EcoRadio

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.
 

  • “Fire Ice” impact on oil spill, Containment and Energy Future

    What makes methane hydrate and recent Gulf events so remarkable is that this substance, formed by high pressure and cold temperatures and discovered only in the 1960s, has more potential energy than all the world’s coal, natural gas and oil combined.
    energyfromice.jpg

    The US Department of Energy (DOE), China and India have all been pursuing methane hydrate deposits and research because of its potential as the ultra high-powered energy source. Russia (in conjunction with Japan) has been the first country to successfully harvest this game-changing energy source.

    Oil companies and drilling operations, however, have been wary of its dangers before the Deepwater Horizon event, according to the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory: “(The oil and gas) Industry has concerns about drilling through hydrate zones, which can destabilize supporting foundations for platforms and production wells. The disruption to the ocean floor also could result in surface slumping or faulting, which could endanger work crews and the environment.”

    The happy ending of our Sci-fi flick: The Gulf oil spill is stopped by drilling a relief well; the millions of gallons that did “spill” are not as damaging as thought; and methane hydrate is safely harnessed and sequestered of carbon worldwide, which phases out oil and natural gas as energy sources. Oil wars largely cease as a result, as methane hydrates are bountiful enough for most coastal nations to secure their own 100+ year energy supply.

    Let’s see what the focus groups think.

    Originally posted May 9, 2010 on the Green Flow blog of commoncurrent.com.

  • The Peak Oil Crisis: The Deepwater Horizon

     

    From what is known so far, it is clear that offshore drilling came to be seriously under-regulated in recent years with few inspections and little or no penalties for violations. Deepwater offshore drilling has become so expensive – the Deepwater Horizon costs on the order of $1 million a day to operate – that site managers are under heavy pressure to complete projects as quickly as possible and move to the next job.

    The oil industry is said to have largely written the regulations and the government simply ratified what was presented. The Obama administration has already moved to split the regulation function from the Mineral Management Service and place it in a separate agency dedicated to safety and the prevention of further accidents. Although there will be much raucous discussion, It seems likely that heavier regulation, with higher, more expensive, standards, is on the way and that could delay future deepwater drilling projects by months or years.

    Shell, which is about to start drilling in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, has filed new safety plans for their proposed projects. The administration is obviously going to take a very hard look at drilling in areas that are hundreds or even thousands of miles from help if something should grow wrong. It is one thing to drill in the Gulf of Mexico where all sorts of emergency equipment is available within a matter of hours and quite another to drill in the sparsely settled polar regions. The Norwegian and Canadian governments are starting to raise questions about the standards for offshore drilling and are likely to adhere to whatever recommendations come out of the investigations of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

    Yet another serious problem for the prospects of future oil production is starting to emerge. The deepwater wells, on which we are basing much of our energy future, may not be as productive as previously thought. Until recently the poster child for deepwater oil production was BP’s Thunderhorse platform that, after years of delay, started producing in 2008 and was supposed to produce a billion barrels of oil at the rate of 250,000 barrels a day (b/d). At first all seemingly went well with production reaching 172,000 b/d in January of 2009, but then production started falling rapidly to a low of 61,000 b/d last December. BP refuses to comment publicly on what is happening at Thunderhorse, but outside observers are growing increasingly skeptical that the platform will ever produce the planned billion barrels. At least 25 other deepwater projects are said to be facing problems of falling production, raising the question of just how much oil these very expensive deepwater projects will ever produce.

    Pressure for regulatory reforms is likely to be based on just how much environmental and economic damage the Deepwater Horizon blowout ultimately causes. If BP contains the leak in a relatively short period of time and there is minimal damage to the seafood industry and coasts, then new drilling could resume shortly. However, if the situation deteriorates further and major coastal damage ensues, then offshore drilling is likely to slow significantly until new regulations are approved and more reliable blowout preventers are developed and deployed.

    The battle over tougher regulations is likely to be prolonged and nasty. President Obama has vowed to end the “cozy relationship” between companies and regulators. Testifying before Congress earlier this week, Interior Secretary Salazar said that the oil industry is already characterizing efforts to reform regulations as “impediments and roadblocks to the development of our domestic oil and gas resources.” The Secretary called for federal regulation of blowout preventers which are supposed to ensure that spills of the scale of the Deepwater Horizon incident can’t happen.

    Recommendations stemming from the recently announced independent Presidential Commission on the tragedy will likely have much influence on the course of deepwater drilling and thus the availability of oil in the future. Should the Commission conclude that much tougher regulation is necessary, it is difficult to see how the oil industry, even with its considerable clout in the Congress, can resist the calls for reform. Oil might just become far scarcer and more expensive five years from now than most of us think.

    Originally published May 19, 2010 at Falls Church News Press

  • Government’s chief scientific adviser hits out at climate sceptics

     

    “It has been suggested that the society holds the view that anyone challenging the consensus on climate change is malicious – this is ridiculous,” said Professor Martin Rees, the society’s president.

    “Science is organised scepticism and the consensus must shift in light of the evidence.

    “In the current environment we believe this new guide will be very timely. Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the fellowship of the society there are differing views.”

    In his first interview since the election, Beddington agreed that true scientific scepticism was healthy and must be encouraged but he criticised individuals and organisations that cherrypicked data for political ends.

    “There is no doubt that there are organisations and individuals who will choose to characterise the science as being nonsensical on the basis of what are not reasonable criticisms,” he said.

    He highlighted the spurious argument that because the UK winter had been so cold, climate change science must be wrong.

    Beddington said there was a difference between weather and climate. “The fact that we have had a very cold winter in Britain does not mean that the climate is not getting warmer,” he said, adding that rejecting global warming on those grounds was wrong. “This is just not science. This is commentary,” he said.

    Lawson’s thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has deployed similar arguments to downplay the significance of climate change.

    Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who is the foundation’s director, said in December last year: “We look out of the window and it’s very cold, it doesn’t seem to be warming.”

    Lawson has said that “global warming … is not at the present time happening”. Peiser has previously said the GWPF does not challenge climate science but concentrates on examining policy implications.

    Beddington, who gave a public lecture on climate change at the University of York yesterday, was also highly critical of the mistakes made by the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which he called “fundamentally stupid statements”.

    Referring to the incorrect claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, he said: “Nobody in their right mind would see that as even a scientific statement. There’s no uncertainty, there’s no caveats.” But he added that overall the IPCC report had a “remarkably small number of problems”.

    Beddington said that he had yet to have a formal meeting with David Cameron or Nick Clegg, but he said the coalition government faced a slew of scientific and engineering issues.

    “Just about anywhere I look around the portfolio of government problems in any department, there are big issues of science and engineering including social science,” he said.

    He highlighted climate change, obesity, the volcanic ash cloud and vigilance to pandemic influenza as pressing problems for government to address.

    He said he would advise Cameron to shield funding for scientific research from future spending cuts as far as possible.

    “If you then think about how the UK as an economy is going to compete in the future, the underpinning of science and engineering having the best quality students, the best quality scientists and engineers is absolutely imperative.”

    When asked about the BP oil spill off the coast of Louisiana, Beddington said there would be lessons for the UK.

    “I think we need to understand it,” he said. “I think deep offshore [drilling] presents formidable engineering problems as you can see from the attempt to actually deal with it.

    “I think that one will have to be asking questions about the appropriate levels of regulation that are operating in licensing deep offshore drilling in the North Sea.”

  • 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.

  • Fears grow of Labor election loss

     

    Related Coverage

    The proposed resource super-profits tax thrust on to unsuspecting miners has united these normally warring barons in an unprecedented fashion.

    At the same time, the government appears uncertain how to approach the miners and manage the inevitable compromise in a policy and political sense.

    One day the government rounds on the lying and ignorant industry leaders, as Wayne Swan called them, and on the next Kevin Rudd is talking about consultation with the industry.

    Some within the government are suggesting there will be a quick offer and settlement of the dispute to get it out of the way, while others warn not to expect an early resolution and relish a fight with the foreign-owned mining companies that don’t pay their “fair share”.

    BHP Billiton’s chief executive Marius Kloppers told his 16,000 employees yesterday the government’s claims were incorrect about the amount of tax miners pay and that the process of consultation and negotiation was at a stalemate. The clear view from the mining companies is that the consultation panel set up to negotiate “transitional arrangements” has a limited remit and cannot discuss the real concerns the miners have about the new tax. Given the panel seems to be moving beyond its own terms of reference in its interim report, to be put to the government today, and backing big concessions on the tax, including lifting the threshold rate when the tax begins from 6 per cent of profits to 12 per cent, it would seem the panel members agree.

    The government continues to insist the consultation process is going swimmingly and is appealing for the industry to continue to talk to the panel. But, given the panel can’t make final decisions on issues the miners want addressed and the mining chiefs and government leaders continue to “negotiate” through headlines and parliamentary insults, there appears the need for something to break the deadlock and bring the debate back under control.

    Given the government points to the Hawke government’s success in introducing the petroleum resource rent tax, perhaps the Prime Minister could convene a 1980s summit, where chief executives and cabinet ministers meet face to face and under pressure to find middle ground.

    Given that Rudd decided last night not to attend and address the Minerals Council of Australia’s annual dinner after deciding instead to attend the celebration for the 100th anniversary of the election of the Andrew Fisher government, a Hawke-style summit is unlikely.

    What’s more, the 1987 tax followed more than two years of consultation, including a white paper and a green paper, to work out the best way to introduce the tax and not damage the oil and gas sector. It seems too late for such a process now, given that the tax was sprung on the resources sector, fully formed, on May 2.

    Some MPs, and indeed some ALP candidates who are attending today’s campaign briefings, are furious with the way the tax was introduced and are uncertain as to how to react to mooted changes and avowed declarations of war. There are miners and MPs who are convinced the government was intent on such a war from the beginning.

    Labor claims that part of its polling slump and the Prime Minister’s polling slide are a result of the “tough actions” the government took on tax reform. But the slump began well before the RSPT was unveiled and the miners unleashed their public campaign.

    Indeed, the miners were slow to react publicly to signs they were about to be subjected to a regime they could not bear because they had worked more quietly with the government over the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

    But Rudd appears to have caught slump disease from British Conservative leader David Cameron, who managed to blow an unbeatable lead in the polls months from an election and only scraped into government, long before the miners became active.

    Rudd has gone from being the most popular leader in modern times to having some of the lowest levels of personal support, and the ALP has gone from having an unassailable lead in the polls to being behind or at best level-pegging. This is just three full months from an election campaign.

    There has been a mountain of explanations as to why Labor finds itself in this position: a loss of faith and credibility for Rudd; broken promises; botched programs such as the $2.45 billion roofing insulation scheme and waste on the school buildings program; interest rate rises; cost of living rises; the abandonment of the emissions trading scheme to combat greenhouse gas emissions; a reversal on asylum-seekers’ treatment; and, latterly, the new $12bn tax on miners’ profits.

    The question for those Labor MPs who fear losing the election is no longer how they got to where they are but how they get away from where they are.

    Certainly, as Labor MPs and candidates gather in Canberra today for a briefing and instructions on how to campaign and sell the government’s achievements, the way ahead is the key issue.

    The latest Newspoll has Labor’s primary vote at 37 per cent, a level that Labor must improve on if it is to win the next election. There is no doubt the polls will narrow as the election nears and Labor has the advantage that voters are not switching in sufficient numbers to Tony Abbott from Rudd as the preferred prime minister.

    How and when to deal with the mining profits tax compromise is crucial to these calculations as the Liberal leader continues to oppose the “great big new tax”.

    93 comments on this story

  • Debate hots up on pulp mill future

    Debate hots up on pulp mill future

    Updated 1 hour 29 minutes ago

    Forestry industry talks and the resignation of Gunns’ chairman have restarted the debate over a proposed pulp mill in Tasmania’s north.

    John Gay was with the company for 37 years and was a major driver of the proposed $2 billion Tamar Valley pulp mill.

    Former premier Paul Lennon has told ABC Local Radio the current industry crisis talks and a downturn in international wood chip markets had vindicated Mr Gay’s determination.

    “A mill must be built in Tasmania. If it’s not, then the forest industry will wither on the vine,” Mr Lennon said.

    Australian Greens leader Bob Brown believes the mill project is still alive.

    Senator Brown says Mr Gay’s departure opens the way for alternative pulp mill proposals.

    “The pulp mill as conceived by John Gay is dead in the water with its chlorine with its destruction of native forests and wildlife and pollution but it doesn’t say that it’s off the drawing board,” he said.

    Mr Gay’s resignation coincides with the formation of a new anti-mill group.

    The Friends of the Tamar Valley’s Judith King says Mr Gay stepping down should deliver a clear signal to government that the mill is finished.

    “But we also wants Gunns to deliver that signal, to say that the mill is finished.”

    She says her group will work with others to stop the mill being built.

    Tags: company-news, forests, timber, tas, hobart-7000, launceston-7250

    First posted 1 hour 33 minutes ago