EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Palm oil plantations could be classified as forests

    Palm oil plantations could be classified as forests

    Ecologist

    8th February, 2010

    European Commission guidance would allow biofuels to be labelled as sustainable even if forests have been destroyed to make way for the palm oil plantations

    EU plans to allow palm oil plantations to be classified as ‘forests’ have been strongly criticised by environmental campaigners.

    According to a leaked document from the European Commission, reclassifying palm plantations as forested land could be justified and allow it to meet sustainability criteria.

    ‘Continuously forested areas are defined as areas where trees have reached, or can reach, at least heights of 5 meters, making up a crown cover of more than 30 per cent. They would normally include forest, forest plantations and other tree plantations such as palm oil. Short rotation coppice may qualify if it fulfils the height and canopy cover criteria.

    ‘This means,’ continues the leaked document, ‘for example, that a change from forest to oil palm plantation would not per se constitute a breach of the criterion. A change form short rotation coppice to annual agricultural crops could constitute a breach of the criterion.’

    Sustainable biofuels

    Friends of the Earth said the plans, if accepted, would allow rainforest to be destroyed to make way for palm plantations and the resulting biofuel to still be classified as sustainable.

    ‘If the incoming Commission is serious about tackling climate change and halting biodiversity loss it needs to clean up the biofuels legacy and urgently ensure that forests are not sacrificed to fuel cars,’ said Friends of the Earth agrofuels campaign coordinator Adrian Bebb.

    The EU is due to publish a report on greenhouse gas emissions from biofuel production in March 2010.

    A Nuffield Council consultation on next generation biofuels and whether they can be environmentally sustainable is currently under way. The deadline for public views is 15th March 2010.

    Useful link
    EU document on sustainability criteria for biofuels
    Nuffield Council consultation on biofuels

  • Evans silent signal on immigration

     

    “Sustainability” is the new dog-whistle on immigration and population issues.  Only, it’s left-wing dog-whistling.  The idea that Australia can’t support a higher population without massive environmental degradation and loss of urban amenity is a line that has been pushed by  environmentalist groups and racist groups for years.  It gives people who hate the idea of high immigration an excuse to oppose it without sounding like they hate foreigners.  Thus the talk of how Australia — with one of the lowest population densities in the world — is fragile, running out of water and won’t be able to feed or house any more people.

    The normal solutions to such problem are, of course, provided by markets and price signals that direct investment to and reward innovation in areas of scarcity — an idea that’s anathema to the far left and far right.

    The Government has been aware for some time that the Coalition might turn to population issues in an attempt to get back in the electoral contest later this year.  The ascension of Tony Abbott to the leadership would have reinforced their concerns.  That it would be archly hypocritical doesn’t particularly matter — the Coalition in Opposition, and not just under Abbott, has shown itself quite happy to turn its back on its strong points or key policies from the Howard years in search of electoral advantage (just as the Beazley Opposition did with Labor’s record).

    It was significant that the Government plainly changed its spin on the population figures in the Intergenerational Report, from the Prime Minister welcoming “a big Australia” in November to Wayne Swan assuring us that the 36 million population estimate was not a target or “set in stone” but only reflected demographic trends of the past 40 years extrapolated to the next 40.

    Evans’ changes — complete with high-profile trashing of 20,000 visa applications — and their careful timing to lead off the Monday media cycle are intended to send a clearer signal not merely that the Governments will decide which skilled migrants come to this country and the circumstances in which they come, but that immigration is to be a tool in support of economic growth, not some random factor to be accommodated.  In 2008-09, nearly two-thirds of the 171,000 people who arrived under the Government’s Migration Program did so under the Skill Stream.

    The expected angry reaction to the changes from Indian students and, quite possibly, the Indian Government, will help.  Despite sympathy for Indian students who have been victims of violence, racially motivated or not, there’s a resentment toward the Indian Government and media being stirred successfully by our own media.  Who said Labor couldn’t dog-whistle as well?

    To get the full story, you have to (as usual) read Laura Tingle’s coverage in the Fin, where she outlines the clash between Immigration and the Education Department over the issue and the tensions within federal cabinet.

    The unspoken trade-off here though is between the complaints of the international educations sector, which is increasingly disreputable anyway despite its alleged large contribution to exports, and possible damage to the relationship with India, and the Government’s desire to show it is in control of immigration and that it is sustainable.

    Whether it’s enough to cut the ground from under the “sustainable population” crowd will become clearer as we get closer to the election.

  • New party wants population debate

     

     

    He said ”the extreme and radical rate of population growth” meant more high-rise apartment blocks, overcrowded transport networks and loss of parklands were inevitable, and it was time for a national debate about whether this was what people wanted.

     

    Mr Bourke said he and a small group of like-minded people expect to reveal the name and plans for the party within three weeks and where they want to run candidates.

     

    He refused to say who else was involved organising the party or to detail its policies beyond cutting most levels of immigration, apart from the numbers of refugees, to ensure Australia’s population would remain at about 23 million over the long term.

     

    The entrepreneur Dick Smith has backed the plans to form the party as ”a good idea” because it might finally force the government and the opposition to publicly discuss an issue they refused to touch.

     

    ”I reckon Kevin Rudd’s realised nine out of 10 people don’t want a big Australia,” he said.

     

    Concern about population projections had increased along with concern about the impact of global warming. ”There was the hypocrisy of the PM going to Copenhagen saying he wants to reduce global warning and double the population. You just can’t do it,” he said .

     

    Last week Mr Smith launched the second edition of Overloading Australia, a book by Mark O’Connor and William Lines, which argues that Australia has the highest rate of population growth of any comparable country and that it should peg its population at present levels.

     

    Joining him at the launch were other like-minded thinkers including the former NSW premier Bob Carr, singer John Williamson and Clean Up Australia founder Ian Kiernan.

     

    He said the fear of being branded racist had scared environmental groups from discussing the issue of population increase despite its huge impact on the natural environment.

     

    Mr Smith said all governments encouraged high levels of growth because that was what big business wanted, especially property developers, who depended on an ever-increasing demand for accommodation to maximise their profits.

     

  • English test for migration revamp to favour doctors, nurses and teachers

     

    Only half the migrants entering Australia with skills on the MODL actually end up employed in their field and one-third end up unemployed or in a low-skill job, Senator Evans said.

    It will be replaced by a new Skilled Occupations List of high-value professions and trades drawn up by Skills Australia.

    More than 20,000 foreigners who applied to migrate to Australia before September 2007 under outdated rules that allowed lower English skills will have their applications withdrawn and their $1500-$2000 applications fees refunded under the changes.

    Related Coverage

    This is because the system that allocates potential migrants points based on their qualifications and skills will be restructured.

    “The current points test puts an overseas student with a short-term vocational qualification gained in Australia ahead of a Harvard-educated environmental scientist,” Senator Evans said. The new system is likely to give potential migrants more points if they are qualified in certain high-value professions and trades, went to a prestigious university, have more experience and display excellence in English.

    The Immigration Minister will get the power to set a maximum number of visas that may be granted in any one occupation and the states will be able to prioritise skilled migrants.

    Senator Evans said the changes would shift our immigration system from a supply driven model to a demand driven system in which migrants sponsored by an employer would get priority.

    While Australia’s hospitals need nurses and doctors there are 12,000 foreign cooks waiting to come to Australia under the existing system, he said.

    Under the existing system 40,000 unsponsored visas were issued to accountants over the past five years yet a shortage of accountants persists because most did not get work in the profession.

    “Australia’s skilled migration program has been delivering self-nominated migrants from a narrow range of occupations with poor to moderate English language skills who struggle to find employment in their nominated occupation” Senator Evans will tell an Australian National University demography institute today.

    About 170,000 people applied to migrate to Australia last year.

    Tell us what you think of these changes below

    24 comments on this story

  • Rudd could save Musselroe wind farm jobs by fixing renewables target

    Rudd could save Musselroe wind farm jobs by fixing renewables target

     

    Hobart, Sunday 7 February 2010

     

    The Rudd government’s bungling of the renewable energy target legislation is jeopardising hundreds of jobs around Australia, including those about to be lost at the stalled Musselroe Bay wind farm.

     

    The Greens have proposed a Private Member’s Bill to fix the legislation, based on amendments rejected by both Labor and Liberals when the bill was being debated. The government could save the Musselroe jobs by working with the Greens to fix the target scheme.

     

    “Mr Rudd and Minister Wong could save these people’s jobs at Musselroe Bay if they fixed the bungled renewable energy target,” Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne said.

     

    “We can fix this problem so easily and I challenge Mr Rudd and Senator Wong to look at our proposal and work with us to make sure the renewables sector survives and flourishes.

     

    “$20 billion of investment in wind power alone that is waiting to be unleashed by solid policy is being undermined by Rudd government mismanagement.

     

    “It’s not just jobs at Musselroe Bay and other industrial scale renewable energy developments across the country, but the Rudd government’s climate credibility is on the line here if the renewable energy target is not urgently fixed.

     

    “The gross mismanagement of the Green Loans Scheme is also jeopardising jobs and small businesses across the country as we speak.”

     

    The Greens repeatedly warned that including solar hot water, heat pumps and multiplied rooftop solar credits in the renewable energy target would crash the price of renewable energy certificates (RECs), stopping commercial-scale renewable energy developments from getting off the ground. This would not have come to pass if Greens amendments moved at the time had been accepted.

     

    “It was obvious that this would happen, but both the government and opposition refused to heed the warnings and rejected my amendments that would have prevented it,” Senator Milne said.

     

    “This is typical of Mr Rudd and Senator Wong’s spin-over-substance approach to climate and clean energy.”

     

    Senator Milne’s Private Member’s Bill would add RECs from solar hot water, heat pumps and the solar multiplier to the top of the target. This would ensure that the technologies are supported but do not crowd out large-scale renewable energy.

     

    “This is not the perfect policy, but it is an achievable way to fix this problem quickly.

     

    “Ideally, the Greens would like to see an energy efficiency target and a gross feed-in tariff running alongside the renewable energy target, supporting solar water heating, rooftop solar and much more. That would be the best way to drive a boom in zero emissions energy.”

     
    Tim Hollo
    Media Adviser
    Senator Christine Milne
    0437 587 562
    _______________________________________________

  • Public sector emissions grew by 6.25% in 2008

     

    Gordon Brown and the entire cabinet, the Tory shadow cabinet and the Liberal Democrat party have all committed to the 10:10 climate change campaign, which requires a 10% cut in carbon cuts by the end of 2010, compared to 2009.

    The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “The increase was predominantly due to increased natural gas consumption, most likely related to the colder than average October to December period [in 2008]. The public sector includes hospitals, schools and other buildings as well as central government departments.”

    The Met Office confirmed that overall those three months were below average temperatures, with spells of early snow in October. In October the mean temperature was 8.7C, 0.6C below the long-term average; November was 6.2C, 0.3C above; December was 3.1C, a considerable 1.1C below the average.

    Last October, a move to force the government to join the 10:10 climate campaign and cut its own emissions by 10% in 2010 was defeated in the Commons. At the time, ministers argued that signing up the government estate to the 10:10 campaign would “make no sense”. Greg Clark, the Tory shadow energy minister, said: “It is disappointing the government felt it had to vote down an eminently sensible bill.”

    An official government report last December showed it had taken 10 years for central government departments to cut their carbon footprints by 10%. “Central government has plans for a 17.8% cut by 2010/11, whilst the public sector as a whole has reduced its emissions by around a third from 1990 to 2007,” said the Decc spokesperson. “But we continue to look at how we can go further, faster in cutting emissions. .”

    The overall fall of nearly 2% for 2008 UK greenhouse gases means the government is on track to meet binding targets under the Kyoto protocol, but is likely to miss its own self-imposed target of cutting emissions 20% by 2010 on 1990 levels.