:04 PM (11 minutes ago)

    to me
    ACT’s Corbell to rally states on renewable target; Australia opens largest solar farm, but solar future clouded; FRV says Australia solar pipeline worthless if RET changed; Interview with Simon Corbell; Coal industry should pay for costs to human health; Which will be first Oz Zero Net energy town?; With solar and storage, do energy markets need regulation?; Electricity grid go the way of sharing economy?; and how the IPCC is sharpening its language on climate change.
    Is this email not displaying correctly?
    View it in your browser.
    RenewEconomy Daily News
    The Parkinson Report
    ACT Energy Minister Simon Corbell intends to rally state governments to implement their own renewable energy policies should the Abbott government adopt the ‘dismal” recommendations of the Warburton review
    Australia’s largest solar farm opened south of Canberra, but innovation in ACT threatens to be overshadowed by federal backflips on renewables.
    Spain’s FRV says “extreme” views and RET Review making Australia less attractive for investment, but coal cannot  deliver cheap energy over long term.
    Australia’s most progressive energy minister on wind auctions, solar NIMBYs, storage options, the ‘dismal’ RET review and options for the states.
    Climate Council and health group call on fossil industry to fund accurate monitoring of coal pollution and its impact on human health.
    One NSW town has already expressed interest in becoming Australia’s first 100% renewable, and zero net energy town. Formal applications now open.
    Regulators in California, like those in NY and Hawaii, have realise that business as usual is not going to cut it in the future.
    Could the electricity grid be next to go the way of a sharing economy?
    The wording of the IPCC report around how climate is changing more decisive, and evidence is stronger too than than previous report.
  • Tunnel borer “springs” back into action

    The Westender has received another quirky media release from the Urban Utilities team tunneling their way underneath Mollison Street, outside the Coles supermarket. Here it is. This week sees our tunnel borer machine spring back into action as we come out of hibernation and recommence our tunnelling from the ‘garden bed’ in front of 26 & 30 Mollison Street towards Monty’s Spare Parts. We also expect new shoots to sprout up from our shopping centre shaft as we expand our budding network and drill our way towards the Boundary Street intersection. Now blossoms, this part is going to be a bit hayfevery as when we have to work in the intersection (possibly as early as this Monday, 8 September 2014) we will have to work at night due to the high traffic volumes in the daytime . It will be unseasonably noisy and we will have to close one lane of Melbourne Street for safety reasons. UUGiftTo help you cope with our new spring growth, we are offering you a free ‘poo-motional’ item (see pic left) to help you with your spring cleaning. Please email me at dylan.olliver@urbanutilities.com.au if you’d like some for your home or office, as this limited spring edition is a ‘collectors’ item. Finally, a huge thank you to you all for your amazing understanding throughout our winter of discontent, we greatly appreciate your ongoing support. Have a blooming marvellous week Yours Springcerely Dylan Olliver Communications Consultant Marketing and Communications

  • Dick Warburton’s 10 minutes of woe

    Dick Warburton, chair of the government’s review of the Renewable Energy Target, had a horror interview with Fran Kelly of ABC’s Radio National a day after his report was released. In just under 10 minutes, Warburton found himself tied up in knots as he tried to justify his recommendation to shut the renewables scheme.

    The trouble started at the beginning of the interview, with Warburton disputing Kelly’s suggestion that coal generators would be big winners out of his recommendations. Kelly promptly responded: “But doesn’t your own modelling estimate the value of the existing coal-fired power generators would increase by $9.1 billion?”

    “Um … yes,” Warbuton replied. But he then bizarrely asserted this $9.1 billion windfall was of “neutral benefit to them [coal generators]”.

    Subsequently, after Warburton admitted the RET would act to reduce retail electricity bills and was also successful at decarbonising electricity supply, the discussion moved to the nub of the review panel’s argument. Warburton explained that even though the RET might be effective at reducing emissions, the government’s proposed Emissions Reduction Fund – the centrepiece of its Direct Action policy – “would be a far less expensive” way of doing the same thing.

    What followed was almost farcical.

    Kelly, rather puzzled, pointed out that we don’t actually know the cost of reducing emissions under the ERF because the government is yet to release any costings of the scheme (see Hunting for Hunt’s Direct Action costings for background). She then noted that Warburton’s recommendation to cut the RET would pass costs onto, via the ERF, taxpayers to fund achievement of the 5 per cent emission reduction target.

    Warburton then appeared to reveal he doesn’t understand the ERF is funded by taxpayers, and oddly disputed her assertion. He then continued to argue that there were “less expensive means of reducing emissions [than the RET].”

    Kelly then asked the obvious: “What are those less expensive means, have you modelled those?”

    Warburton: “Well, we just said the Emissions Reduction Fund.”

    Kelly: “But we don’t know yet how much that’s going to be.”

    Warburton then gave the game away, admitting “we don’t know the figure” for the abatement cost of the ERF.  But he then confidently asserted it would be way short of the cost of the RET.

    While the discussion seems farcical, this is actually quite important.

    Basically, Warburton is proposing that the government make a drastic change to a policy that his own review acknowledges is unlikely to save energy consumers money, which will undermine the value of several billion dollars in investment and considerable project development effort, and send a large proportion of renewable energy businesses bankrupt, with their staff made redundant.

    This should all be done on the basis of an assertion that the ERF scheme will be cheaper than the RET, yet neither the RET Review team nor the government has actually costed the ERF.

    Now, to be fair to Warburton if you refer back to the actual review report, it references work by ClimateWorks to support its assertion that the RET be abolished, or at the very least cut by 60 per cent, because there are cheaper options for reducing emissions. Unfortunately for Warburton, ClimateWorks have rejected his review  panel’s interpretation of their research. Yesterday they sent out the following statement:

    The panel cited ClimateWorks’ Low Carbon Growth Plan as evidence that there are lower cost abatement measures available than renewable energy. However, our research also clearly shows that we need all of those measures plus renewables if we are to achieve the emissions reductions that scientists … have advised are necessary. In looking beyond 2020 to 2050, ClimateWorks’ new research … shows that ultimately full decarbonisation of the electricity system is necessary. And the most cost effective way to achieve this is with a majority of our electricity coming from renewable energy. For this transition to occur, the RET or an equivalent should be retained and increased over time, not reduced.

    One wonders how Warburton can be so confident the ERF will achieve anything meaningful when it is still an unlegislated skeleton. Evan Stamatiou of sustainability advisory firm Net Balance echoed the views of a number of carbon market analysts and lawyers, observing:

    While some overarching design elements [of the ERF] have been laid out, the detailed design has not been agreed upon, and there are still numerous and fundamental design challenges that technical experts and bureaucrats are trying to understand and resolve.

    The one analyst that has been imaginative enough to attempt to cost the ERF, RepuTex, believes it will involve a cost per tonne of abatement that isn’t cheaper than what the RET Review estimates for the large-scale Renewable Energy Target.

    The Abbott Government will be fooling no one about the insincerity of its concern for climate change if it chooses to substantially cut the Renewable Energy Target while arguing that it will all be taken care of by the uncosted, unlegislated and underfunded Emission Reduction Fund.

    Please login or subscribe to post comments

    Comments Policy »

    Aussie Developer, September 2, 2014 14:37

    I cannot believe what I just read and if it’s true Mr Warburton should be ashamed of himself for being led right royally down the garden path at best, showing his complete ineptitude on the subject and brief he’s been dealing with and more bizarrely allowing him and his reputation to be abused by the government in what is clearly a sham panel review with an planned outcome from the very beginning……and I’m seeing my business go down the drain because of this? I think not. There will be repercussions!!
    Even the star commentator Mr Swill (or shrill) cannot be happy with this!!

    Utility PR Shill, September 2, 2014 17:01

    Why thank you. In truth I doubt many people read these comments – and given my views are unlikely to cut it with most of Tristan’s entourage, they are likely the least read. I like Fran by the way. She is a good journalist with a feisty no nonsense way about her.

    Emo, September 2, 2014 16:04

    It just goes to show what a waist of time and money this review has been. The government thought this review would have given them a just reason to break yet another promise and scrap or reduce the RET. Even their own hand picked bias mates couldn’t fudge the facts and figures to suite the government’s agenda. Warburton has been caught with his pants down and shown to be a bias fool who should never have been involved in this RET review.
    The government may have scrapped the carbon tax but they are showing no decisive action to meet their carbon reduction targets. They are running around in circles and their “direct action” policy is just what most expected from this lying mob “no action.”

    Utility PR Shill, September 2, 2014 16:23

    A storm in a teacup. Probably just nerves from the poor old duffer.

    But he is clearly on the right side of history by searching for the most effective means of abatement and suggesting that it is unlikely to come from a policy that preferences renewables above the cheapest available means.

    Dragging down someone who is seeking the best bang for the community’s buck is an unlikely popular cause. He may be a skeptic but he appears to have a degree of common sense about him that is sadly lacking in his critics.

    Dale, September 2, 2014 22:12

    You commented quite a bit that the RET isn’t the cheapest way to achieve cuts in greenhouse gasses. Just wondering what you think the other options are…

    Peter, September 2, 2014 16:53

    haha, nice one “Utility PR Shill”!

    Nivek, September 2, 2014 17:41

    Utility PR Shill is right – not many people read this rag or the comments. You can tell because of the dramatic decline in the Comments section since the LNP was elected and particularly since the Carbon Tax was blown away with the dust of Labor history. And today the Mining Tax went, so Labor’s massive negative footprint is being gradually filled in. Soon the RET will go, taking with it the beggars who benefited from it. Now that we have years of measurement showing that dangerous Climate Change exists only in the minds and the models of the anti-Carbon zealots, there is less reason to monitor the “debate”. In fact there is no longer a debate. Rational people are able to confidently shrug and walk away from the placard carriers like the writers in this journal. The one area where this journal and the departed readers can agree is that we all hope the Government drops the “Direct Action” plan. Labor’s opposition will be an accidental force for good if the DA plan is also consigned to the dust of history.

    Oscar, September 2, 2014 19:47

    Rational people eh? I’d actually put the people with those kind of views in the same boat as creationists and other such flat earth believers. Bill Maher’s program last night where he interviewed a lot of the religious leaders from these groups was entertaining viewing, and in fact I hope he does a similar one on climate sceptics such as yourself. Be good for a chuckle.

    I do like the beggar reference too. How does that comment fit with the Billions of dollars in subsidies that flow to the coal and gas industries? In reality, the RET has merely leveled the playing field for renewable energy, and the main reason they are trying to remove it is because the renewable energy industry does not have the political pull, lobbying power or tax base of the fossil fuel energy sector.

    Yours truly – A dedicated anti-carbon zealot (should we call the the church of climatology?!).

    Dale, September 2, 2014 22:14

    Are you encouraging the Coalition to break their promise on Direct Action?

    Ben Heard, September 2, 2014 18:19

    I would suggest caution regarding the use of ClimateWorks work for anything at all until they have released their final report, detail of the actual work done, and responded to our critique. At this time, we are very concerned about that work and the implications it may have treated seriously.

    A critique of the draft is published here http://decarbonisesa.com/2014/08/28/critiquing-deep-deep-decarbonisation…

    The Cleaning Lady, September 2, 2014 18:41

    Should “unlikely to save energy consumers money” be “likely to save energy consumers money”?

    Anonymous, September 2, 2014 19:50

    I like the way Nivek writes. If he wrote for this “rag” maybe some of the ex readers would come back.

    Tricky Dicky, September 2, 2014 21:09

    Shill – you don’t need to be an apologist for Tricky Dicky – more than capable of handling himself or so he thinks……….or maybe its brain drain, followed closely by his report !

    – currently Chairman of Westfield Retail Trust, Magellan Flagship Fund and Citigroup Pty Ltd.

    He also serves as Chairman of the Commonwealth Studies Conference, Vice Chair of the Council on Australian Latin American Relations and a Member of the Advisory Council of the Centre for Social Impact.

    Dick is a former Chairman and CEO of Dupont Australia and New Zealand, and worked with Dupont for 30 years in marketing, manufacturing, technical and management roles in Australia, USA and Thailand.

    He was a Board Member of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Chairman of the Australian Board of Taxation and Chairman of Caltex Australia Ltd, David Jones Ltd, Goldfields Ltd, Tandou Ltd and Wool International and a Director of Southcorp Ltd, Tabcorp Holdings Ltd, Nufarm Ltd and other companies.

    Advisor to government – cost side of the balance sheet?, September 2, 2014 21:16

    Mr Richard Warburton is an advisor to government – yet doesn’t seem to know his way around a financial report!

    He tells us in his May 8 interview :

    CHRIS UHLMANN: What kind of effect is it having? Just give us a sense of the cost of power and how the renewable energy target has driven that up over time.

    DICK WARBURTON: Well, we’re looking at emission, we’ve got a target for an emission control of 5 per cent. That’s a bipartisan approach. And certainly renewables have their place in that particular equation.

    I’d like to believe that we’ll look at this and say, now, is the cost of the RET worth the economic pain that you get by imposing it on the electricity consumers?

    CHRIS UHLMANN: And there’s no doubt that there is economic pain because of that?

    DICK WARBURTON: Yes there is, yes there is economic pain. It is one part of the equation. It is not the whole part of the equation.

    CHRIS UHLMANN: Is the cost of energy doing damage to business in Australia?

    DICK WARBURTON: Depends on the business, Chris. Some of the businesses that use relatively small bits of electricity, obviously it hasn’t got a great effect. But there are industries that use large quantities of electricity and in those place they’ve been telling us this is having a major impact on their cost side of the balance sheet.

    –> Dick – There is NO “cost side” of a balance sheet, you are looking at the P&L.

    John D, September 2, 2014 22:06

    The RET was killed about 18 months ago when Abbott first flagged he was not completely supportive. The RET will only work when investors are confident re durable bipartisan support. The Senate can’t enforce durable bipartisanship any more than a change of government at the next election will revive the RET.
    We have to look at things like the ACT solar auction scheme (which doesn’t need bipartisanship) to drive investment in utility scale renewables. See: http://www.climateplus.info/2014/08/13/replacing-the-ret/