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.
 

  • Tony Abbott still determined to kill renewable energy target

    Tony Abbott still determined to kill renewable energy target

    By on 18 August 2014
    Print Friendly

    Tony Abbott’s Renewable Energy Target review panel appears destined to do what it was created to do – to recommend closure of Australia’s last significant climate and clean energy scheme to new entrants.

    The Australian Financial Review, in a front page report, on Monday confirmed the worst fears of the renewable energy industry when it said that the panel had been “instructed” by Tony Abbott’s to look at ways for the scheme to be folded.

    This is shocking news, because it will bring to an end a $20 billion industry, and cost thousands of jobs, and force household and business bills to soar. It was immediately branded as a “reckless” idea by the Clean Energy Council.

    But it should not be surprising news. The intent of the Abbott government towards renewables was made clear by its refusal – despite a statutory requirement to do so – to commission the Climate Change Authority to conduct the review.

    Instead, it appointed a panel composed of climate skeptics, pro nuclear advocates and fossil fuel lobbyists. The biggest beneficiaries of a decision to close the scheme to new entrants will be the fossil fuel generators, who according to new analysis released on Monday, will see their earnings boosted by up to $10 billion – the big three retailers, AGL Energy, Origin Energy and EnergyAustralia, being the biggest beneficiaries.

    And such a decision will satisfy the right-wing ideologues and deep-lined antipathy to renewable energy within the Abbott government, and its determination to kill the remnants of the Labor/Greens “Clean Energy Future” package The AFR also repeats what has long been suspected, that Environment Minister Greg Hunt – and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane – have been effectively sidelined from the process, despite the issue crossing into their portfolios.

    tony-abbott-150x150The PM’s office has had carriage of the project since the start, and his intentions have long been clear. The secretarial support has been housed within Abbott’s office – and within reach of his principal business advisors – including climate denier and renewables opponent Maurice Newman, and Abbott’s own energy advisor, former AGL executive Sarah McNamara.

    The AFR suggests that Joe Hockey – who says he finds wind turbines “utterly offensive”, and another noted anti-renewables finance minister Mathias Cormann, are also having a large say in proceedings. Hunt, who has constantly vaunted his ability to influence the outcome, is said by the AFR to be “unhappy”.

    But government insiders who have worked on the RET Review have told RenewEconomy that the intent of the review has always been to cut the current 41,000GWh target to a maximum of 25,000GWh (what might be called a “true” 20 per cent target), and possibly close it to new entrants altogether.

    The tenor of the “consultations” also confirmed this view. The panel members, Dick Warburton and Shirley In’T Veld, the former head of coal generator Verve Energy, have made their climate skeptic views very clear. Economic rationalist Brian Fisher, who has done extensive modeling for parties opposed to the RET, has also not hidden his opposition to the mechanism.

    There were glimmers of hope that the RET could be retained, particularly when the panel’s own modeling dismissed the two major arguments to drop the target – that the target could not be physically met, and that it would be costly to consumers. The ACIL Allen report said there would be no issue meeting the 41,000GWh target, if the policy intent was made clear and soon, and that even based on its own conservative inputs, consumers would be better off in the long term from having more renewables in the grid.

    Instead, the new argument was based around a “transfer of wealth” from the generators to consumers. But even then, the report is believed to have favoured a “scaling back” of the target to 25,000GWh or 27,000GHW – a position said to be favoured by Hunt.

    The report by Jacobs, on behalf of The Climate Institute, Australian Conservation Foundation and WWF-Australia says that the biggest beneficiaries to dumping the RET would be the fossil fuel generators. The Jacobs report suggested $8 billion in additional profits to coal-fired generators out to 2030 and an extra $2 billion to gas generators.

    AGL Energy – presuming it completes the purchase of Macquarie Generation’s 4.6GW of coal generators in NSW – would pocket an extra $2.7 billion, EnergyAustralia would an extra $2 billion boost and Origin Energy a $1 billion boost. All three companies have been active in their opposition to the RET, and to subsidies for small-scale solar in particular.

    Although, the RET Review panel was not due to deliver its final report to Abbott’s office until later July, it was always going to “consult” with draft findings before that delivery. That is when the RET Review panel was instructed to “look more closely” – as the AFR puts it – on the option to close the target to any new entrants, and possibly to await the result of Australian Energy Market Operator estimates which showed no new capacity is needed on the eastern states grid for at least another 10 years. The fossil fuel generators, who are largely responsible for that excess capacity, fear that more renewables means more early closures for ageing coal plants.

    Whether the Abbott government finally agrees with a scale backed target or an effective closure, any changes seem likely to be blocked in the Senate, where the Palmer United Party has promised to side with Labor and the Greens.

    But it matters not. The large-scale renewable energy industry has already ground to a halt. No new projects have reached financial closure since the election of the Abbott government, and the Abbott government knows that even by doing nothing – apart from allowing continued uncertainty – no new projects will come to market.

    Households will also be affected. They have so far contributed $12 billion of the $18 billion invested in renewables over recent years, initially driven by generous feed in tariffs and then as a hedge against rising electricity prices once those tariffs were removed. The government, though, can remove some of those remaining incentives that defray the upfront cost of the system, without needing legislative changes. Industry experts say that could cause the rooftop solar market to fall by one-third or even a half, with the loss of thousands of jobs.

    Meanwhile, state governments – with huge vested interests in state-owned networks and generators – continue to act against renewables. The WA government is even canvassing importing coal from Indonesia rather than develop renewable energy projects at home, while in Queensland, businesses have been hit by a whopping $500-a-day service charge (essentially to read the meter) to dissuade them from installing solar.

    The renewable energy industry – which possibly unwisely sought to negotiate a “compromise deal” with the big three utilities in 2013 – said a move to halt the target would be “devastating” to the industry.

    “Such a move would be reckless, given the government’s own analysis shows slashing the RET would save no money on power bills, yet would devastate billions of dollars of investments made in good faith in renewable energy projects across the country,” acting CEO Kane Thornton said.

    “Hundreds of Australian and international investors have built their businesses based on the strong bipartisanship of this policy which has existed in legislation since 2001.

    “Tearing up this bipartisanship, and the policy itself, would show that the Australian energy sector is clearly not open for business – it would stop industry dead and smash investments that have already been made.”

    Indeed, some international groups such as US solar developer Recurrent Energy have already packed up. Others, including Goldwind and Trina, have warned of the potential fallout, while Australian groups Pacific Hydro and Infigen Energy are directing their efforts overseas.

    The Australian Solar Council echoed the CEC remarks. It is taking its “Save Solar” campaign to marginal electorates, with the first stop at the northern Brisbane seat of Petrie, held by the LNP’s Luke Howarth, in Thursday this week. The ability to make solar a potent political issue – many marginal electorates boast more than 20 per cent solar penetration – appears to be their last resort.

    “Solar saves money, creates jobs and shifts votes. The Abbott Government is about to find out how much Australians love solar and the Renewable Energy Target,” CEO John Grimes said.

  • The US Humanitarian Intervention in Iraq: The Oil and Water Angle

    Sign up | Login with →

    Posted by: Amy Myers Jaffe

    The US Humanitarian Intervention in Iraq: The Oil and Water Angle

    Like it?

    13
    Posted August 15, 2014
    23

    Iraq Crisis

    The success of stated limited U.S. humanitarian goals for the latest intervention in Iraq could hinge on more than the fate of minorities trapped on top of the Mount Sinjar. That is because the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has taken control of critical water and oil infrastructure including the Mosul Dam.  Flooding from improper management of the Mosul Dam or a purposeful use of the Dam as a weapon, either by releasing a torrent of flood water or cutting off access to water, would cause an unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe. Restoring control of the Dam to unified Iraqi government control is paramount. Water is also a vital component for oil production in southern Iraq, where the fields require water injection to maintain field pressure. A sudden shortage of water for oil production in southern Iraq could both disrupt production and possibly cause permanent damage to reservoirs. Iraq would have difficulty coping with either contingency given violence-related recent evacuation of foreign oil industry personnel.

    That the United States succeeds in helping the Iraqis form a new inclusive government that can work with the US and others in rolling back ISIS, restoring control over the Mosul and other dams, and reintegrating the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) back into a national unity posture is compelling first and foremost on a humanitarian basis. The Iraqi people have suffered tragically and immeasurably. But beyond the tragic humanitarian crisis, the conflict has also set a particularly dangerous precedent in recent weeks with both ISIS and the Kurds responding to the disorder and conflict by grabbing oil and water assets, perhaps partly out of necessity but also setting the stage for an expansion in violent conflicts over oil and water resources  in a Middle East where many borders are at risk to change permanently.

    The United States, the international community, and citizens in the Middle East all have a vital common  interest in preventing a chaotic world where water and energy throughout the Middle East become pawn to local warring factions trying to rewrite history. The first order for Iraq’s new government, and the US diplomats and military advisors who will assist them, needs to be to settle once and for all how oil revenues will be divided and how oil and gas development will proceed on a national, not regional, basis. I have written extensively in the past why Iraq needs to focus on per capita metrics for regional oil income distribution. Perhaps now the logic of this necessity is more transparent.

    If not managed correctly, the near term geopolitical outcome in Iraq could ultimately set the stage for a new pattern to violence: a potentially devastating struggle for oil and water resources throughout the Middle East. With all due respect to U.S. sensitivities to the particular needs of the KRG, the United States must consider the precedents that might be set when borders are redrawn by force in the Middle East and sub-national groups assert their own localized control over natural resources. Water and oil issues loom large in many locations, not just in Iraq and Syria, but also in Jordan/Israel/Palestine, in Libya, and along the borders of Iraq and Iran with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.  Saudi Arabia has fortified its northern borders with Iraq with more military hardware and troops, while Iranian forces have moved into positions surrounding the southern Iraqi oil fields, raising the risks of border skirmishes. The militarization of border areas so heavily populated with oil fields and energy transport infrastructure brings with it unique risks, if territory continues to change hands more pervasively.  The emerging oil-water conquest by battle raises the stakes of even limited armed conflict.

    Wars that center on resource infrastructure, such as the long eight year Iraq-Iran war, can have devastating impacts on long term national wealth as well as regional and global energy supply. Iran has never truly restored its heavily war damaged oil and gas sector since war broke out in 1979, and Iraq has only done so with very slow progress. If armed regional players start to see that highly valuable water and oil resource control is up for grabs, the intensification of conflicts could be even more deadly and the long term consequences ever more dire for the region and beyond. And once one party aims to control vital water and fuel sources, others must move defensively to prevent a humanitarian crisis for their own communities. The potential for escalation is high and hard to prevent.

    It is pressing to reverse this dangerous tide of conflict focused on water and energy resources to prevent an acceleration of current trends. Learning to navigate political solutions to equitable division of oil revenue is a vital skill needed desperately in today’s Middle East. It is an advisory role that U.S. has failed to tackle skillfully not only in Iraq but also in Libya. It is a policy area where greed –individual and institutional- has often overwhelmed common sense.

    The U.S. created a role of “oil ambassador” inside the U.S. Department of State but that diplomat has failed to make oil and gas “revenue sharing” conflict resolution a diplomatic priority. If the U.S. is going to have an “energy” diplomat, that person should be charged with the difficult diplomacy of helping leaders forge lasting domestic political pacts on how to share oil revenue equitably across populations and regions and to minimize official corruption in the process in countries that are or could be torn by civil war or sectarian violence. That NATO and the United States have not taken this challenge seriously enough is clearly demonstrated in Libya where what started as a promising beginning for a new elected Libyan government has ended in violent civil conflict driven by lack of agreement over regional oil revenue sharing.

    So far, global oil markets are ignoring the potential risks that could become one consequence of a resumption of a major regional Mideast war that targets oil and gas facilities in the way that happened during the eight year Iraq-Iran war. One reason markets are not rising is that, to date, rising U.S. production has kept pace with output losses that have emerged as production has been disrupted in the region. Citi issued a report today noting that productivity gains in the range of 30% are driving a continued surge in U.S. oil production, with new success out of the Utica shale play. The other reason, traders and analysts admit, is that potential risks are so cataclysmic that they are hard to assess. Notes one Wall Street player, “There is this conflicting assumption is that the economic fallout from a war that caused an oil crisis would be so negative it would simultaneously kill oil demand.”

    Photo Credit: Energy and Crisis in Iraq/shutterstock

  • Why railroads are taking a fresh look at natural gas

    Group Chairman: Mir Javed Rahman
    Editor-in-Chief: Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman
    You are here: Home > Today’s Paper > Business

    Why railroads are taking a fresh look at natural gas
    John Kemp
    Saturday, August 16, 2014
    From Print Edition
     27  0  1  0

     

    NEW YORK: Gas-fuelled locomotives are not a new idea. Plymouth Locomotive Company built the first propane-fuelled rail engine as early as 1936.

     

    The industry has experimented with natural gas-fuelled trains on a small scale for the past 80 years without ever moving beyond the prototype stage.

     

    “Some members of the regulatory, engine supply and fuel supply communities believe railroads have an opportunity to use natural gas as a locomotive fuel to help meet emissions and performance goals,” Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF), Union Pacific (UPRR) and the Association of American Railroads wrote in a joint report in November 2007.

     

    “Except for some potential niche applications, the railroads disagree,” they told the California Air Resources Board (“An evaluation of natural-gas fuelled locomotives”).

     

    But less than six years later, BNSF and the other major operators are sounding far more enthusiastic.

  • 2028: The End of the World As We Know It?

    Room

    This blog contains articles and commentary on Climate Change / Global Warming. These changes will have an affect on the entire planet and all of us who reside therein. Life as we know it will change drastically. There is also the view that there is a high likelihood of climate change being a precursor of conflits triggered by resource shortges.

    Saturday, August 16, 2014

    2028: The End of the World As We Know It?

    “There is nothing radical in what we’re discussing,” journalist and climate change activist Bill McKibben said before a crowd of nearly 1,000 at the University of California Los Angeles last night. “The radicals work for the oil companies.”

    Bill McKibben

    Taken on its own, a statement like that would likely sound hyperbolic to most Americans—fodder for a sound bite on Fox News. Anyone who saw McKibben’s lecture in full, however, would know he was not exaggerating.

    McKibben was in Los Angeles as part of his nationwide “Do the Math” tour. Based on a recent article of his in Rolling Stone, (“The one with Justin Bieber on the cover,” McKibben joked) the event is essentially a lecture circuit based on a single premise: climate change is simple math—and the numbers do not look good. If immediate action isn’t taken by global leaders: “It’s game-over for the planet.”

    The math, McKibben explained, works like this. Global leaders recently came to an international agreement based on the scientific understanding that a global temperature raise of 2°C would have “catastrophic” consequences for the future of humanity. In order to raise global temperatures to this catastrophic threshold, the world would have to release 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Here’s the problem: Fossil fuel companies currently have 2,795 gigatons of carbon dioxide in their fuel reserves—and their business model depends on that fuel being sold and burned. At current rates of consumption, the world will have blown through its 565-gigaton threshold in 16 years.

    To prevent the end of the world as we know it, it will require no less than the death of the most profitable industry in the history of humankind.

    “As of tonight,” McKibben said, “we’re going after the fossil fuel industry.”

    Obviously no easy task. The oil industry commands annual profits of $137 billion and the political power to match. As McKibben noted, “Oil companies follow the laws because they get to write them.”

    However, there are some numbers on McKibben’s side. Recent polling data shows 74 percent of Americans now believe in climate change, and 68 percent view it as dangerous. The problem environmental activists are facing is in converting those favorable polling numbers into grassroots action.

    Enter “Do the Math.”

    Using McKibben’s popularity as an author, organizers are turning what would otherwise be a lecture circuit into a political machine. Before rolling into town, Do the Math smartly organizes with local environmental groups. Prior to McKibben’s lecture, these groups are allowed to take the stage and talk about local initiatives that need fighting. Contact information is gathered to keep the audience updated on those efforts. Instead of simply listening to McKibben, as they perhaps intended, the audience has suddenly become part of their local environmental movement.

    It’s a smart strategy, and an essential one—because the problem of climate change is almost exclusively a political in nature. Between renewable energy and more efficient engineering, the technology already exists to stave off catastrophic global warming. Though its application is lagging in the United States, it is being employed on a mass scale in other countries. In socially-stratified China, with its billion-plus population and tremendous wealth inequalities, 25 percent of the country still manages to use solar arrays to heat its water. Germany—Europe’s economic powerhouse—in less than a decade, has managed to get upwards of half of its energy from sustainable sources.

    The same can happen here in America—provided we have the will to make it happen. McKibben says the key to realizing that goal is to battle the lifeblood of the fossil fuel industry—its bottom line.

    To start, he’s calling for an immediate global divestment from fossil fuel companies. “We’re asking that people who believe in the problem of climate change to stop profiting from it. Just like with divestment movement in South Africa over apartheid, we need to eliminate the oil companies veneer of respectability.”

    In conjunction with the divestment regimen, continued protests against unsustainable energy projects will also be crucial. McKibben will be in Washington, D.C. on November 18 to lead a mass rally against climate change and the Keystone Pipeline. “We can no longer just assume that President Obama is going to do everything he promised during his campaign. We need to push him.”

    “I don’t know if we’re going to win. But I do know we’re going to fight.” More

  • Greenland Glaciers More Susceptible to Melt Than Thought

    ews

    Stories from Climate Central’s Science Journalists and Content Partners

    Greenland Glaciers More Susceptible to Melt Than Thought

    • Published: May 18th, 2014
     1272  775  106  1

    Greenland’s glaciers are more vulnerable to melting by warm ocean waters than previously thought, a new study of the topography of the bedrock under the ice finds. This clearer picture of the underpinnings of the miles-thick ice sheet, along with other recent studies that suggest parts of Earth’s polar regions are not as stable as once thought, could mean that current projections of future sea level rise are too low.

    On April 8, 2011, NASA’s Operation IceBridge flew a mission to coastal areas in southwest Greenland. Mountains and an open-water fjord surround one of the mission’s targets, a small ice cap called Sukkertoppen Isflade.
    Credit: Michael Studinger/NASA

    The new Greenland findings, detailed online May 18 in the journal Nature Geoscience, come on the heels of an announcement by the same group of researchers at the University of California, Irvine, that some of the largest and fastest-moving glaciers of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet have entered a phase of “unstoppable” collapse. The mechanisms driving the melt are different for the two ice sheets, though.

    Unlike the Antarctic glaciers, which end in tongues of ice that float on the Southern Ocean seas, the glaciers of Greenland terminate with the land, butting up against the surrounding water. So instead of warm water melting the glaciers from below, as in Antarctica, the ocean waters melt the vertical fronts of Greenland’s glaciers. Scientists had thought that the melt of the Greenland glaciers would continue for a few decades, until the ice melted back to a point where the ground was higher than sea level and then would halt.

    RELATED New Greenland Ice Melt Fuels Sea Level Rise Concerns
    The Story Behind Record Ice Loss in Greenland
    Melt of Key Antarctic Glaciers ‘Unstoppable,’ Studies Find

    But the new study, which resulted in the most detailed topographic map of the periphery of Greenland to date, found that wasn’t the case: Valleys underlying many of the glaciers stay below sea level and extend much farther inland than previously suggested, so warm ocean currents that have migrated northward with the changing climate could eat away at the ice for much longer than current climate models suggest. “It will take much longer for these glaciers to lose contact with the ocean,” study author Mathieu Morlighem, of the University of California, Irvine, told Climate Central.

    Bed topography revealed by the mass conservation method (blue is below sea level.
    Click image to enlarge. Credit: Mathieu Morlighem/UC Irvine

    That extended contact means that the glaciers “will retreat faster and farther inland than anticipated” in current models, the study authors wrote, including those used in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That report estimated that sea levels, which have already jumped 7.5 inches since the beginning of the 20th century, could rise by anywhere from 1 to 13 feet by 2100, an increase from the previous report released in 2007. The impacts of that extra water are already being felt. Low-lying islands are seeing their land area reduced, and flooding during storms like Hurricane Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan have been exacerbated. Further sea level rise could see some islands and coastal areas — home to an increasing share of the world’s population — disappear beneath the waves and would make storm-prone areas more dangerous to live in.

    The West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone contains enough ice to add another 10 to 13 feet of sea level rise, and the Greenland Ice Sheet contains enough to contribute another 20 feet.

    Just how fast the melting of these susceptible glaciers could proceed and how much extra sea level rise they would actually contribute isn’t known for sure, but it could be substantial, Morlighem, who plans on running revised projections of the melt, said.

    “What we know for sure is that it’s more vulnerable, it will continue for a longer period of time,” he said.

    You May Also Like
    Dust in the Wind Never Looked So Stunning
    ‘Catastrophe’ Claim Adds Fuel to Methane Debate
    100 Percent of California Now in Highest Stages of Drought
    The Rise of El Niño in 1 Swell Image

    Follow the author on Twitter @AndreaTWeather or @ClimateCentral. We’re also on Facebook & other social networks.