Author: admin

  • Nigerian Oil Spill Sparks Crisis

    –

    Want to know why the price of oil is climbing again?

    For part of the answer, drive three hours from Port Harcourt, the
    capital of Nigeria’s oil-rich delta region, past swampy rivers with
    fishermen in dugout canoes, down a bumpy dirt track to Iwhrekan, where
    1,000 villagers live in run-down concrete and mud-brick buildings.





    (Photograph)
    FISHING GONE:
    A resident of Iwhrekan shows how an oil spill ruined one of the village’s key fishing creeks.
    ABRAHAM MCLAUGHLIN / THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
    Reporters on
    the Job

    The Monitor gives the story behind the story.

    E-mail this story

    Write a letter to the Editor
    Printer-friendly version
    Permission to reprint/republish


    On July 21, 2005, the pipeline that runs near here ruptured. Streams
    of black goo oozed into farmers’ fields and a fishing creek. Because of
    a complicated dispute between villagers and the major oil company in
    this region, Royal Dutch Shell, the oil hasn’t been cleaned up. Black
    residue still covers thousands of plants.

    Residents are angry. “We will face Shell,” says village chairman
    Daniel Oweh surrounded by agitated young men. “The next stage will be
    violent.”

    Threats like this are increasingly being carried out – helping drive
    oil to $66 per barrel this week. Four international oil workers were
    taken hostage by armed men in speedboats last week. Nigeria’s
    production has dropped by nearly 10 percent.

    It could get worse. “The loss of more Nigerian oil could send the
    price to $80 or $95 per barrel or higher,” says David Goldwyn, a former
    US assistant energy secretary who now consults in the region. Given the
    instability here, he says, “The likelihood of a significant disruption”
    to Nigeria’s output of about 2.6 million barrels per day “always has to
    be counted as relatively high.”

    Read the full story at Christian Science Monitor 

  • Labor supports Howard’s anti-Kyoto stance

    The Australian

    January 13, 2006

    Mr Ferguson, who also
    reiterated his support for nuclear power, opened a split in the party and the
    Left after acting Labor leader Jenny Macklin yesterday criticised the
    six-nation Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate talks in
    Sydney.

    Ms Macklin attacked the
    conference’s failure to set emission reduction targets and called for
    Australia to ratify the Kyoto
    Protocol of 1997, under which industrial nations agreed to reduce their
    collective greenhouse gases by at least 5 per cent, compared with 1990 levels,
    by 2012.

    As of last September, 156
    countries, representing more than 61 per cent of global emissions, had
    ratified the agreement. Notable exceptions include the US and Australia.

    The Asia-Pacific climate
    partnership concluded its inaugural meeting yesterday, hailing the agreement
    for clean energy as a new model for how to battle climate change without
    damaging economic growth.

    John Howard told the
    meeting that research prepared by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and
    Resource Economics suggested the new pact could reduce global greenhouse gases
    by 23 per cent by 2050.

    The US and Australia also pledged to develop a
    multi-million-dollar fund to pursue clean technology designed to reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions.

    China, India, South Korea,
    Japan, the US and Australia emerged from the two-day meeting with a commitment
    to develop eight taskforces designed to pursue public-private partnerships on
    issues such as cleaner fossil-fuel energy, renewable energy and aluminium
    production. The Prime Minister said the AP6 meeting had redefined the way
    climate change, energy security and air pollution would be addressed in order
    to encourage economic development.

    “The purpose of this
    meeting is to ensure that we address issues of climate change in a way that is
    consistent with economic growth and poverty reduction,” Mr Howard said.

    “It’s the very strong view
    of the Australian Government that we view those three objectives as ones that
    should be achieved in harmony and in partnership, and they should not be goals
    that are in a state of perpetual antagonism.”

    Labor environment spokesman
    Anthony Albanese joined green groups yesterday in warning that the AP6 was no
    substitute for ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

    But after attending the
    talks, Mr Ferguson hailed the AP6 as “vital” to delivering cleaner, greener
    technologies and warned nothing could be achieved without getting business on
    board.

    “This is essential to
    overcome the problem of simply shifting emissions from one country to another
    and at the same time shifting Australian manufacturing jobs and prosperity
    offshore,” Mr Ferguson said. “If the environmental movement got their way
    they’d close down the coal industry. It’s time to abandon the political
    correctness espoused by the Green movement.”

    Mr Howard formally
    committed $100million over five years to the partnership, with $25 million of
    that to be directed towards renewable energy projects.

    The US Government yesterday
    added a further $US52million ($69million) to that out of its 2007 budget,
    subject to approval by Congress. Over five years the funding is expected to
    grow to $US260 million.

    US Energy Secretary Sam
    Bodman said the partnership would serve as a model for simultaneously
    enhancing economic growth and promoting sustainable development.

    “It will be the private
    sector that develops and commercialises new technologies, that will make the
    investment, that will deliver practical results,” Mr Bodman said.

    “All countries were very
    enthusiastic, not just that there would be some commercial, business fallout
    from these endeavours but that it would also help the world. It would help
    improve the state of both pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.”

    Mr Howard also told the
    conference “the idea that we can address climate-change matters successfully
    at the expense of economic growth is not only unrealistic, but also
    unacceptable”. That sentiment was reflected in the AP6 communique, which
    acknowledged the growing role of renewables and nuclear power, but said fossil
    fuels underpinned their economies and would be “an enduring reality for our
    lifetimes and beyond”.

    “It is therefore critical that we work
    together to develop, demonstrate and implement cleaner and lower emissions
    technologies that allow for the continued economic use of fossil fuels while
    addressing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions,” the AP6 said.

  • Murry-Darling Basin Agreement stalled again due to weak leadership

    Less than half of target accounted for: There was good news for
    the Murray this week when Victoria announced a $93 million plan to
    conserve 145 billion litres for return to the river. But this was the
    first such project to receive Commonwealth approval. Victoria has
    identified another similar sized water saving, but NSW – again – is yet
    to do its bit. This means little more than half the 500 billion litres
    supposed to be returned to the Murray has been identified.

    Next month’s council holds the key: The National Water
    Commission was set up to circumvent this and has the lever of
    withholding national competition payments but cannot actually knock
    state heads together to get agreement. In the end, the Council of
    Australian Governments, due to meet next month, holds the key to the
    success or failure of water reform. The premiers – in particular,
    Morris lemma in NSW – and Prime Minister John Howard need to show
    leadership to match their rhetoric.

    The Australian Financial Review, 20/1/2006, p. 86

    Source: Erisk – www.erisk.net 

  • NSW Greens demand key documents on Sydney’s desalination

    9c/kL cheaper: The project, which also involves one of the
    bidders for the desalination plant, the French water giant Veolia,
    would produce roughly two-thirds as much water as the desalination
    plant. AGL estimates it would cost $1.35 a kilolitre to recycle water,
    compared with Sydney Water estimates of about $1.44 for desalinated
    water.

    The Sydney Morning Herald, 20/1/2006, p. 1

    Source: Erisk – www.erisk.net 


     

  • Vic’s Country Energy adds another windfarm to its green portfolio

    10-year contract: Under a 10-year power purchase agreement with
    Regional Wind Farms, Country Energy will purchase all of the
    electricity and renewable energy credits generated by the wind farm.
    Regional general manager Guy Chick said Country Energy’s comprehensive
    renewable energy strategy included the purchase of more and more energy
    from renewable sources.

    Other green energy sources: In addition to wind farm projects in regional NSW and SA, Country Energy also purchases:
    – hydro-electricity from stations throughout NSW;
    – biomass energy (energy generated from natural materials such as
    plants and organic landfill) from NSW’s Far North Coast, Queensland and
    Sydney;
    – a food waste to energy plant in Sydney; and
    – solar farms and rooftop solar systems across NSW.

    Further information: To enquire about countrygreen energy phone 13 23 56, fill out an on-line form at http://www.countryenergy.com.au/green or visit a local Country Energy customer service centre.

    Reference: Country Energy, January 2006. Media contact: Caron
    Lasscock, Public Affairs Advisor, Far West, on 08 8082 5329 or 0428 161
    680.

    Erisk Net, 19/1/2006

  • NSW govt gets desalination decision wrong but won’t back down

    Panel suggests gas-fired power plant: The Drought Expert Panel
    also said that a desalination plant would have to be powered by a
    gas-fired power plant to reduce greenhouse emissions.

    Govt says no: The government has now opted for a 125
    megalitre-a-day plant at a cost of $1.3 billion. It also ruled out a
    gas-fired power plant.

    The Daily Telegraph, 17/1/2006, p. 10