Author: admin

Australia’s Population Challenge

There are five issues to be addressed.

First is limiting families to two children and not encouraging excessive family size through government subsidies or other means. Most developed societies have reached this state – just look at some European countries’ declining birth-rates.

Second is understanding the impact of individuals and populations on environmental services in order that we can all take greater responsibility for, and be mindful of, our footfall on the planet. This will help in the process of changing behaviour and bringing about political change.

Third is changing the economic model so that it is not predicated on the simplistic notion of economic growth and is instead built on wellbeing growth – wealth creation based on social cohesion, resilience and life satisfaction.

The fourth issue is to change the whole debate. The predicated upheavals that will be caused by climate change and overpopulation mean that debates about a few hundred or thousand migrants will inevitably become decisions concerning hundreds of thousands in the next few decades.

We need to think and plan now for these eventualities.

Fifth because much of the current growth debate is based on needing more people in employment to support an aging population we need to rethink the balance between birth, growing up, learning, working, belonging and dying.

If we see life as a continual learning process and work as rewarding and enriching then learning and working will become continuous interplays throughout life rather than segregated activities with rigid endpoints.

Research being carried out in the Asia Pacific Centre for Sustainable Enterprise at Griffith Business School shows that the world is slowly, much too slowly probably, moving towards a low carbon sustainable enterprise economy model based on these principles.

Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world and significant population growth is already leading to a range of pressures in many cities. This is also the case across developing and advanced economies and includes public services, infrastructure, housing, energy, food and water supplies, and, under current policy, Australia is faced with significant population growth in the foreseeable future.

A recent report commissioned by Griffith University’s urban research program suggests that South East Queensland is receiving an additional 1500 residents each week and is expected to add another 1 million by 2026.

Melbourne’s population growth has recently been predicted to grow by 1.8 million by 2036. Sydney assumes that its population will grow by 1.2 million by 2031. Perth expects to double its 2001 population to 2.2 million by 2031.

A significant proportion of this population is likely to grow internally, thanks to the Australian government’s baby bonus policy. There will also be a resurgence of new immigrants from Asian countries mainly through skilled and family migration programs.

This also needs to be seen in the context of added pressures from climate refugees from low-lying countries in Asia and the Pacific region due to the likely threats of global warming and sea level rise.

The existing transport systems are already struggling under the strain of new growth. Congestion problems in many parts of Australian cities, while far less than in many other cities around the world, has become enormous issues for local government.

There is no doubt that the flows of traffic and passengers within Australian cities are expected to surge with a growing population.

Population and migration issues cannot be dealt with at the state or national level but must become central issues in international agreements if we are to tackle our greatest success – that we have bred like flies and consumed the Earth’s small resources with very significant exponential growth over the last two hundred years.

Now is the time to acknowledge our success as a species and move forward with the idea that every child born should have the right to live in a safe, healthy, fulfilling community.

Population is fundamentally a human rights and environmental rights issue but there seem to be few, if any, politicians willing to accept the leadership baton and step forward.

Malcolm McIntosh is a professor and director of the Asia Pacific Centre for Sustainable Enterprise at Griffith Business School. Tapan Sarker is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Asia Pacific Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith Business School. Rose Boyd is a PhD Scholar at Asia Pacific Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith Business School

13 April, 2010
Chevron’s solar panels won’t clean up it’s filthy oilfield

The company is proud enough of the solar panels to have a promotional video on Operation Brightfield. Chevron’s local vice president, Bruce Johnson, calls the solar facility “a clear example of Chevron’s efforts to find ways to integrate innovative technologies into our business.”

But the Rainforest Action Network, a California-based NGO, put out a natty little video of its own charging the company with “greenwash” in the California sun.

Chevron is the biggest greenhouse-gas emitter in California, according to RAN. And its global green reputation could do with some refurbishing. The company is still living down the environmental damage caused by past involvement of Texaco, a company it bought in 2001, while grabbing oil from the rainforests of Ecuador.

And it faces new criticism for its prominent role in developing tar sands in Canada. This latter is a big problem, as the California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, seeks to cut the state’s carbon dioxide emissions.

RAN says last year Chevron hit a “new all-time low in renewable energy investments”, with just 1.96 per cent of its capital and exploratory budget going green.

So the plaudits Chevron has won for its Brightfield test rigs, along with a planned solar project in New Mexico, are green gold dust.

But its dirty old ways still look like the main game at Chevron. You can see its real business down the road from the shiny new solar panels, at the Kern River heavy oil facility. The field is more than a century old and contains some 10,000 “nodding donkey” rigs pumping away. The field is largely exhausted, with production declining every year, but Chevron is reluctant to call a halt to its ancient money-spinner.

But bringing the oil to the surface is increasing difficult, and energy-intensive. The thick tar-like dregs of the oilfield won’t flow on their own. They have to be heated first. So Chevron burns natural gas to make steam, which it pumps underground to raise temperatures and get the gunge moving. They call it “steam flooding”. One reporter invited to Kern River by the American Petroleum Institute describes the scene on The Oil Drum.

Chevron is a specialist in extracting heavy oil round the world. In Venezuela and Indonesia, for instance. But bringing the stuff to the surface has a very large carbon footprint, according to Tony Kovscek of Stanford University’s Energy Resources Engineering department, who has studied Kern River.

He estimates (pdf) that the carbon footprint of producing heavy oil at Kern River is around 50kg of carbon dioxide for every barrel of oil.

That is only half the footprint of tar sands in Alberta, he says, “but the carbon footprint of conventional oil is a great deal smaller.”

The company spokesman Alex Yelland said the 750-kW solar facility, which has an expected lifetime of 25 years, is intended “to evaluate competing next generation solar technologies”. He denied any attempt at greenwash. “That the oil field nearby produces heavy oil was not relevant to the siting of the solar test.”

Kovscek says, “some of the largest point sources of carbon dioxide in California are from these types of oil field operations.” Solar panels powering the pipeline pumps won’t change that.

But, if Chevron wants to carry on pumping heavy oil from Kern River, there would be a way for the company to make a serious difference, he says. It could harness the power of the sun big time to make the steam.

A lot of entrepreneurs in California want to develop what they call “concentrated solar thermal power”. Rather than covering the desert in photovoltaic panels, they want to install mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays and boil water to make steam. Their main idea is to use the steam to run turbines. But why not, says Kovscek, use it directly to free up the heavy oil?

“Relatively conservative designs could reduce the heavy-oil carbon footprint by at least 30%,” he told the Guardian. “More aggressive designs could achieve even greater reductions.” Yelland said that the company plans a “solar-to-steam” demonstration facility to replace some of its natural gas needs at another oil field in California.

Now that really will “integrate innovative technologies” into Chevron’s business. It would put Project Brightside in the shade. Until then, Chevron seems to be using a few solar panels to greenwash a thoroughly filthy oilfield.

13 April, 2010

Let’s look at California as an example. The state is leading the nation down the green path overall, adopting statewide policies that encourage residents to reduce their carbon footprints and change their wasteful ways.

It is implementing the first-ever law that uses regulatory and market mechanisms to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions. AB 32, or the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is expected to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. But that’s only the start.

Another law, AB 375, sets GHG targets for different regions and connects land use with AB 32 goals by offering a roadmap for halting urban sprawl. Signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008, it encourages cities to adopt a general plan with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that requires new development to be near transit or clustered with existing development. Cities are not required to adopt the SCS, but only those that do will be eligible for a share of the state’s $6 billion annual transportation budget. It also exempts qualifying smart-growth projects from the state’s onerous environmental review process.

Faced with California’s GHG mandate, many local governments have already implemented green building standards for public and commercial projects, as well as programs designed to conserve resources and reduce waste and GHG emissions.

Santa Monica, Pasadena and Los Angeles, for example, have adopted “green” building ordinances that require new and renovated public and commercial buildings to meet criteria for the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver rating.

Attorney Elizabeth Watson, a partner at the Los Angeles law firm Greenberg Luster, which specializes in land use, notes that cities started by imposing LEED standard on themselves before requiring them in the private sector. She predicts that local governments will eventually require existing buildings to be upgraded to sustainable standards, too.

Los Angeles has already begun sustainable retrofits on its own buildings, Watson notes. Once the city determines a sustainable upgrade is reasonable to expect, it is likely to make sellers upgrade buildings to LEED standards before changing hands.

This concept got a shot in the arm last year with California requiring building owners to disclosure a building’s energy rating to prospective buyers and renters. While this policy is intended as a “buyer beware” statue, the state is using this information to create a database of building energy use.

The idea is that if building owners are forced to disclose this information periodically or when a property is sold or leased, they will upgrade the building’s energy systems to improve marketability, says Toni Liou, a principal at Los Angeles-based Partner Energy, an energy consulting firm that works with building owners and users to improve a building’s energy rating.

Updates to California’s new Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, which came online Jan.1, also increased building energy performance standards, as well as water conservation and waste reduction requirements for all types of projects. For instance, 75% of water heated for swimming pools must be from solar, native plants must be used for landscaping, and 65% of waste must be recycled.

The state also was first to offer PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy), a municipal solar finance program that enables home and building owners to install solar energy without any upfront costs and repay the loan over 20 years with savings from electric bills. It launched the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, which provides $2.9 billion in incentives for home and building owners who install solar electric systems. It also increased the amount of excess electricity utilities must buy back from owners of rooftop solar systems. Its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) calls for 20 percent of California’s energy to come from renewable energy sources by 2010.

Cities Lead the Way

While the states are laying the foundation for sustainability, it is forward-thinking cities that are the leading the way toward true zero-emissions development, in California and elsewhere.

Cities have the flexibility to lead because they have the greatest control over sustainability processes, explains Claire Bonham-Carter, a principal and director of Sustainable Development, Design and Planning in the San Francisco office of AECOM who is developing Climate Action Plans (CAPs) for several California cities.

San Francisco, Berkeley, Chicago, Seattle, Portland and Boulder have all developed Climate Action Plans that outline strategies to bring down greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for climate change.

So far, Austin, Texas, is the only U.S. city that has formally committed to going carbon neutral, but a number of projects attempting to reach the same goal are under way or proposed. The economic downturn has created challenges for many, delaying some of their grandest plans, but projects are still in the works.

For example, Quay Valley is a proposed $25-billion, 13,172-acre new city of 150,000 people in central California that would produce all of its power with renewable energy technologies. That would include 100 solar arrays, wind turbines and geothermal to help with efficiency, according to Dustin Watson, a LEED-certified architect and vice president at Baltimore-based Developers Design Group, master planner for the project.

“We’re starting to see clients like this one in California pushing the envelope,” Watson says.

In New Mexico, Mesa del Sol, a 12,900-acre sustainable master-planned community under way south of Albuquerque, will utilize regionally available renewable energy resources to eventually power 37,000 residential units and 18 million square feet of commercial space.

In fact, developers plan to make alternative energy technology the community’s primary economic driver and has already attracted two world-class solar energy companies. New Mexico is a national leader in alternative energy research, one of the highest concentrations of Ph.D.-level scientists in the nation. Both Sandia National Laboratory, just minutes from Mesa del Sol, as well as Los Alamos National Laboratory are focused on sustainable energy research.

The federal government is also moving forward. The largest net-zero commercial building in the nation is under way in Golden, Colo. The $64-million, 218,000-square-foot building home for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a unit of the U.S. Department of Energy, will consume so little energy that it won’t need to draw a single electron from the grid.

According to project manager Eric Telesmanich, this high-performance, LEED platinum building will attain net-zero status through conservation and alternative energy production. The goal is to limit energy use to no more than 32,000 BTUs per square foot a year, so that the one-megawatt solar array on the NREL campus meets all the building’s energy requirements. The typical commercial building in Colorado requires 65,000 BTUs per square foot annually.

Getting to Net Zero

Getting to net zero energy requires a closed-loop system, where everything onsite is used to produce energy, which is the way energy production is going in future, notes Dustin Watson.

“What it boils down to is the most cost-effective way to get there,” he says, pointing out that the process begins with the free stuff, like taking advantage of natural breezes and daylighting, then applies conservation to decrease demand, and lastly introduces technologies for onsite energy production.

Ideally, each community someday will operate on its own micro-grid system that derives energy from different sources, so that when one system has downtime the others pick up the slack, he explains. “It would be great if everyone’s house produced its own energy, and whatever isn’t used goes on a local grid for use by other buildings.

“There’s lots of possibilities out there for the future. It’s an exciting time to be in this business,” he adds. “Things are happening so fast, it’s a full job just keeping up.”

Author: admin

Australia’s Population Challenge

Chevron’s solar panels won’t clean up it’s filthy oilfield

Churches must not be allowed to sabotage ethics lessons

Going carbon neutral : Caliifornia pours a foundation for cities to build on

Cities Lead the Way

Getting to Net Zero

Mangrove forests hit by coastal developments

Rudd health reforms ‘bizarre’, says Reserve Bank Board member Roger Corbett