Author: admin

  • Election debate to include Greens

    Election debate to include Greens

    Updated: 05:28, Friday August 6, 2010

    Election campaign debates, traditionally a two-way affair with Labor taking on the Liberals, are set to widen, with the Greens scheduled to take part in a pre-election discussion.

    The forum will be about plans for an internet filter and is due to be held at Canberra’s National Press Club on Tuesday, with Greens’ senator Scott Ludlam joining his opposite numbers from the two major parties.

    Labor has also agreed to a three-way debate on climate change, planned to feature Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, Greens’ spokeswoman Christine Milne and Liberals’ spokesman Greg Hunt.

    But the climate debate will only go ahead if the Liberals agree to it.

  • Australia to face aged care crisis by 2050:report

     

    Alzheimer’s Australia chief executive Glenn Rees says the peak body commissioned the report to help steer future health planning.

    “The key things that it has found are that by 2050 there will be a shortfall in aged care places – both community care places and residential care places – of about 280,000 places,” he said.

    “What that means in simple terms is that we would have to double the increase in the supply of community care packages and residential care packages every year for the next 40 years.”

    The report points to a huge increase in the number of people predicted to have dementia in 40 years time, which means an increased need not only for aged care places, but the services that these people will need.

    “This report finds that by 2050 the numbers of people with dementia will be about 1 million. That is an increase of four-fold from today’s numbers,” Mr Rees said.

    The peak body says the current basis for planning for Australia’s aged population is to look at the number of people who will be more than 70 years old.

    Mr Rees says this system does not work, and it needs to be either pegged to the growth in dementia or the number of Australians who will be more than 85 years old.

    The results of the study will be presented to the Productivity Commission inquiry into aged care.

    Mr Rees says so far the Federal Government and the Opposition have focused on moving money around for short-term gain, and much bigger commitments to reform and funding are needed.

    “There is no real indication in what has been said in this election that either major party understands the extent of the reforms needed in aged care,” he said.

    Aged care provider Bupa Care Services’ managing director, Paul Gregerson, says the study’s findings will add to the anxieties of ageing Australians.

    His company conducted a survey of 1,200 people over the age of 50 to find out what Australians worry about as they are getting older.

    “One of the significant things that we found was that people worry more about dementia now than they do about stroke and heart disease,” he said.

    “We found that cancer is the thing that Australians worry most about. The second most thing that they worry about is dementia and losing their mental independence.”

    Tags: community-and-society, aged-care, health, disabilities, healthcare-facilities, mental-health, older-people, health-policy, australia

  • Saudi Arabia to seek compensation for climate pact oil losses

     

     

    The principle of compensation for countries economically or socially affected by climate change has been established in the UN talks, but there is deep unease that the country which first denied man-made climate change and has long fought a new climate agreement should benefit from money intended to help poor countries.

     

    Delegates from Aosis, the Alliance of Small Island States, this week said that it was “absurd” to allow Saudi Arabia to claim adaptation money.

     

    “It goes against the spirit of the talks, which is to help the poor adapt to something they did not cause,” said one diplomat who asked not to be named.

     

    “Besides, the small pot of money expected to be made available [by rich countries] would be seriously diminished if countries like Saudi Arabia are allowed to claim,” he said.

     

    Saudi Arabia’s plan to claim money is also questioned following a major study by the International Energy Agency last year which found that oil-producing countries would not lose money for many years. This was strongly disputed by the Saudi delegation

  • Ecuador offers to leave rainforest oil in the ground for $3,6 billion

    Ecuador offers to leave rainforest oil in the ground for $3.6 billion

    Ecologist

    5th August, 2010

    Ecuador seeks $3.6 billion from international donors to protect species-rich rainforest reserve from oil exploration

    Ecuador has signed a groundbreaking agreement with the United Nations to forgo oil exploration in Yasuni National Park – believed to be one of the most biologically diverse areas on Earth.

    Germany has already pledged $838 million; Spain, Sweden, France and Switzerland are also expected to make significant contributions.

    But Ecuador says it will need a total of $3.6 billion to guarantee that the one million-hectare rainforest reserve will remain untouched for a decade. The figure amounts to half of the revenue that could be generated from extracting the 850 million barrels of oil that lie beneath the reserve, which would release millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    The agreement represents a victory for local indigenous people who have fiercely resisted development in the region for decades.

    Environmental groups have welcomed the scheme, saying it is a good alternative to carbon offsetting initiatives, of which some environmentalists remain sceptical.

    If successful, the proposal could represent the future of biodiversity protection and climate mitigation. ‘Not only could it pave the way for interesting initiatives to keep fossil fuels in the ground, there could be similar initiatives or moratoria – on logging and sustainable forest conservation, for example,’ said Joseph Zacuni, International Coordinator of Friends of the Earth International’s Climate, Justice and Energy Programme.

    But the scheme can only work, warned Sarah Shoraka, Biodiversity Campaigner for Greenpeace UK, ‘if protection is permanent, local people are actively involved and the carbon savings are additional to any emissions cuts that donor countries make at home.’

  • We’re hot as hell and we’re not going to take it any more

  • I wrote the first book for a general audience on global warming back in 1989, and I’ve spent the subsequent 21 years working on the issue. I’m a mild-mannered guy, a Methodist Sunday school teacher. Not quick to anger. So what I want to say is: This is fucked up. The time has come to get mad, and then to get busy.

    For many years, the lobbying fight for climate legislation on Capitol Hill has been led by a collection of the most corporate and moderate environmental groups, outfits like the Environmental Defense Fund. We owe them a great debt, and not just for their hard work. We owe them a debt because they did everything the way you’re supposed to: they wore nice clothes, lobbied tirelessly, and compromised at every turn.

    By the time they were done, they had a bill that only capped carbon emissions from electric utilities (not factories or cars) and was so laden with gifts for industry that if you listened closely you could actually hear the oinking. They bent over backwards like Soviet gymnasts. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the legislator they worked most closely with, issued this rallying cry as the final negotiations began: “We believe we have compromised significantly, and we’re prepared to compromise further.”

    And even that was not enough. They were left out to dry by everyone — not just Reid, not just the Republicans. Even President Obama wouldn’t lend a hand, investing not a penny of his political capital in the fight.

    The result: total defeat, no moral victories.

    Now what?

    So now we know what we didn’t before: making nice doesn’t work. It was worth a try, and I’m completely serious when I say I’m grateful they made the effort, but it didn’t even come close to working. So we better try something else.

    Step one involves actually talking about global warming. For years now, the accepted wisdom in the best green circles was: talk about anything else — energy independence, oil security, beating the Chinese to renewable technology. I was at a session convened by the White House early in the Obama administration where some polling guru solemnly explained that “green jobs” polled better than “cutting carbon.”

    No, really? In the end, though, all these focus-group favorites are secondary. The task at hand is keeping the planet from melting. We need everyone — beginning with the president — to start explaining that basic fact at every turn.

    It is the heat, and also the humidity. Since warm air holds more water than cold, the atmosphere is about 5 percent moister than it was 40 years ago, which explains the freak downpours that seem to happen someplace on this continent every few days.

    It is the carbon — that’s why the seas are turning acid, a point Obama could have made with ease while standing on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico. “It’s bad that it’s black out there,” he might have said, “but even if that oil had made it safely ashore and been burned in our cars, it would still be wrecking the oceans.” Energy independence is nice, but you need a planet to be energy independent on.

    Mysteriously enough, this seems to be a particularly hard point for smart people to grasp. Even in the wake of the disastrous Senate non-vote, the Nature Conservancy’s climate expert told New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, “We have to take climate change out of the atmosphere, bring it down to earth, and show how it matters in people’s everyday lives.” Translation: Ordinary average people can’t possibly recognize the real stakes here, so let’s put it in language they can understand, which is about their most immediate interests. It’s both untrue, as I’ll show below, and incredibly patronizing. It is, however, exactly what we’ve been doing for a decade and clearly, It Does Not Work.

    Step two, we have to ask for what we actually need, not what we calculate we might possibly be able to get. If we’re going to slow global warming in the very short time available to us, then we don’t actually need an incredibly complicated legislative scheme that gives door prizes to every interested industry and turns the whole operation over to Goldman Sachs to run. We need a stiff price on carbon, set by the scientific understanding that we can’t still be burning black rocks a couple of decades hence. That undoubtedly means upending the future business plans of Exxon and BP, Peabody Coal and Duke Energy, not to speak of everyone else who’s made a fortune by treating the atmosphere as an open sewer for the byproducts of their main business.

    Instead they should pay through the nose for that sewer, and here’s the crucial thing: Most of the money raised in the process should be returned directly to American pockets. The monthly check sent to Americans would help fortify us against the rise in energy costs, and we’d still be getting the price signal at the pump to stop driving that SUV and start insulating the house. We also need to make real federal investments in energy research and development, to help drive down the price of alternatives — the Breakthrough Institute points out, quite rightly, that we’re crazy to spend more of our tax dollars on research into new drone aircraft and Mars orbiters than we do on photovoltaics.

    Yes, these things are politically hard, but they’re not impossible. A politician who really cared could certainly use, say, the platform offered by the White House to sell a plan that taxed BP and actually gave the money to ordinary Americans. (So far they haven’t even used the platform offered by the White House to reinstall the rooftop solar panels that Jimmy Carter put there in the 1970s and Ronald Reagan took down in his term.)

    Asking for what you need doesn’t mean you’ll get all of it. Compromise still happens. But as David Brower, the greatest environmentalist of the late twentieth century, explained amid the fight to save the Grand Canyon:

    We are to hold fast to what we believe is right, fight for it, and find allies and adduce all possible arguments for our cause. If we cannot find enough vigor in us or them to win, then let someone else propose the compromise. We thereupon work hard to coax it our way. We become a nucleus around which the strongest force can build and function.

    Which leads to the third step in this process. If we’re going to get any of this done, we’re going to need a movement, the one thing we haven’t had. For 20 years environmentalists have operated on the notion that we’d get action if we simply had scientists explain to politicians and CEOs that our current ways were ending the Holocene, the current geological epoch. That turns out, quite conclusively, not to work. We need to be able to explain that their current ways will end something they actually care about, i.e. their careers. And since we’ll never have the cash to compete with Exxon, we better work in the currencies we can muster: bodies, spirit, passion.

    Movement time

    As Tom Friedman put it in a strong column the day after the Senate punt, the problem was that the public “never got mobilized.” Is it possible to get people out in the streets demanding action about climate change? Last year, with almost no money, our scruffy little outfit, 350.org, managed to organize what Foreign Policy called the “largest ever coordinated global rally of any kind” on any issue — 5,200 demonstrations in 181 countries, 2,000 of them in the U.S.A.

    People were rallying not just about climate change, but around a remarkably wonky scientific data point, 350 parts per million carbon dioxide, which NASA’s James Hansen and his colleagues have demonstrated is the most we can have in the atmosphere if we want a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” Which, come to think of it, we do. And the “we,” in this case, was not rich white folks. If you look at the 25,000 pictures in our Flickr account, you’ll see that most of them were poor, black, brown, Asian, and young — because that’s what most of the world is. No need for vice-presidents of big conservation groups to patronize them: shrimpers in Louisiana and women in burqas and priests in Orthodox churches and slumdwellers in Mombasa turned out to be completely capable of understanding the threat to the future.

    Those demonstrations were just a start (one we should have made long ago). We’re following up in October — on 10-10-10 — with a Global Work Party. All around the country and the world people will be putting up solar panels and digging community gardens and laying out bike paths. Not because we can stop climate change one bike path at a time, but because we need to make a sharp political point to our leaders: we’re getting to work, what about you?

    We need to shame them, starting now. And we need everyone working together. This movement is starting to emerge on many fronts. In September, for instance, opponents of mountaintop removal are converging on D.C. to demand an end to the coal trade. That same month, Tim DeChristopher goes on trial in Salt Lake City for monkey-wrenching oil and gas auctions by submitting phony bids. (Naomi Klein and Terry Tempest Williams have called for folks to gather at the courthouse.)

    The big environmental groups are starting to wake up, too. The Sierra Club has a dynamic new leader, Mike Brune, who’s working hard with stalwarts like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. (Note to enviro groups: Working together is fun and useful). Churches are getting involved, as well as mosques and synagogues. Kids are leading the fight, all over the world — they have to live on this planet for another 70 years or so, and they have every right to be pissed off.

    But no one will come out to fight for watered down and weak legislation. That’s not how it works. You don’t get a movement unless you take the other two steps I’ve described.

    And in any event it won’t work overnight. We’re not going to get the Senate to act next week, or maybe even next year. It took a decade after the Montgomery bus boycott to get the Voting Rights Act. But if there hadn’t been a movement, then the Voting Rights Act would have passed in … never. We may need to get arrested. We definitely need art, and music, and disciplined, nonviolent, but very real anger.

    Mostly, we need to tell the truth, resolutely and constantly. Fossil fuel is wrecking the one earth we’ve got. It’s not going to go away because we ask politely. If we want a world that works, we’re going to have to raise our voices.

    Bill McKibben, a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, is the author of a dozen books, most recently The Bill McKibben Reader. He serves on Grist’s board of directors and is cofounder of 350.org.

  • Underground Coal Gasification UCG

    Underground coal gasification
    Process type chemical
    Industrial sector(s) oil and gas industrycoal industry
    Feedstock coal
    Product(s) coal gas
    Leading companies Linc Energy
    Main facilities Angren Power Station, Uzbekistan
    Inventor Carl Wilhelm Siemens
    Year of invention 1868

    Underground coal gasification (UCG) is an industrial process, which enables coal to be converted into product gas. UCG is an in-situ gasification process carried out in non-mined coal seams using injection of oxidants, and bringing the product gas to surface through production wells drilled from the surface. The product gas could to be used as a chemical feedstock or as fuel for power generation. The technique can be applied to resources that are otherwise unprofitable or technically complicated to extract by traditional mining methods and it also offers an alternative to conventional coal mining methods for some resources.

    Contents

    [hide]