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.
 

  • The European emissions Trading Scheme is now a success

     

    You report: “FoE says that to date cap-and-trade carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions… [and are] unfit for purpose.” They are misinformed. Markets do not reduce emissions and were not created for that purpose. Technology, energy efficiency and behavioural changes deliver reductions. Markets incentivise and finance these by putting a cost-effective price on the carbon that is most cost-effective.

    “FoE claims that the first phase of the European emissions trading scheme between 2005 and 2007 failed. And the second phase, from 2008 to2012, is likely to fail too.” It was not the market that failed in the first phase, but the policies that governed how the market worked. The EU designed a system in which a large proportion of emissions allowances were given away, to defray costs for industry. Phase one was the test phase and, lacking precise data, they gave away too many allowances that could not be carried over into phase two. These two design elements caused the price crash in 2007.

    But the second phase was designed much more prudently. Studies note that emissions fell in year one, and analysts agree that they continue to fall. Phase two is a success. It is important to look at the markets in the longer term, just as targets are set with a 2020 goal.

    Misguidedly, FoE calls for governments to use more “reliable instruments”, such as a tax to replace a market-based scheme. Yet a tax is anything but reliable; it does not allow for visible target-setting, and it does not guarantee that emissions will be reduced. A carbon tax is simply another cost of doing business; as production and profits grow, the tax is paid while emissions rise. By contrast, an emissions cap allows for a clear environmental goal and a measurable target, and incentivises further reductions.

    You report the FoE’s fears that markets could be “hijacked by speculators and financial markets”. This fear displays a failure to understand that financial institutions participate in the market largely on behalf of businesses that do not have the capacity or expertise to do so themselves. Furthermore, there are no “complex” instruments creating “shadow finance” – carbon trading uses essentially the same simple market instruments as trading in gold, wheat and coal. They have been used over decades and during recent and historical financial cycles without causing crises.

    Yet a carbon market is only as good as the cap. The more ambitious the emissions reduction targets, the more visibly and effectively a market performs its function. Market nay-sayers would make better use of their time by increasing the political pressure to set ambitious reduction targets and recognise that markets help with the cost of achieving them. To criticise those who share their objective is to risk political inaction.

  • EU must ‘step-in’ to save Copehagen from disaster

  • How 7.4% of Americans can block humanity’s efforts to save itself

  • The Nation‘s politics editor Chris Hayes: What Ails the Senate.
  • Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein: Want real reform? Let’s start with Congress.
  • Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein: Four ways to end the filibuster.
  • Washington Post column Harold Meyerson: The do-nothing Senate.
  • Annie Lowrey: How the Senate filibusters the world.
  • Jonathan Krasno and Gregory Robinson: Time to rein in the filibuster.
  • Benjamin Sarlin and Samuel P. Jacobs: Senate Stonewallers: Capitol Hill’s most ornery No Men.
  • Matt Yglesias: Can The Filibuster Be Reformed?
  • Kevin Drum: Reforming the Senate.

    •  

    Here’s one thing to add to the discussion. The Copenhagen climate talks are coming up. The Obama administration has been scrupulously careful not to promise anything in international negotiations that it can’t deliver—i.e., that it can’t get past the U.S. Senate.

    Senate ratification of an international treaty requires not just 60 but 67 votes. Say 34 senators rally to block such a treaty—senators from, oh, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. Thus can representatives for 22,540,352 people—7.4% of the population—block the will of the other 281,519,372. Indeed, senators representing 7.4% of Americans can thwart the entire world’s efforts to address the climate crisis.

    Killing a treaty is easier than killing a clean energy bill. Why, killing a clean energy bill requires representatives for 25,289,049 people—fully 8.3% of the population!—to thwart the will of the remaining 278,770,675. (If you’re keeping score, the guilty parties here would be: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Iowa.)  For the record, 15 of those 21 states (71%) voted for Bush in 2004.

    Now of course it won’t be these precise coalitions of senators that kill the COP15 treaty and the clean energy bill. They’ll snag high-population senators like Cornyn and Hutchison from Texas. But the point remains: the Senate, already unrepresentative thanks to the disproportionate influence of rural, low-population states, has become, thanks to the routine use of filibusters and holds, grotesquely undemocratic.

    The country just can’t be governed this way. And consequently, the world community cannot coordinate to effectively meet the climate threat.

    • This article was shared by our content partner Grist, part of the Guardian Environment Network

  • Report assesses climate risks of sea level rise for Australia

     

    The report used recent research, as presented at the Copenhagen climate congress in March 2009, of projected sea-level rise from 75 centimetres to 190 centimetres relative to 1990, with 110-120 centimetres the mid-range of the projection. Based on this research 1.1 metres was selected as a plausible value for sea-level rise for the risk
    assessment in the report to 2100. It was noted that sea level is likely to continue to rise beyond 2100 and that sea-level rise projections will change as new research clarifies areas of uncertainty.

    The occurence and severity of extreme weather events will increase “events that now happen every 10 years would happen about every 10 days in 2100. The current 1-in-100 year event could occur several times a year.” says the report.

    In launching the report Climate Change Minister Senator Penny Wong said “The science tells us our climate is changing faster than first projected and the impacts are likely to be more severe as sea-level rises and extreme storms and floods become more frequent. These changes are already happening and we cannot afford to ignore the findings of this report.”

    Port facilities around Australia will be effected, as will Sydney and Brisbane airports. At least 11 power plants/substations are located within 500m of the coastline. The report details that there is a large number of facilities within 200 metres and 500 metres of the coastline, potentially at risk under a changing climate. This includes a large number of hospitals, police, fire and ambulance stations very close to the coast. In an extreme weather event the functionality of these services may be compromised, resulting in significantly greater impacts than might otherwise occur and could result in deaths.

    “Sea-level rise, more intense cyclones and ocean acidification will potentially increase the capital and operating costs of ports quite significantly by mid century,” Senator Wong said. “A number of airports are also located in low-lying areas in the coastal zone, and are at risk of inundation in the coming century.”

    The Torres Strait Islands, containing 17 Island communities with a total population of around 8,700 people, was assessed as extremely vulnerable to sea level rise. The report noted the IPCC finding that “Indigenous communities in the tropical north, home to about 87,000 Indigenous people, are also considered to be very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Such communities often live in isolated areas that are poorly resourced, and tend to have greater health issues and lower incomes than other communities.”

    “Every day we delay action on climate change, we increase the cost,” Senator Wong said
    “This report shows the need to reduce the carbon pollution that is causing climate change, which is why we are determined to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It also shows that Australia must plan to adapt to the climate change we can’t avoid.”

    The Government is in negotiations with the Liberal and National Parties to pass legislation for its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) to be reintroduced into the Senate in the coming week. This legislation will create a ‘carbon market’, with many free credits issued initially to major companies in carbon emission intensive industries, particularly coal and power industries.

    Greens Deputy Leader Christine Milne commented “Despite these dire warnings we have a government intent on increasing the burning and export of coal and the logging and burning of our native forests for decades to come, knowing full well that this will result in the climate change impacts the government says it is concerned about.”

    “The absurdity of the situation is that the government’s own emissions trading legislation to be debated in the Senate in the coming fortnight will do nothing to stop the outcomes outlined in today’s report.”

    “The government should take the report on notice and redesign its emissions trading legislation to adopt strong targets to tackle climate change and end billions of dollars of handouts to the big polluters,”
    Senator Milne said.

    The release of the report was accompanied by the announcement by Senator Wong of the creation of a seven-member Coasts and Climate Change Council to be chaired by Professor Tim Flannery. Other members include: Ms Sam Mostyn – expert in sustainability and risk management; Mr Ron Clarke – Mayor of Gold Coast; Ms Paddi Creevey – Mayor of Mandurah; Professor Barbara Norman – Foundation Chair, Professor of Urban Planning, at University of Canberra; Professor Bruce Thom – President, Australian Coastal Society; and Geoff Lake – President, Australian Local Government Association.

    The Council has been set the task of engaging with the community and stakeholders and advising the Government in the lead up to a Coastal Climate Change Forum, to be held in early 2010. This Forum will bring together all levels of government to develop a strategy for coastal adaptation.

     

    The report was a first pass national assessment – one of the key actions identified in the National Climate Change Adaptation Framework endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in 2007.

    Sources:

  • Catastrophic Climate Change

    Make evacuation plans

    MARIAN WILK

    Video feedbac

    Use this form to:

    • Ask for technical assistance in playing the multimedia available on this site, or
    • Provide feedback to the multimedia producers.
     

     

    Video feedbackThank you.

    Your feedback was successfully sent.

    Catastrophic climate change

    Environment reporter Adam Morton looks at the perils of inaction on climate change.

    URGENT action to cope with the impact of rising sea levels needs to start now, including improving evacuation routes for coastal communities during extreme storms and flooding.

    As well, a sweeping federal parliamentary report calls for an overhaul of the building code to make homes more resilient and for the legal liability for future property losses to be sorted out.

    Warning that ”the time to act is now”, the bipartisan report brought down last night states that thousands of kilometres of coastline have been identified as at risk from the threat of rising sea levels and extreme weather events caused by climate change.

    The committee, led by Labor’s Jennie George and with the Liberal Mal Washer as co-chairman, wants the Government to take a far greater role in preparing coastal towns and cities to adapt to the impact of sea level rise.

    Their report recommends a new intergovernmental agreement on the coastal zone to be worked out between Canberra, the states and councils to set out actions and guidelines on the enormous coastal challenges from climate change.

    “The first clarion call from everybody was the need for national leadership,” Ms George told the Herald. “We have taken up that call”.

    Eighty per cent of Australians live in the coastal zone facing major pressures, says the report. The concentration of people and infrastructure makes Australia “particularly vulnerable to the coastal erosion and inundation that will accompany increases in sea level”.

    There are about 711,000 addresses within three kilometres of the coast and less than six metres above sea level but government in the coastal zone is described as ”complex and fragmented”.

    The committee accepts the United Nations’ scientific findings that sea levels will rise about 80 centimetres globally by 2100, but it says this could be an underestimation if greenhouse gas emissions are not slowed and the polar ice caps melt. It notes each centimetre of sea level rise could push the shoreline back a metre or more.

    Sea level rise will also cause a disproportionately large increase in the frequency of flooding and erosion that will come with high tides and storm surges.

    More than 200,000 buildings on the NSW coast are likely to be vulnerable. Queensland is most at risk, but every state and territory faces huge challenges, from Darwin Harbour to Fremantle.

    Among the committee’s recommendations is for the Surf Life Saving network to be brought into the emergency planning system to deal with the impact of increasing storm hazards.

    The report also recommends the Australian Emergency Management Committee examine an improved early warning system for coastal areas in the event of extreme seas, storm surges, major erosion or flooding.

    During its 18 months of work, the committee heard pleas from the Torres Strait, where thousands of people face the prospect of losing their homes. It recommends a study into the vulnerability of the area by the CSIRO, the Department of Climate Change and the Queensland Government.

    It also wants more research on tropical diseases migrating south, especially dengue fever.

    Ms George said one of the most vexed issues before the committee was insurance coverage for home owners close to the beachfront. The report recommends the Productivity Commission begin an inquiry into the impact of climate change on insurance, including gaps that already exist.

    Evidence before the committee revealed insurers were already unwilling to cover so-called ”saltwater risks” that included the erosion of beachfront properties or flooding by sea water.

    The committee also wants the commission to examine a prohibition on the occupation of land that is extremely vulnerable to sea rise hazards.

    The committee will deliver its report to the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, and the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett. It recognises the Government has already begun a series of studies and actions to adapt to climate change. Senator Wong is expected to deliver the first major assessment of the vulnerability of Australia’s coast to sea level rise next month.

    But the committee found serious gaps in the planning guidelines, the law, insurance and emergency planning that needed to be addressed.

    One of its main recommendations is that the Federal Government consider adopting a nationally consistent benchmark on projected sea level rise as states and local governments struggle to work out their response

  • Farmers win changes to carbon scheme

     

    A spokeswoman for Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says farmers will be allowed to generate carbon credits.

    Negotiations are continuing between the Government and Coalition for amendments to the legislation as Parliament resumes on Monday and the Government pushes for a vote in late November.

    Both sides say the talks are progressing but Senator Wong says an agreement will be “difficult”.

    The Opposition are pushing for several changes but are likely to have some knocked back due to budget restraints.

    “What I’ve made clear is we’re not able to accept the entirety of what they’ve put forward – it would be fiscally unsustainable,” Senator Wong said.

    She says the Government made the backdown because it wants the scheme agreed to this year.

    She told ABC 1’s Insiders program this shows the Government is serious about the scheme passing Parliament by the end of the year.

    “We’re moving forward. We are absolutely committed on this side of the table to doing what we are able to, to get a deal,” she said.

    “That’s why we announced this offer on agriculture, that’s why we’ll continue to move forward on these negotiations. This is in Australia’s national interest, we need to get this reform through.”

    The Government had wanted to include farmers in the scheme from 2015.

    Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner told Channel Ten negotiations are continuing to secure the Coalition’s support.

    “We’ve prepared to accede to the Coalition’s request on this front,” he said. “I wouldn’t necessarily say now it’s a done deal.”

    Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull welcomed the concession, but he says the Coalition will keep pushing for further changes before it decides if it will support the emissions trading scheme.

    “There are a range of very important matters raised in the amendments,” he said.

    “I’ve made a deliberate decision not to say what’s a deal breaker, what’s more important, what’s less important.

    “The negotiations are being conducted constructively and I might say confidentially and they’ll reach a conclusion and then we will make a decision.”

     

    ‘Merely a gesture’

     

    The National Farmers Federation lobbied for the amendments, putting it in conflict with the National Party and climate change sceptics within the Liberal Party.

    The National’s Senate Leader Barnaby Joyce says the exemption of farmers from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is merely a gesture.

    “The ETS is still a massive tax and we’ve got the problem that once the ETS starts, there is nothing in the future to stop it including agriculture,” he said.

    “It’s still a tenuous proposition and still means the only smart thing to do is block this massive new tax.”

    Senator Joyce says the scheme will not change global temperatures.

    “It’s like saying, ‘ah well, we’re only going to burn down a quarter of your house’. I don’t want you to burn down any of it,” he said.

    “Why are we proceeding down this path of a massive new tax when the reason that’s put forward, to change the temperature of the earth, is not possible?”

    The Opposition also wants more free permits for heavy polluters and more compensation for electricity generators.

    Mr Turnbull and emissions trading spokesman Ian Macfarlane will also struggle to get any agreed changes through the party room, which has to approve them before the Coalition decides on its final position.

    He has said that if the majority of amendments are accepted he would recommend the scheme be passed, but others such as Senator Nick Minchin say an agreement does not guarantee support for the scheme.

    Mr Turnbull has staked his leadership on the issue after declaring he could not lead a party that would not act on climate change