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.
 

  • Abbott’s absurdity: “20 million trees” while libs destroy nations biggest forests.

    2 February 2010
    Abbott absurdity: “20 million trees” while Libs destroy
    nation’s biggest forests

    The Opposition’s plan to plant 20 million trees while
    its own Regional Forest Agreements foster the destruction of Australia’s
    biggest forests is incongruous, Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown said
    today.

    “The Howard government legislated the destruction of
    Australia’s biggest carbon banks – in New South Wales, Victoria,
    Tasmania and Western Australia, largely for woodchip export to Japan,
    converting these forests into greenhouse gases.

    “If Mr. Abbott or Prime Minister Rudd were to end the
    destruction they would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15-20%.

    “Planting 20 million seedlings while cutting millions of
    trees in mature forests is an Abbott absurdity,” Senator Brown said.

    Media contact: Erin Farley 0438 376 082
    www.greensmps.org.au <http://www.greensmps.org.au/>

  • UK Government nuclear consultation ‘farcical’, say locals

    UK Government nuclear consultation ‘farcical’, say locals

    Ecologist

    29th January, 2010

    Local residents say they have been ‘insulted’ rather than ‘consulted’ over Government plans for new nuclear power stations

    Local campaign groups have given a damning verdict on Government engagement with local communities over its plans for new nuclear power stations and have called for a new round of consultations to take place.

    The groups, representing residents in ten of the communities earmarked by the Government as potential sites for new reactors, gave evidence to MPs from the Energy and Climate Change Committee earlier this week. 

    Jim Duffy, from campaign group Stop Hinkley, told MPs that the timing, advertising and location of the consultations had been unacceptable. 

    ‘DECC (the Department of Energy and Climate Change) really didn’t seem to want to involve the local people. It seemed to be an accident if you happened to attend. The Government announcement on this came out on November 9th and the meeting was scheduled for 19th November,’ he said.

    Out of the blue

    Jenny Hawke, from the Residents of Braystone group, told MPs that the news that her area had been listed as a potential site ‘came out of the blue and was a complete shock.’ She said residents had received just ten days notice about the consultation, during which time it emerged that work had already begun on the site.

    ‘By the time we got to that meeting we found that RWE had already purchased an option to buy the necessary farm land and had already undertaken exploratory drilling on the farms,’ she said. 

    ‘I believe now that this consultation process is a total failure and falls far short of the Government’s own statements on public engagement. The short duration of the consultation on one of the most significant and complex planning decisions to be made this century renders the whole approach unacceptable and open to legal challenge,’ said Hawke.

    Farcical

    Peter Lanyon, of the Shutdown Sizewell campaign, called the DECC consultation ‘farcical’ and told MPs that residents in his community thought that the nuclear plan was a ‘done deal.’

    ‘Public consultations under the Aarhus convention are supposed to be a formative stage where there is still the possibility of changing things.’

    ‘The stuff that DECC are coming to down to exhibit and meet us about will just be a whitewash,’ he said. 

    Useful links

    Energy and Climate Change Committee

     

  • Barack Obama commits to climate change bill

     

    “This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate,” he said.

    But Obama made it clear that he supported a “bipartisan” effort which would incorporate energy policies that are popular among Republicans – and fiercely opposed by the liberal wing of his own party.

    “That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies,” Obama said.

    The endorsement for nuclear power and especially offshore drilling will be difficult for some Democratic voters to swallow.

    Most of the instant reaction to the speech from environmental groups was positive – though few commented directly on Obama’s support for nuclear power or drilling.

    However, the Centre for Biological Diversity was scathing. “A clean energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas,” the centre’s director, Kieran Suckling said in a statement.

    “The president failed tonight, as he failed over the past twelve months, to use his bully pulpit to advocate a bright line goal for greenhouse gas reductions. “

    Obama’s endorsement of a nuclear renaissance – 30 years since the last new nuclear plant – was calculated to help the efforts of Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican Lindsey Graham craft a compromise bill that could get broad support in the Senate.

    The house narrowly passed a climate change bill last June, but the effort has bogged down in the Senate.

    The two Senators told reporters earlier Wednesday that they were closely focused on pulling in Republican support, and damping down fears among Democratic senators from oil, coal and heavy manufacturing states that energy reform would hurt local economies.

    Obama hewed closely to the same strategy, peppering his speech with references to new “clean energy” jobs and the “profitable kind of energy”. He uttered the words “climate change” precisely once, referring to America assuming a leadership role in the negotiations to get a global deal to halt warming.

    But the president did voice support for a “comprehensive” Senate bill – code in Washington for a broad set of proposals that would also include establishment of a cap and trade programme.

    The nod for a “comprehensive” bill could help head off attempts to get the Senate to scale back its ambitions, and pass a narrowly focused energy bill that would not attempt to establish a carbon market.

    And he said he wanted a bill through the Senate in 2010 – timing that is seen as crucial both for the prospects of energy reform in America and for getting a global change deal.

    Obama also took a shot at climate change deniers, which brought some mutterings from Republicans.

    “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change,” he said. “But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future.”

  • Global warming: Undeniable evidence

     

    There is plenty of room for argument about the rate at which the world is warming, the degree to which humans are culpable, the likely outcomes and the most effective steps to be taken. But there is not much argument about the big picture. The climate researchers at East Anglia were early in the field, but they were not alone. Their conclusions have been backed by scientists at the Met Office, from other British universities, and from the British Antarctic Survey; by oceanographers from Germany, California and Massachusetts; by planetary scientists from Nasa and the European Space Agency; by naturalists in a Europe-wide network of botanical gardens; and by climate historians, foresters, zoologists, palaeontologists, glaciologists and geographers on six continents. Scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have repeatedly released findings that broadly confirm the same big picture, and for eight of the past nine years those researchers were funded by a Republican administration that would have much preferred to hear a different story. In 2001, the national science academies of 17 nations – including Britain’s Royal Society – urged governments to avert future calamity by agreeing to limit greenhouse gas emissions; within three weeks, the US National Academy of Sciences had joined the chorus, and begun to sing from the same hymnal. Although any single piece of evidence is open to reinterpretation, the mass of data assembled all seems to point in one direction: towards a warmer and increasingly uncomfortable world.

    Global average temperatures have gone on rising. Nine of the 10 warmest years ever recorded have occurred in the past decade. In the past three decades, glaciers have receded at alarming rates in Alpine Europe, tropical Africa and sub-Arctic Alaska. The Greenland icecap has begun to melt and the north polar sea ice has become both smaller and thinner. The northern hemisphere growing season has been extended by 11 days. For reasons connected with human pressure, but also possibly with global warming, arid regions have become more arid, floods more catastrophic, hurricanes and cyclones more destructive. Millions of very poor people have been forced to abandon their homes, to kill their cattle, to walk away from their farms. Oceans have become more acidic, and coral reefs have been bleached. Forests have burned; rivers in the drier regions have slowed to a trickle, or dried up altogether.

    Some events may be considered as consequences of natural variation in a climate cycle, but the intensity and frequency of such extreme events is expected to grow as the world warms. The lesson to be drawn from the latest round of questions about climate science is not that scientists make mistakes, and could get the future wrong. It is that we still don’t know enough about our own planet, and should be spending more on research, instead of cutting science budgets. Knowledge is expensive, but wilful ignorance could cost immeasurably more.

  • Green energy firms fear new feed-in tariffs will be too low

     

    The DECC has been heavily lobbied by the big energy firms, and tomorrow’s announcement has been delayed several times. The Clean Energy Cashback, or feed-in tariff, will reward households, businesses or communities by paying above-market rates for the electricity they produce and feed into the grid.

    When the tariffs were unveiled last year, they were criticised for offering rates of return too low to encourage people to install micro-generation plants. Germany introduced feed-in tariffs a decade ago offering double-digit rates of return and sparked a green revolution.

    But Alan Simpson, special adviser to energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband, fears the battle to get higher tariffs has been lost and believes the DECC will stick to its aim of getting just 2% of the UK’s electricity from smaller scale renewables by 2020. He says three times that would be easily achievable at an additional cost per household energy bill of £1.20 a year.

    “Germany needed starting rates that gave a 10% return on investment to kickstart their leap to the top of the renewables league. Britain needs to do the same,” he wrote in a letter to Gordon Brown last week. “At the moment, we don’t have a renewables industry. We have survivors; firms that exist despite government policy rather than because of it.

    “A coalition of groups – from farmers to the fuel-poor, environmental NGOs to eco-builders, ethical bankers to engineers and installers – has been lobbying DECC officials for all they are worth. But little seems to be working.”

    Andrew Melchior, head of the EIC Partnership, which is setting up the Horizon energy co-operative in Manchester, said his business was only viable because of an EU grant. The feed-in tariff would not be enough, he warned.

    “The Germans created an efficient industry that is able to provide solar installations at competitive prices. The UK does not have this industry, more a collection of enthusiasts experimenting with new technologies or proponents well versed in the pragmatics and dark arts of exploiting pots of grant funding.

    “We must provide a decent incentive so that the public begin to accept the concept of economically viable solar energy in the UK.”

  • The Election Will Not Be Fought On Climate

    federal politics (NEW MATILDA COM)

    29 Jan 2010

    The Election Will Not Be Fought On Climate

    Rudd and Abbott

    Before Parliament resumes, Ben Eltham takes a closer look at the speeches made by Rudd and Abbott during the holiday break: what do they tell us about the year ahead?

    You have to hand it to our hard-working politicians: after only a couple of weeks holiday, both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader are now back at work trying to woo voters and stake out their positions. The election year has begun.

    Kevin Rudd returned from a holiday in Tasmania — where he still managed to get himself on TV at the cricket — to embark on a national speaking tour. Those speeches dealt with meaty policy issues, so were largely ignored by the mass media in favour of his new children’s book Jasper and Abby and the Great Australia Day Kerfuffle.

    But there is actually some merit in many of Rudd’s recent speeches. He has examined issues such as social exclusion, the challenges of an ageing population, infrastructure and productivity. While there is a lot of repetition — especially if you read them as transcripts — they all address the long-term issues faced by the nation.

    For instance, Rudd’s speech in Brisbane on the topic of productivity sets out a fundamental fact of life: that productivity is the key long-term determinant of a nation’s standard of living. As Nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman once noted, “how much productivity is in the economy is almost the only thing that matters.” Better productivity — all other things being equal — means higher rates of economic growth, with all the resources for governments, firms and workers that growth brings.

    And what is productivity, exactly? In technical terms, it’s the rate at which we can deliver goods and services for a set unit of inputs — chiefly labour. It’s not so much building a better mouse-trap, as a better mouse-trap factory. Across an economy, productivity is also influenced by innovations. Information technology, for instance, has had a massive impact on important sectors of the economy like freight and logistics, where better IT systems have allowed innovations like “just in time” delivery to help firms lower the amount of inventory they need to keep in stock.

    But productivity is also a constantly moving target. As new technologies and innovations are implemented, productivity typically rises. Once the new systems are in place, productivity tends to slow again. Australia’s productivity, which whipped along at approximately 2 per cent in the 1990s, then slowed to around 1.4 per cent in the 2000s. No one is quite sure why.

    Kevin Rudd’s speech on productivity makes obvious, but nonetheless valuable, points. He quotes Treasury figures suggesting that “if average productivity growth was lifted back towards the 1990s mark of an average 2 per cent per year … our economy would be $570 billion bigger in 2050, [and] on average, every Australian man, woman and child would be $16,000 better off a year in 2050.”

    And what will get us back up to 2 per cent productivity growth? Why, Labor policies such as the National Broadband Network, the “education revolution”, health reform and infrastructure spending. Rudd is setting up his new agenda for 2010, which is to seize the economic high ground by framing the Government’s policies in a nation-building narrative.

    You’ll notice one important policy area that Rudd doesn’t mention much: climate change. In the wake of the debacle of Copenhagen, the Prime Minister is moving to de-emphasise climate as an issue which no longer appears to be cutting through. Although he will still keep it up his sleeve as a handy stick with which to beat the Opposition, Rudd appears to want to move on from the ETS and fight this year’s election on the issue of the economy.

    It’s good short-term politics, but woeful policy. In the medium and long-term, many of the greatest productivity gains are likely to emerge from a more sustainable economy. Think about the time lost in traffic congestion alone, or the productivity drain represented by the increasingly creaky public transport systems of our major cities. In contrast, big productivity gains are likely to be found in the renewable energy and clean tech sector which is currently languishing due to Australia’s addiction to cheap and dirty fossil fuels.

    Actually, it’s poor long-term politics too. This is because Labor is “losing the ground war” on climate change. A revival of climate scepticism, stoked in no small part by the increasing polarisation of the debate between Labor and Coalition voters, has flowed through to increasing opposition to an emissions trading scheme. The result is that Labor is going backwards on an issue that was an important vote-winner in 2007. Not only are we unlikely to have a double-dissolution election over climate change, we now may not even see an emissions trading bill enacted at all.

    Over on the conservative side of the fence, Tony Abbott is making headlines for the things he’s been saying too. Unfortunately, they’re all the wrong headlines. Instead of gaining traction with the intriguing gimmick of a workforce of 15,000 environmental workers — “a standing environmental workforce, perhaps 15,000-strong, capable of supplying the skilled, motivated and sustained attention that large-scale environmental remediation needs” — Abbott instead got himself noticed for his views on the virginity of his daughters.

    As my colleague Jeff Sparrow argued yesterday, Abbott may have copped brickbats from predictable directions, but that probably won’t have hurt his perception among key demographics like parents of teenagers, who are probably uncomfortable about the idea of their children having sex too young.

    Sparrow thinks Abbott’s tenure as Opposition Leader has already shifted Australian politics to the right. I’m not so sure, but there is some recent opinion poll evidence that suggests Labor is struggling on issues it should comfortably own — and not just on climate.

    According to the latest Essential Research poll, Labor is actually trailing the Opposition on the issue of “better management of the economy”, surely an uncomfortable statistic for Alistair Jordan and the backroom boys in Rudd’s HQ. It’s also trailing on “controlling interest rates”, which is arguably worse for Labor, as interest rates are only headed in one direction: up. On the other hand, it comfortably leads in environmental issues, education and jobs, so it’s not all bad news but the numbers are certainly encouraging for an Opposition at the start of an election year.

    The big dilemma for Rudd and Labor is whether to use its political advantage to press ahead with its agenda in the remainder of this term or to go negative on climate change and health reform, play it safe and try to protect its lead heading into the election. Everything we know about Kevin Rudd suggests he will choose the latter.