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.
 

  • Rudd throws billions at coal industry

    “Today’s announcement will give Australia’s big old polluters an extra $2.2 billion in support through the massive increase in free permits.

    “By delaying the start of the scheme and capping the carbon price at $10 a tonne for the next year, the Government has ensured that there will be essentially no climate action in Australia until July 2012 at the earliest.

    “Any action that individuals, companies or state governments take will simply make it cheaper for big polluters to keep polluting. Today’s shift supposedly aimed at taking account of voluntary action will actually do nothing of the sort.

    “By weakening their scheme even further, the Government has ensured that there will be no new jobs and new industries ready to employ those workers who will lose their jobs.

    “Raising the prospect of a 25% cut that the Government has no intention of meeting does not outweigh the huge boost in corporate welfare to big polluters and the delay to the start of the scheme.

    “If the world agrees to act in Copenhagen, Australia will have to sign up for 40% cuts by 2020 to play our fair share. We must put 25% on the table as our minimum, unconditional offer if we want the world to take us seriously at all.

    “The Greens want to work with the Government to deliver a scheme that will at least point Australia in the right direction.

    “The question now is whether the Government wants an effective scheme or whether it wants to work with the party they have consistently labelled climate sceptics to pass this critical piece of climate legislation,” Senator Milne said.

    The Greens are today launching a television commercial to air nationally criticising the CPRS as it stands and calling on the community to help fix it

  • Polluters get paid,community pays,climate loses

    Polluters get paid, community pays, climate loses

    Canberra, Tuesday 5 May 2009

    The Rudd Government has misjudged the depth of feeling about climate
    change in the Australian community and will pay an electoral price for
    dealing with climate sceptics, the Australian Greens said today.

    “The Australian community has never let its leaders down, but
    Australia’s leaders sadly frequently let down the community. Yesterday
    was one of those occasions,” said Australian Greens Deputy Leader,
    Senator Christine Milne.

    “Our offices are once again seeing an outstanding degree of interest
    from the community asking what they can do to register their protest at
    the Government’s refusal to act responsibly on climate change and help
    us get action.

    “Australians know that Rudd and Wong’s CPRS changes would see polluters
    paid more, the community pay more and the climate lose out in the
    bargain.

    “The community is wondering what to make of the fact that the Government
    is trying to do a deal on climate change with a party they have
    consistently labelled climate sceptics.”

    Yesterday’s backflip will see $2.2 billion more to polluters over five
    years and essentially no action to reduce emission before July 2012.

    “Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of
    all those mums and dads who are troubled by the fact that their efforts
    to reduce their footprint will simply make it cheaper for big polluters
    to keep polluting,” Senator Milne said.
    “Under yesterday’s announcement, mums and dads who dig deep to reduce
    their climate impact will have to reach into their pockets again to have
    their emissions reductions counted. That is an insult to their efforts.”

    The Government’s claim holding out 25% cuts as a distant goal will help
    global negotiations is dishonest. Minister Wong conceded yesterday that
    the world would not agree to Australia’s offer and the 25% should not be
    taken seriously.

    “Australia once again has a Government that is asking the world to carry
    the can while we do as little as we think we can get away with.

    “The global community won’t accept that again, after Australia got an
    easy deal in Kyoto. Australia will be expected to play its fair role in
    the next round of negotiations.

    “The Australian community won’t stand for it. They want to hold their
    heads high and say we are pulling our weight.”

    Tim Hollo
    Media Adviser
    Senator Christine Milne | Australian Greens Deputy Leader and Climate
    Change Spokesperson
    Suite SG-112 Parliament House, Canberra ACT | P: 02 6277 3588 | M: 0437
    587 562
    http://www.christinemilne.org.au/| www.GreensMPs.org.au
    <http://www.greensmps.org.au/>

  • Carbon bill burns as Rudd fiddles.

    Carbon bill burns as Rudd fiddles 

    Phillip Coorey Chief Political Correspondent

    May 5, 2009
    Page 1 of 2 | Single page

    THE Federal Government’s emissions trading scheme was clinging to life last night after a series of changes designed to win the support of the Senate failed to shift sentiment.

    In the biggest policy reversal of his prime ministership, aimed at wooing big business and the Liberal Party, Kevin Rudd announced the scheme would be delayed by one year to July 1, 2011, beyond the next election.

    Compensation for the nation’s heaviest polluters would be more generous and the price of a tonne of carbon for the first year would be fixed at a low $10, reducing by half the original projected impact on energy bills.

    As a sop to environmentalists, there was a heavily conditional commitment to increase from 15 per cent to 25 per cent the maximum amount by which greenhouse gases would be reduced by 2020.

    “I am in the practical business of responding to realistic challenges,” Mr Rudd said of his reversal, which, he said, would mean “a slower start” but a “stronger, greener conclusion”.

    After warning repeatedly that any delay would be reckless and costly, Mr Rudd said the changes were driven by the pressures on business caused by the recession.

    Also, with the original plan headed for certain defeat in the Senate, the Government needed bargaining power in the form of a regulated scheme to persuade other nations to take action at a climate summit in Copenhagen at the end of the year.

    Despite the delay, business still wanted a legislated scheme in place so it could start making long-term investment decisions.

    Mr Rudd said the changes were similar to those being called for by Malcolm Turnbull and he demanded the Liberals support the legislation to be introduced to Parliament this month.

    “It’s time to get off the fence, Mr Turnbull, and it’s time to act in the national interest and to secure this legislation and certainty for the future,” he said.

    Rejecting the legislation twice would give the Government the trigger for a double dissolution election this year. But the Opposition Leader said the changes were “tinkering” and “no, we wouldn’t support it”.

    But he left open the possibility of compromise. He said there was no need to pass the legislation this year because of the delay and there needed to be more analysis.

    “Why not give ourselves more time to get it right?” he said.

    Mr Turnbull faces internal pressures. The Coalition is split on the veracity of climate change and how to tackle it. The Nationals leader, Warren Truss, said the changes were “not enough to rescue this dog of a scheme”.

  • Rudd feels the heat over China syndrome

    Rudd feels the heat over China syndrome

    • May 3, 2009

    The Prime Minister knows the language but something is being lost in the translation, writes Michelle Grattan.

    Kevin Rudd might wonder at the irony. He prides himself on being such a China expert, the Mandarin speaker who’s studied the country since his youth and served there as a diplomat. You wouldn’t find too many leaders to match his knowledge. And yet things Chinese have been giving him grief.

    Moreover, he comes under fire every which way. He’s attacked for being too pro-China but sometimes the criticism comes from the other direction. His latest problem has been some arrows from Beijing before the release of the long-awaited Defence White Paper, which was launched yesterday and reflects a complex and wary view of China and the need for Australia’s defence planning to be prepared for all eventualities.

    The Chinese elephant has hung over Australia’s first Defence White Paper since 2000. Analyst Hugh White recently observed that the main concern isn’t about China as it becomes more powerful but how China’s growth is fracturing the old regional order, producing deep uncertainties about the implications for our security. White noted that Rudd in recent speeches had made it clear he saw China’s rise “as the single most important factor shaping Asia’s century and Australia’s long-term strategic risks”.

    Against a background of arguments within the defence and intelligence communities over whether China would evolve into a threat, Mike Pezzullo, a senior defence official and lead author of the white paper, went to Beijing to brief on the document.

    Beijing didn’t seem impressed. A Chinese diplomatic source was reported saying Rudd had been supposed to be a bridge between China and the US but “now it looks like he wants to act on behalf of America against China”.

    Malcolm Turnbull argues the Government is overplaying the China threat, while Rudd’s attempt to present himself “as some kind of intermediary between the United States and China is neither helpful nor convincing”.

    The risk, according to Turnbull, is Rudd “will be perceived by the Americans as being overly sympathetic to China and by the Chinese as a bearer of other people’s messages”.

    On his first round-the-world prime ministerial trip last year, Rudd made sure he visited China (which got him into trouble with Tokyo, because it wasn’t on the itinerary). But as soon as he touched down in Beijing, Rudd went to the university and delivered a firm message on Tibet and human rights.

    It’s certainly hard to accuse Rudd of being soft on China, whether the issue is human rights or defence. He’s a China admirer but a hard-headed realist, too, who has always been aware of its darker side. After all, his university honours thesis was about a leading dissident. In Nicholas Stuart’s biography of Rudd, his supervisor Pierre Ryckmans said Rudd wanted to understand “the duality of China”.

    An Opposition claim earlier this year that Rudd was acting like a “travelling advocate for China” when he argued for it to have greater representation on the International Monetary Fund was absurd. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has raised eyebrows by some actions, notably his failure to announce at the time meetings he’d had with senior Chinese propaganda and security figures. He is clearly sensitive to how his China stances are seen. When in London for the G20 this year his staff asked for changes in the seating in a BBC studio when he found himself next to the Chinese ambassador, though he claimed he just wanted to be close to his mate, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

    After the Defence White Paper, the next testing point of the Australia-China relationship is the bid by the Chinese state-owned entity Chinalco for a bigger slice of the resource giant Rio Tinto.

    This raises important issues of resource security and Turnbull is increasing the pressure on the Government, arguing the bid, as it stands, should be rejected. His grounds are that Chinalco is effectively owned by the Chinese Communist Party, that there is a conflict of interest between a purchaser of a commodity having a large shareholding in the seller company and that no Australian company would be allowed to buy into a Chinese one.

    The judgment on the bid is an on-balance one. Whatever the decision, it will be controversial.

  • Rudd signs off on emissions trading scheme compromise

    Rudd signs off on emissions trading scheme compromise

    Lenore Taylor, National correspondent | May 04, 2009

    Article from:  The Australian

    THE Rudd Government is about to announce a package of amendments to its own proposed emissions trading scheme designed to soften its effects during the recession and win Senate support from the Coalition.

     The package includes a one year delay and then a very low fixed price on carbon for the first year of the scheme’s operation from July 2011 to July 2012. It also extra assistance for each of the two categories of so-called trade exposed industries for the duration of the recession.

    Industry sources said that the most polluting industries currently eligible to get 90 per cent of their permits for free will now get up to 95 per cent for the first five years of the scheme, and industries eligible for 60 per cent of their permits for free will now get up to 70 per cent for up to five years.

    It is also understood to include the concession that the government will consider a tougher emissions reduction target of 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020, in the unlikely event of a global agreement designed to limit the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million. Otherwise the government’s previously announced target range of 5 to 15 per cent would apply.

    The amendments, signed off by the Cabinet subcommittee on climate change this morning, and due to be announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at a press conference after midday, are designed to win support from Malcolm Turnbull’s opposition in the Senate and appease mounting industry concern about the costs of the scheme during the global recession.

    The Australian Greens yesterday wrote to Mr Rudd with their “bottom line” for Senate support for the scheme, which is that the government’s “unconditional” emissions reduction cut should be 25 per cent, rather than 5 per cent, and that the government should consider cuts as high as 40 per cent in the event of a tough international deal at the Copenhagen talks in December.

  • Generating energy from the deep

    Generating Energy From the Deep

     

    Jim Wilson/The New York Times

    By KATE GALBRAITH

    Published: April 29, 2009

    LOCKHEED MARTIN is best known for building stealth fighters, satellites and other military equipment. But since late 2006 the company has taken on a different kind of enterprise — generating renewable power from the ocean.

    The technology is still being developed in the laboratory, but if it succeeds on a large scale, it could eventually become an important tool in the nation’s battle against global warming and dependency on foreign oil.

    Lockheed and a few other companies are pursuing ocean thermal energy conversion, which uses the difference in temperature between the ocean’s warm surface and its chilly depths to generate electricity.

    Experts say that the balmy waters off Hawaii and Puerto Rico, as well as near United States military bases on islands like Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean or Guam in the Pacific, would be good sites for developing this type of energy.

    Hawaii and many other islands rely on imported oil to generate most of their electricity, which is expensive, and last year’s spikes in oil prices have reinvigorated their search for homegrown alternatives.

    “The vagaries of petroleum impact Hawaii far more than any other state,” said Theodore Peck, an energy administrator in the state’s department of business, economic development and tourism. Generating energy from the ocean’s temperature variations, he added, is “a natural for Hawaii.”

    The Navy is also interested in the technology and in the next few months plans to award a contract to explore it, according to Whit DeLoach, a spokesman for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. As of last year, he said, the Navy had spent slightly more than $1 million to research the technology for Diego Garcia.

    In the approach that Lockheed is pursuing (with another company, Makai Ocean Engineering), the water on the ocean’s surface is used to heat a pressurized liquid, usually ammonia, which boils at a temperature slightly below that of warm seawater. That liquid becomes gas, which powers a turbine generator. Cold water is then pumped from the ocean’s depths through a giant pipe to condense the gas back into a liquid, and the cycle is repeated.

    An important advantage of this method of producing energy is that it could run all the time, unlike solar plants, which cannot work at night, or wind turbines, which stop in calm conditions.

    But the technology is expensive and can work in only a limited number of places, like the tropics, where there is a large difference in temperature between the ocean’s layers. This excludes many major population centers, although proponents hope that Florida and the Gulf Coast could also be markets. (Other types of ocean energy being explored would harness the tides and waves.)

    Meanwhile, Lockheed is developing a test cold-water pipe — to be 13 feet in diameter and 40 feet long — in a laboratory in Sunnyvale, Calif.

    Last year, Gov. Linda Lingle of Hawaii announced a partnership between Lockheed and the Industrial Technology Research Institute in Taiwan to build a test plant in Hawaii.

    Lockheed says it hopes to obtain financing for the project from the Defense and Energy Departments, as well as from the private sector; if enough is available, the company says it would like to have the platform working by 2013. A Japanese engineering company, Xenesys, is also exploring ocean thermal energy for Cuba and Tahiti, among other countries.

    Lockheed and the federal government have worked on this type of energy before, after the 1970s oil crises. In 1979, a 50-kilowatt test project was briefly run off the coast of Hawaii’s Big Island. Financing for ocean-energy projects was slashed significantly by the Reagan administration, and Lockheed abandoned its pursuit of the technology in the mid-1980s.

    Proponents say that since the last attempt to develop it, the technology has improved enormously. Offshore oil platforms similar to the platforms needed for the ocean energy system have become more sophisticated, for example in their ability to withstand hurricanes and to moor in deeper water.

    In theory the technology could, among other uses, provide substantial amounts of power to Hawaii and other warm-water sites and also be used in floating power plants making industrial products like ammonia. However, such goals are distant.

    Skeptics say that the technology is highly inefficient because it requires large amounts of energy to pump the cold water through the system.

    Patricia Tummons, who edits the newsletter Environment Hawaii, said a major question about the technology was “just how economical it can be.”

    Robert Varley, who is helping to lead Lockheed’s efforts, estimated that just 3.5 percent of the potential energy from the warm water pumped might actually be used. “In reality that doesn’t matter — the fuel is free,” he said.

    But building and operating the platform will be costly. Harry Jackson, the president of Ocees International, an engineering firm based in Honolulu also working on the technology, estimated that a test plant of the size Hawaii is planning — which is still far smaller than commercial scale — would cost $150 million to $250 million.

    Some environmental groups are cautiously embracing the technology as one of many approaches that could help reduce fossil fuel consumption and thus combat climate change.

    “The environmental impacts associated with it would be probably a lot less than other sorts of power,” said Henry Curtis, executive director of Life of the Land, an environmental group in Hawaii.

    Still, the technology would not leave its surroundings unscathed. A huge amount of cold water would have to be pumped up from the depths. If that water, which is rich in nutrients, is discharged into a different part of the ocean, it could confuse fish and alter the balance of the ecosystem.

    Mr. Varley of Lockheed also said that the warm water must be siphoned in slowly enough so that fish could swim away.

    “We’ll have to put up screens, of course, on the intakes of the warm water so we don’t suck in marine mammals,” he said.