EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Population Minister cannot wait until after election day

    3 April 2010

    Population Minister cannot wait until after election for
    action

    The Prime Minister’s appointment of a new Population
    Minister to investigate population strategy must be matched by action
    said Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown.

    “After so many years of government failure on this issue
    I welcome the Prime Minister’s move to take up Australian Greens’ call
    for a comprehensive national investigation into population strategy,”
    said Senator Brown.

    “But the announcement today means any action to address
    urgent population issues will now be put off until after the federal
    election, at the earliest.

    “In 2008 I called on the Government to establish a
    population policy and the Greens currently have a proposal for a
    national population inquiry before the Senate.

    “The work by the Greens follows 15 years of failure by
    successive federal governments to implement the results of the last
    national population inquiry delivered in 1994 by Barry Jones.

    “Australia cannot support a population of 35 million by
    2050 as discussed by both the Prime Minister and the Opposition.

    “The major parties population growth plan is
    outstripping Australia’s infrastructure and environmental capacity and
    affecting quality of life.

    “We cannot wait until after the election for action.

    “The Greens have already proposed immediate action the
    Government can take to manage population, including:
    – Increasing Australia’s overseas aid budget by 0.7 percent of our
    GDP with more funding for literacy and reproductive health
    – Reducing skilled migration while increasing our humanitarian and
    investing in skills and training.”

    _______________________________________________
    GreensMPs Media mailing list
    Media@greensmps.org.au
    To unsubscribe, change your details or change delivery options for this email, visit: http://lists.greensmps.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/media

  • Climate sceptics are on big-oil payroll

     

    In a hard-hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists’ suspicions that there is a well-funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of “spreading inaccurate and misleading information” about climate science and clean energy companies.

    “The company’s network of lobbyists, former executives and organisations has created a forceful stream of misinformation that Koch-funded entities produce and disseminate. The propaganda is then replicated, repackaged and echoed many times throughout the Koch-funded web of political front groups and thinktanks,” said Greenpeace.

    “Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate. This private, out-of-sight corporation has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. On repeated occasions organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, ‘green jobs’, renewable energy and climate policy progress,” it says.

    The groups include many of the best-known conservative thinktanks in the US, like Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for research on economics and the environment. All have been involved in “spinning” the “climategate” story or are at the forefront of the anti-global warming debate, says Greenpeace.

    Koch Industries is a $100bn-a-year conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, with operations in nearly 60 countries and 70,000 employees. It owns refineries which process more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day in the US, as well as a refinery in Holland. It has held leases on the heavily polluting tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.

    The majority of the group’s assets are owned and controlled by Charles and David Koch, two of the four sons of the company’s founder. They have been identified by Forbes magazine as the joint ninth richest Americans and the 19th richest men in the world, each worth between $14-16bn.

    Koch has also contributed money to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000from the company.

    Greenpeace accuses the Koch companies of having a notorious environmental record. In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Koch industries $30m for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than 3m gallons of crude oil leaking intro ponds, lakes and coastal waters.

    “The combination of foundation-funded front groups, big lobbying budgets, political action campaign donations and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the US,” Greenpeace said.

    Top 10 Koch beneficiaries 2005-2008

    Mercatus center: ($9.2m received from Koch grants 2005-2008) Conservative thinktank at George Mason University. This group suggested in 2001 that global warming would be beneficial in winter and at the poles. In 2009 they recommended that nothing be done to cut emissions.
    Americans for Prosperity. ($5.17m). Have built opposition to clean energy and climate legislation with events across US.
    Institute for Humane Studies ($1.96m). Several prominent climate sceptics have positions here, including Fred Singer and Robert Bradley.
    Heritage Foundation ($1.62m). Conservative thinktank leads US opposition to climate change science.
    Cato Insitute ($1.02m). Thinktank disputes science behind climate change and questions the rationale for taking action.
    Manhattan Institute ($800,000). This institute regularly publishes climate science denials.
    Washington legal foundation ($655,000) Published articles on the business threats posed by regulation of climate change.
    Federalist Society for Law ($542,000) advocates inaction on global warming
    National Center for Policy Analysis ($130,000) NCPA disseminates climate science scepticism.
    American Council on Science and Health ($113,800) Has published papers claiming that cutting greenhouse emissions would be detrimental to public health.

    ARE WE SURPRISED?

    John James

    Please forward this newsletter to your friends and encourage them to join the mailing list at http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_newsletter_subscribe.htm

    You can subscribe or unsubscribe at http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_newsletter_subscribe.htm

  • Obama will open large sections of Southeast and Alaskan coasts to offshore drilling

     

     

    “This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly,” Obama said (full speech here). “…But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we’re going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.

    This is … stunning. Baffling. With the new policy Obama appears to be taking a major step toward siding with carbon-polluting industries in the battle to defend the energy status quo.

    I’m holding out hope that things appear worse than they are. Because the key isn’t how much offshore drilling is allowed. The crucial issue is whether oil and gas companies decide it’s worth their money to go out, find, and retreive the stuff. And things could be brighter on that front, because, as Joe Romm explains, the payoff in these reserves may not be worth the trouble. (Nobody knows precisely how much oil and gas are in these places.) GOP politicians like John McCain and Sarah Palin have used offshore drilling as a rallying cry, but energy companies need to keep clear heads, crunch the numbers, and decide if a given project pays.

    A few more notes…

    On gas prices and your money:

    Not much will change for a long time—estimates figure that new oil won’t be available for 10 to 12 years, with peak production coming several years beyond that.

    On foreign oil, energy independence, and bankrolling violent extremism:

    Not much will change for a long time—again, the new oil won’t be available for years.

    On the West Coast:

    Dunno what’s going on here. No mention of it. [Update: The Pacific coast gets no mention because the drilling ban there remains in place.]

    On the politics:

    This is supposed to win support for a climate/clean-energy bill from wavering Senate Republicans. Obama compromises, they compromise—that’s the hope. But Republican lawmakers have shown very little interest in compromising on legislation in the Obama era.

    So the big question is whether Democrats have gotten GOP senators to commit to supporting a bill. Did this win a few crucial votes, or is it a giveway for nothing? No one seems to know yet. No public vote commitments, at least.

    The early reaction:

    On the DailyKos comment thread, it’s mostly frustration with the apparent giveaway. “There’s no real level on which this is anything but pandering,” writes one commenter. “We need more oil like we need a hole in the head. In the ten years it takes to get it to market we could have renewables. Enough subsidies for big oil.”

    The reporting:

    The substances at issue here—oil and natural gas—will eventually be burned, releasing heat-trapping pollutants that cause global warming. If that continues unchecked, it could be the most destructive and unjust phenomena of the coming century. There’s no mention of any of this in the stories from major news outlets. Just sayin, 

  • It’s time to deal with Peak Oil

     

    Skeptics point out that total world oil reserves continue to grow. But this may not be a reliable indication of where we stand: Often, in nations that have seen a peak and subsequent decline in production, domestic reserves continued to rise right up to, or even past, the date of peak production. Why? Oil companies replace reserves of high-quality, cheaply-produced oil with reserves of low-quality, slow-, or expensive-to-produce oil or tar sands.

    Rates of output decline in older, giant oilfields have proven to be more trustworthy indicators of long-term trends. (For instance, they’ve enabled successful peaking forecasts for the United States, the North Sea and other regions). For the world, the average decline rate from existing fields has been calculated by the International Energy Agency at 4.5% per year. The world needs to develop the equivalent of a Saudi Arabia’s worth of oil production capacity every four years to offset such declines. This is quite a burden for the industry, which must now look for oil in ultra-deep water, in polar regions, or in politically fractured nations, since all the easy-to-find, easy-to-extract oil already has been located and much of it pumped.

    So far, the record year for world crude production was 2005, and the record month was July 2008. Tellingly, the leveling-off of extraction rates between 2005 and 2008 occurred in the context of rising oil prices; indeed, in July 2008, the price spiked 50% higher than the previous inflation-adjusted record, set in the 1970s. Yet as both oil demand and prices rose, production barely budged in response.

    While many commentators believe the jury is still out on Peak Oil, the list of petroleum analysts who say world oil production has already peaked, or will do so in the next five years, lengthens almost daily, and includes CEOs and other well-placed leaders within the oil industry.

    The argument that oil production could theoretically continue to grow past 2015 is mainly put forward by organizations such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates and Saudi Aramco, which explain away evidence of dwindling discoveries, depleting oilfields and stagnating total production by claiming that it is demand for oil that has peaked, not supply — a claim that hinges on the observation that oil prices are high enough to discourage potential buyers. But high prices for a commodity usually signify scarcity, so the “peak demand” argument doesn’t hold water.

    Peak Oil has significant implications for our economy. In response to the 2008 price spike, the global airline industry nose-dived and auto companies suffered. Worldwide shipping slowed drastically and hasn’t recovered. Demand for oil plummeted in late 2008, and so did the price — temporarily. But today’s price is again high, almost to the point of nipping economic recovery.

    What should we do about Peak Oil? Start with what the U.K. Industry Task Force on Peak Oil (which included Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines) has done: Acknowledge the reality of supply limits. Then study the vulnerabilities of Canada’s transport and food systems to high and volatile oil prices, and start making those systems more resilient and less oil-dependent.

    But do it fast. Adaptation will take decades, and we are starting very late.

    Originally published March 19, 2010 on National Post

  • Kristina Keneally won’t back the emergency wowsers

     

    Well over half of readers surveyed also supported the suggested new laws, with 55.6 per cent of 800 online poll respondents backing them.

    Related Coverage

    “If the Government – and the Opposition – refuse to stand up to the hotel lobby, they will be responsible for any alcohol-related attacks on emergency service workers that occur within the hours we are talking about,” Mr Weber said.

    “If the Premier really thinks we are wowsers, I invite her to spend a night with her frontline workforce and see what is really going on in this state when she is asleep.”

    Ms Keneally said the majority of drinkers enjoyed themselves responsibly and she had no intention of turning NSW into a “dull and boring” or “wowser” state.

    “People come to Sydney to go out at night and have a good time and the overwhelming majority do so safely and responsibly,” she said.

    The Premier’s views were at odds with local councils, who point to the success of bans in Newcastle.

     

    “Why not consider extending it to other larger metropolitan cities,” said Local Government Association president Genia McCaffery.

    Wollongong Radio Cabs chairman Allan Meti said he also supported the proposed zrestrictions.

    The Australian Hotels Association described the call as “naive”. AHA chief executive Sally Fielke said: “What about the wider issues of drugs, the availability of cheap takeaway alcohol and the appalling behaviour of a few individuals.”

    ClubsNSW said its venues should also be exempt.

     

  • Henry lashes nation’s ‘disgraceful’ record on water

     

    In his speech, Dr Henry said water extraction from the basin this year amounted to 93 per cent of the average natural flow to the sea. In the past decade flows into the Murray-Darling had been below average. ”In three of these 10 years water extraction actually exceeded inflows.”

    Elsewhere, there had also been ”massive environmental destruction” as a consequence of fishing, hunting, forestry and farming practices.

    Evidence pointed to ”a disturbing conclusion: conservation arguments appear to have influence with decision-makers only when it is too late”, he said.

    ”If the history of our engagement with this environment has taught us anything at all, it should be that we have been blind-sided by our arrogance. It should have taught us humility.” There was a rapidly expanding body of research pointing to a hard-wired fallibility in human interaction with the environment.

    One of these was the ”free-rider” problem, where one factory might spew out noxious gas with negligible impact on air quality because other factories did not.

    The free-rider problem explained why it was ”virtually impossible to get governments to agree on global action to address climate change”.

    But more recent findings were adding a worrying aspect indicating that, psychologically, humans are unable to grasp the scope of big environmental dangers.

    This was shown by studies which found that, when questioned, people would be prepared to pay no more money to save 200,000 birds from drowning in an oil spill than to save 2000 birds.

    ‘The human mind does not cope well with ‘millions’ of things, so we ‘cheat’ by substituting a more accessible mental image of a representative individual.”

    That same mental image tricked people into thinking that the issue at hand, whatever it was, affected just that one individual.

    Dr Henry also cited the fate of the Tasmanian tiger, whose extinction followed the payment of bounties to exterminate it, but which in this century was the subject of a $1.25 million reward for the capture of a live animal and an attempt to clone one from a preserved embryo.

    ”A century ago we were paying people to slaughter these animals. Today we are prepared to spend millions to bring them back from the dead.”

    Dr Henry also spoke of the folly of the poisoning of quolls in the 1850s to enable the propagation of rabbits and hares in the Lake George area.