Author: admin

Some questions about the Prime Minister, posed by political correspondent Dennis Shanahan in The Australian (21 October 2006, p.3): Has Mr Howard just discovered the environment as an issue? Is he a newcomer to nuclear power because it’s clean and green? Is he linking drought, water shortages and climate change for pure political expediency? Does he refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change because he’s a fuddy-duddy who doesn’t believe in climate change? Or are we watching Howard’s latter-day greening?

The gentleman’s not for turning: The answer to all of the above, writes Shanahan, is no. What we are watching is not the greening of Howard but the browning of the greenhouse emissions debate.

It’s about solutions: Howard is now running a debate in Australia and internationally that accepts that the greenhouse effect or climate change is under way, but is looking at solutions with an economic and industry base.

Debate is changing: The nature of the world reaction to greenhouse is changing and is about to change even more dramatically with the release of Britain’s Stern review on the economics of climate change in a week or so.

Macfarlane on song: For Australia’s Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, who has been quietly supporting nuclear power in Australia for years and sees it as part of the answer to greenhouse emissions, the debate has turned.

Ideology not enough: “People in the street accept that greenhouse emissions and climate change are a problem, but they also expect practical solutions to the problem,” Macfarlane said. “People don’t accept ideological answers any more. That’s why they are prepared to discuss the possibility of nuclear power in Australia.”

Aust "leading the way"? Macfarlane argued that there was a browning of the emissions debate and industry, and economists were trying to find answers. “The rest of the world is now coming to us because we are leading the way in private and public partnerships in lowering greenhouse gas emissions.”

Questionmarks growing about Kyoto: Howard and Macfarlane have steadfastly ruled out the prospect of carbon taxes in Australia to establish a European-style emissions trading system, which is supported in principle by the state Labor governments. But again the argument over the benefits of a Kyoto-backed emissions trading system has shifted with the the patchy start to the EU emissions trading scheme which has provided large profits for power generators but has had no net effect on greenhouse emissions.

EU falling behind targets: Last week a market analysis of the first phase of the EU’s system found that the EU was highly unlikely to meet its Kyoto Protocol emissions targets. According to global consultancy Cap Gemini the 15 EU countries in the scheme are “300 million metric tonnes of CO2 away from meeting their Kyoto Protocol objective, with the notable exception of the UK”.

Not a great record: CO2 and greenhouse gases emissions, moreover, were increasing. In 2005, energy accounted for about 80 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, while electricity accounted for 38 per cent of CO2 emissions, the report said. “The combined EU-15 emissions were only 0.9 per cent below 1990 levels."

The Australian, 21/10/2006, p. 3

Source: Erisk Net  

Peter Mac – The Guardian

The NSW "Biobank" scheme is a good example of reactionary government-sponsored conservation trading arrangements to "protect" sites of natural significance. Under Biobank, a developer can clear and develop such a site, provided they protect another comparable site.

There are at least two major problems with this arrangement. Firstly, a development site may contain flora and/or fauna which are not found on the second site. In some cases they may be found in few other places, or even nowhere else.

Secondly, if carried to its logical conclusion, the scheme is a recipe for progressively halving the number of sites of natural significance. Under the normal laws of logic, if each of two sites is sufficiently important to warrant being kept, then both of them should be protected. However, under Biobank, only one needs to be protected, while the other may be sacrificed.

In anticipation of the scheme being launched, the developer Hardie Holdings has bought up 7000 hectares of Hunter Valley land of prime natural significance for development. Its subsidiary company, Eco Trades, is attempting to persuade various local landowners to buy into the scheme.

Amendments to NSW’s biobanking bill will provide a state mechanism to enable biodiversity credits to be used as a security for major development activities instead of cash or bonds.

Temporary disruptions to biodiversity: Where impacts to biodiversity values will be of a temporary nature these amendments will provide for credits to be used as a surety instead of cash bonds to be held by the Minister for the Environment until the site has been rehabilitated. The minister said an example of a temporary impact on biodiversity would be where rehabilitation is proposed following the carrying out of a development such as mining.

Bigger impetus for site rehabilitation: Under these amendments, the retirement of credits for the development is deferred until rehabilitation is complete. Credits then would be released back to the proponent by the Minister for the Environment in line with the improvement to biodiversity values generated by the rehabilitation and then could be sold by the proponent to a third party. This gives the proponent an added incentive to restore the site.

Biobank sites stay on: The original biobank site at which the biodiversity credits were originally created would continue to be managed for conservation in perpetuity.

Reference: Parliament of New South Wales, Legislative As

While some might view nuclear power in favour of greenhouse-friendly energy production while ignoring the dangers, costs and problematic waste issues, nobody can deny its wasteful water consumption, according to Peter Feist in The Australian Financial Review (20/10/2006, p.79).

Nuclear power uses 25pc more water than coal: Nuclear power uses 25 per cent more water than that of conventional coal plants, according to scientific figures.

Nukes, drought don’t mix: The PM would be hard-pressed to install a drought relief task force if Australia went down the nuclear path.

Renewables the only way to go: Renewables are the only energy sources that emit zero greenhouse gases and close to zero water for their electricity production. In order to tackle global climate changes, renewable energy is the only possible solution.

Tax incentives needed: To attract this global boom, industries in Australia need incentives in the form of increased renewable energy target taxes on carbon emission and sanctions at the polls for misleading ideas coming from antiquated politicians.

The Australian Financial Review, 20/10/2006, p.79

Along with other environmental changes Dooleys Lidcombe Catholic Club has made, it is expected to save 213 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year with a plan to use a machine which turns food waste into pulp which is then converted into methane and sold to electricity suppliers, reported The Daily Telegraph (20/10/2006, p.17).

Changes make economic sense: "Overall we consider the environmental benefits of these changes far outweigh the costs," Dooley’s general manager Greg Kearins said.

Crunch time for clubs: With drought crippling the states, clubs are under pressure to conserve energy – with the hospitality industry one of the biggest consumers of water and energy. Clubs NSW introduced the scheme 12 months ago but so far only 17 members have joined.

Iceland has just announced that they will give a license to one man to commercially hunt whales. The quota is 30 minke whales and 9 fin whales – which are an endangered species. Sign Greepeace’s petition against this now!