EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Greenpeace’s ceasefire wih the logging companies was not a deal with the devil

    Greenpeace’s ceasefire with the logging companies was not a deal with the devil

    Richard Brooks

    21st July, 2010

    It took many environmentalists by surprise – that fiercely campaigning NGOs could not just make peace with their corporate enemies but enter into an agreement with them. This is a crucial step forward, says Richard Brooks

     

    On May 18, 2010, Greenpeace along with eight other environmental organisations, the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) and its twenty one member companies unveiled the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA), one of the largest and most ambitious conservation planning and forest solutions agreements ever.

    The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement is a game-changer in the movement to responsibly manage and conserve large areas of intact forests while supporting the peoples, communities, and jobs that depend upon them. The Agreement is a truce between long-time foes in the battle for the Boreal Forest, and a move towards a collaborative solutions approach in an area of the Boreal Forest that is twice the size of Germany at 72 million hectares. It includes the suspension of logging and other forestry activity in an area larger than Italy (at 28.6 million hectares), virtually all the habitat of woodland caribou – an iconic and endangered species in Canada – that is under management of FPAC companies, for three years.

    The agreement creates the space to do the work and planning in a massive area that is needed to create protection of vast areas of Boreal forest, implement world-leading forest practices, revitalise the forest industry and renew the communities which depend on it.

    What we stood to lose

    The Canadian Boreal Forest ranks with the Amazon and the rainforests of Indonesia and the Congo Basin as one of the most important forests on the planet. It is the largest storehouse of carbon on the planet – banking more than 200 billion tonnes in its soils and trees. It is home to more than 600 First Nations and Aboriginal communities. It is the source of billions of dollars in forest products sold globally. It is home to one billion migratory birds and is the source of fresh water for half of Canada. It is one of the last, truly vast wilderness spaces left on the planet.

    Greenpeace and other environmental organisations have been waging campaigns for years to protect this forest. These have included boycott and divestment campaigns, public education and mobilisation projects, government lobbying and peaceful civil disobedience. We have had victories along the way, now culminating with the CBFA.

    Nearly two decades ago, Greenpeace made the strategic decision to engage the global marketplace as a means to advance conservation of forests. We recognised at the time that those companies and governments that manage forests paid the most attention to what shareholders and pulp, paper and lumber customers of logging companies wanted – for obvious reasons. We also recognised that changing the logging companies’ approach to forestry could be facilitated by having these customers educated and engaged in asking and demanding change.

    In the case of the Boreal Forest, the Canadian, U.S. and European markets have been very important in driving change and supporting the coming together of the disparate parties.  The UK is the largest European market for forest products, totalling $354 million (CDN) in 2009. Companies such as Office Depot, Pearson Publishing, Kimberly-Clark and others mobilised by our organisation and the likes of Canopy and ForestEthics, have been instrumental in supporting forest conservation in Canada through their contracts with signatories to the Agreement. Through the shifting of their purchases, through the release of environmental procurement policies and through sheer moral suasion they have helped create the openness to find a different way of doing things.

    No Faustian pact

    In our opinion, the simple truth of the matter is that the companies who signed on to the Agreement have done so because they recognise that the global marketplace is shifting and if they are to survive and compete, for example, against companies with weak environmental records and fast-growing  Brazilian plantations, FPAC member companies need to differentiate themselves. Being green and not greenwashed is one way to do it. The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement will provide the signatory companies with a competitive edge.

  • Population debate overshadows housing shortage: economist

     

    “There are two parts: you either say that we throw up our hands and we can’t get to that point so we need to slow down our population growth, but then we wear the second round and third round negative effects of that on the economy… or we have to do something even more fundamental in terms of trying to enable housing supply,” he said.

    He says the pressure on Australia’s housing supply is only increasing as the positive effects of government stimulus programs fade.

    The report by BIS Shrapnel says building starts will be flat between now and 2012.

    Mr Anderson says that is going to compound the current problem of housing shortages, and drive rental costs and house prices even higher.

    “Even though we’ve had for most of the last 18 months, very favourable interest rates, a very successful scheme in terms of first home buyer demand, we haven’t really pushed up towards the level of supply that we need to match it in terms of population growth,” he explained.

    The company’s Building in Australia report says Federal Government stimulus programs were largely responsible for the 15 per cent rebound in the value of national building starts throughout the last financial year.

    Mr Anderson says that means private sector investment in construction is desperately needed to replace the publicly funded boost.

    “The first home buyers boost scheme, social housing and education programs have proven to be very effective and they’ve basically clawed back all the losses,” he explained.

    “We will have definitely a lower rate of public spend coming through even in the next 12 months, and even in the year beyond that.”

    Tags: business-economics-and-finance, economic-trends, building-and-construction, housing, international-financial-crisis, australia

    First posted 1 hour 34 minutes ago

  • Voters reject climate citizens assembly

     

    With a new front threatening to open up for Ms Gillard on cost of living, the polling suggests that Labor could lose office on this issue alone, if even only a small proportion of voters switch from Labor to the Coalition on the issue.

     

    “It definitely could be a game changer,” Galaxy managing director David Briggs said. “It is a definite negative for the Government.

    “While the majority of voters, 86 per cent, say that a rate rise will not impact on their vote, as many as 11 per cent say that they would be less likely to vote for Labor, and in a tight election that could give [Opposition Leader] Tony Abbott just the break he needs.”

    As the nation heads into week two of the five-week campaign, the race appears to be tightening.

    The Galaxy poll commissioned by The Daily Telegraph and conducted over the weekend has again put Labor in front with a two-party preferred lead of 52 per cent to 48 per cent. However, this still represents a swing against the Government of almost 1 per cent from the 2007 poll and a loss of seats.

    The Greens have also recorded their highest ever vote in a Galaxy poll, surging from 12 per cent a week ago to 15 per cent following the release of Ms Gillard’s poorly received climate change policy.

    Primary support for the Coalition slipped from 42 per cent to 41 per cent following a horror start for Mr Abbott, who spent most of the week defending claims he would bring back WorkChoices.

    Labor’s primary support appears stuck at a low 38 per cent, almost five points down on its 2007 primary vote, meaning it would rely on the Greens preferences it secured in a deal to retain government.

     

    15 comments on this story

  • Nuclear waste is still not safe

    Having reviewed the entire article in the light of the comments made I agree that there were some things that I wrote which I had not researched thoroughly and I did write for maximum impact rather than for maximum consideration of the full story. The shades of grey never make headlines.

    That being said, I stand by the vast majority of the statements that I made, and invite you to make up your own mind after considering the resources provided to below. I have not used resources from anti-nuclear groups that could be accused of fudging the figures, or only emphasising one side of the story.

    I have used resources from the nuclear industry itself, government agencies and reliable, independent newspapers. Links to these resources are available below.

    “Millions of tonnes of nuclear waste sit in council dumps.”

    This statement has been described as alarmist. I agree that it is alarming but as it is true and alarming, I fail to see that it is alarmist.

     

    Here are the facts

     

    There are 121 locations across the US storing nuclear waste – Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-does-the-us-do-with-nuclear-waste.

    There are millions of gallons of nuclear waste at one facility in Hamford – http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/ssso-wds112707.php

    The US is stockpiling over 1 million tonnes of high level depleted uranium http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

    Britain is storing over 100,000 tonnes of high level waste but has now way of telling exactly how much because there is no central record http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/radioactive-waste-stored-has-doubled-in-15-years-604923.html

    Most nuclear waste is currently stored in interim depots awaiting long term storage solutions – World Nuclear Association http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04ap2.html

    75 of them are administered by State or County governments. These tend to hold the low level waste, but many of them have been found to be leaking.

    If that is not enough, google “nuclear waste leak” and you get more of the picture.

     

    Yucca mountain and safe storage

     

    “The [US] government reached the conclusion [when considering Yucca Mountain] that it is impossible to store the waste safely”

     

    This statement has been described as alarmist on the basis that the government found it possible to store the waste safely, but prohibitively expensive.

     

    While it is true that the US government is still wrangling internally over whether to build Yucca mountain or not, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/38435/ there is no doubt that the scientists advising the government have reached the conclusion that the dump cannot be made safe in the long term. /articles/archive/1195-this-is-not-a-place-of-honor

    Bunker busting bombs and babies

    This is the area where I accept that I did skimp on my research and may have been led into making some wild claims. For example I claimed that the depleted uranium is used to make shell casings, when it is in fact made into a rod inside the shell. I also used the term explode instead of the more accurate term vaporise. I did not ever claim that depleted uranium is the basis of a nuclear bomb or an atomic explosion, however.

     

    The criticism that concerns me most, however, referred to defects in the research used to describe the connection between the use of depleted uranium in bunker busted bombs and birth defects in Iraq. My further research into those claims have been unable to unearth a clear proof for some of those claims. I will certainly pay more attention to the details of that research in the future.

    Politicians, passion and accuracy

    It is a requirement of political speech writing to simplify and clarify complex arguments to communicate effectively. This is also a requirement of newspaper writing, all ethical marketing and scientific documentation.

     

    The tendency in politics is to go for the emotional hot-buttons and I stand corrected for having got hot under the collar about this topic.

     

    I thank those who made their comments, especially James Courtney, who took the time to detail his criticisms and explain his concerns.

     

     

     

     

  • US Senate drops bill to cap carbon emissions

     

    Democrats have been trying to pass a plan that charges power plants, manufacturers and other large polluters for their carbon dioxide emissions, the leading contributor to global warming, for more than a year. But it ran into opposition from Republican senators, as well as Democrats eager not to jeopardise their chances in November’s midterm elections.

    Republicans said the bill would create a “national energy tax”, warning costs would be passed to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills and fuel costs that would lead manufacturers to take their factories overseas, putting jobs at risk.

    The failure to pass sweeping energy legislation is likely to weaken the US negotiating position heading into the international climate negotiations in Mexico at the end of the year.

    Democrats hope to instead pass a narrower energy bill next week that would increase the liability of companies for oil spills in the light of public anger towards BP over the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

    Senate majority leader Harry Reid said the reason for abandoning the attempt to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill was simple: “We know we don’t have the votes.”

    He said no Republican senator was willing to back the bill but maintained that the narrower legislation would still be “a step forward”.

    “Number one, we’re going to hold BP accountable to ensure that they clean up their mess,” he said. “Hopefully, we can stop [accidents] from ever happening, but if they do, there will be a process to move forward.”

    The bill would also boost energy efficient homes and provide incentives to convert many of America’s large trucks from diesel to natural gas.

    Senator John Kerry, the Democrat who was lead sponsor of the now-abandoned climate bill, was hopeful that carbon emissions would eventually be capped. He noted that it took more than two decades for Congress to approve a health care bill championed by his friend and fellow Massachusetts senator, the late Ted Kennedy.

    “This is not going to take close to that long,” he said. “I am absolutely confident that as the American people make their voices heard, and as our colleagues go home and listen to them we’re going to grow in our ability to be able to pass this.” White House energy adviser Carol Browner said Obama still supported a comprehensive bill that included a cap on carbon emissions but also backed Reid’s decision to go forward with a narrower bill.

    Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, warned that the country would pay a “high price” if the Senate failed to curb carbon emissions.

    “Too many senators are listening to polluters instead of the American public,” he said. “Too many senators have learned nothing from the Gulf disaster and the high price we pay when oil lobbyists dictate our energy laws.”

  • Lead the charge EV Vehicles on the way

     

    Electric cars Click for more photos

    Electric cars

    Electric cars

    • Electric cars
    • Electric cars

    All-electric plug-in cars are a different breed to petrol-electric hybrids, which use electric motors to supplement a petrol engine and don’t require a power outlet.

    All-electric cars run entirely on batteries and hence need to recharge regularly.

    Electric cars aren’t new – they’ve been around in some form for almost as long as motor vehicles have been on the road. But recent improvements in battery technology have made them a more realistic alternative to their petrol-engined cousins.

    There are still big question marks over the charging infrastructure, long-term battery life, safety and resale value of electric vehicles.

    But none of this matters to Hobbs; she’s happy to have adopted EVs early and faces those challenges head on.

    “I’ve been rabbiting on about the environment for 10 years,” she says. “When my old car started getting the shakes I thought, ‘I don’t want to commit to buying petrol for another 10 years.’ So I’ve put my money where my mouth is.”

    She admits she considered getting rid of a car altogether and joining a car-sharing program but decided to commit to the Blade and join the electric-car revolution.

    “For me, part of the reason I’m doing this is because, with my work, I get to talk about it,” she says. “It’s normalising the idea of electric cars.”

    It came at a price, however – $48,000 to be exact – substantially more than a Hyundai Getz with a petrol engine.

    But she says it’s easy to justify that extra expenditure.

    “For me $48,000 is a shitload of money to spend on a car,” she says. “But I’m paying for my fuel upfront with the battery pack. So if I keep it for 10 years like my last car, that’s $5000 a year. In 10 years I’ll probably just give it to my nephew.”

    For critics of electric cars, Hobbs has switched her energy provider to get “green” energy instead of relying on coal-fired power.

    “If you’re going to use coal fire you’re doing no good, you just have a feel-good car,” she says.

    “[Switching to green energy] takes you from three tonnes of CO2 per year to none.”

    She’s not the only Australian driver ditching petrol power for electricity. The managing director of Adelaide-based internet service provider Internode, Simon Hackett, not only has a Blade parked in his garage but also just took delivery of the first right-hand drive Tesla Roadster in Australia.

    To call Hackett a passionate believer in electric vehicles is an understatement. He has been a fan ever since he drove the GM EV1 in the mid-1990s while working in the US.

    He ordered a left-hand-drive Tesla in 2006 but had to wait until 2008 for it to arrive. Last year he set a world record by driving the Roadster more than 500 kilometres on a single charge during the Global Green Challenge.

    Hackett bought the Blade Electron as his daily driver because he couldn’t register his left-hand-drive Tesla for road use. But with the new Tesla able to be driven on the road, it will replace the Blade as his daily commuter car.

    It may have cost Hackett more than $250,000 but as far as he’s concerned, it’s better than buying a traditional sports car such as a Porsche or Ferrari.

    “People say, ‘How can it be a sports car if it doesn’t go vroom vroom?’ You get used to it really quickly,” he says.

    Home on the range

    The first mass-market electric car into Australia, the Mitsubishi i-MiEV, has an official range of 100 kilometres to 160 kilometres before it needs a full recharge (the Hyundai Getz-based Blade claims 100 kilometres).

    The challenge for Mitsubishi and its fellow car makers is to convince consumers that 160 kilometres is enough for them to live with.

    The Drive team logged its driving habits for a week and found that all of us could comfortably use an electric car with a range of 100 kilometres each day.

    But we found on the weekends that range might not be enough to satisfy us all.

    Factors such as the weather, driving style and use of the heater and airconditioning all have an impact on the range; just like the fuel consumption in a traditional petrol- or diesel-powered car.

    But, unlike a traditional car, topping up the battery of an electric car isn’t as simple as ducking into your local service station. Charging an electric car can take up to eight hours and requires a special power outlet.

    Both Hobbs and Hackett believe “range anxiety” won’t be an issue for most people, providing they live close to their work.

    “For the first few days I was shitting myself,” Hobbs admits. “But I realised I really never drive more than 100 kilometres.”

    She does also admit to having a back-up plan.

    “I carry a 30-metre extension cord,” she says. “That gives me a bit of confidence.” Hackett believes it is only a matter of time before electric cars boast a range to match a petrol car. He says he can get more than 300 kilometres from his Tesla regularly and the company’s next variant, the Model S, will claim a range of more than 480 kilometres.

    “There’s this tendency with people to focus on what happens if you run out of electricity. Well, the same thing that happens if you run out of petrol: your car stops,” he says. “But what people need to realise is that range, of 100 kilometres or 300 kilometres, is available every day.”

    Give it a plug

    Infrastructure for electric cars is very much a case of the chicken and the egg. Car companies have the cars but there isn’t any significant infrastructure in place yet. Not surprisingly, no one is interested in installing expensive public charging points for a handful of cars.

    Unlike the Blade, some electric cars can’t be charged using a regular household outlet – they require a 15-amp plug, the same type used for large airconditioning units.

    You can get one installed in your garage or office car park for a few hundred dollars but there are a growing number of operators selling specialised charging points.

    ChargePoint Australia is one of the first companies to install a commercially operated roadside outlet, in conjunction with car-sharing company GoGet.

    The outlet, in inner-city Glebe, is not available for public use, though; only members of GoGet are able to charge the company’s converted Toyota Prius EV.

    The joint managing director of ChargePoint, Luke Grana, says the rollout of infrastructure will be a gradual process that will be tied to the amount of EVs on the roads.

    “We really see it working with the early adopters like local councils, state governments and fleets,” he says. “We won’t be rolling out a network until 2013 and we’ll be growing with the market.”

    He believes the most likely scenario will see shopping centres and parking stations emerge as the power provider for electric cars, potentially replacing petrol stations.

    In theory, drivers will be able to take their EV to the shops, plug in while they doing their shopping and come back to a fully recharged car.

    The first signs of this transition have emerged.

    Special parking spaces with power outlets are beginning to pop up around major cities but they are few and far between. So far, shopping centres in Hornsby, Dural and Blacktown have become some of the first to offer electric-car drivers a place to recharge while shopping.

    “I think it really needs to be led by the car-consumer marketplace,” a spokeswoman for Westfield, Julia Clarke, says.

    There are exceptions, though. A new multi-storey structure in downtown Perth has 12 parking spots hard-wired for charging.

    To ensure the electricity is sustainable, it’s sourced from roof-mounted solar panels.

    The car park is overseen by the director of business units for the City of Perth, Doug Forster. He says it will serve as a test ahead of further charging points being set up. The council owns 30 parking stations across the city.

    Crucially for the rollout of infrastructure and EVs, federal and state governments have so far shown little tangible support for electric cars. Overseas, governments have offered free parking, access to transit lanes or cash incentives to support early adopters of EVs.

    The all-important question, however, is: will car fans miss the vroom of a petrol engine?

    “I thought I would but I don’t,” Hackett says. “I’ve got an old Ferrari, a 1985 308, that’s a real work of art. But I can’t get motivated to drive it. Once you drive an electric car, you realise you are in a generational-changing vehicle. And I don’t miss the generation I’m leaving.”

    Electric cars on the way

    City cars, hatchbacks, sedans and even supercars; there is an electric car suited to almost every need under development somewhere in the world.

    • Mitsubishi i-MiEV
    • NissanLEAF
    • TeslaRoadster
    • Tesla ModelS
    • SmartED
    • MiniE
    • Holden/ChevroletVolt
    • Renault Fluence Z.E.
    • VolvoC30Plug-In Hybrid
    • Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid
    • VolkswagenEup!
    • BMWMegacity
    • CitroenC-ZERO
    • Peugeot iOn
    • Ford Focus BEV
    • Audi e-tron
    • Mercedes-BenzSLSE-Cell