EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Tidal wave of retirees could break the bank

     

    KPMG demographer Bernard Salt said it signalled the start of a landmark shift in Australia’s population – one that would deliver a “double whammy” to Federal Government finances.

    “Not only will the baby boomers demand more from the tax base, but they will also be coming out of the workforce and will stop paying tax,” Mr Salt said.

    Apart from a surge in demand for age pensions, leading Australian demographers said ageing baby boomers would increase pressure on already stretched health budgets.

    “They are the most obese generation we’ve ever had, so reducing their obesity is really crucial if they are going to have healthy older years,” said Adelaide University Geography professor Graeme Hugo.

    Professor Martin Bell, from the University of Queensland’s Centre for Population Research, said the retirement of the baby boomers would also exacerbate skilled labour shortages in Australia and create planning issues for growing cities such as Brisbane.

    “This is an intriguing transition,” Prof Bell said.

    “I’d rank it alongside the Industrial Revolution.

    “It’s that kind of transition in the nature of Western society – from a young, rapidly growing population, which is broad at the bottom and thin at the top, to one that is almost the other way round.”

    In response to some of those emerging challenges, the Federal Government last year announced it would push out the pension eligibility age to 67 by 2023.

    But as the Federal Government considers the Henry tax review – expected to deliver the most sweeping reform of Australia’s tax system since the GST was introduced in July 2000 – CommSec chief economist Craig James said the pension qualifying age might have to be revisited.

    “I think we may see further shifts over the next couple of years,” he said.

    “Perhaps even pushing that pension age out further.”

    The high cost of Australia’s rapidly greying population

    “Perhaps it requires more incentives for employers to take on more senior workers,” Mr James said.

    Mr Salt said the problem should be met with a big rise in migration levels, targeting young skilled workers, to boost the tax base.

    “We either lift migration or we can ask Gen Y and Gen X to pay more tax per capita, and I don’t think that’s going to be popular,” he said.

    Latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate around 107,000 Australian women will turn 64 next year.

    By 2047, a quarter of all Australians will be aged over 65 years, almost double the current 13 per cent.
    In the last financial year, the Government supported 2.12million seniors with age pensions, at a cost of $28 billion.

    In the previous year, $24.6 billion was spent providing age pensions for 2.04 million Australians.

     

  • How do I know China wrecked the Copenhage deal? I was in the room

     

    All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

    Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

    Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

    What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

    Shifting the blame

    To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

    China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

    Strong position

    So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

    Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

    With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

    China’s game

    All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

    This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

    Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

  • Copenhagen: it’s time Europe started acting like it truly means what it says

     

    Europe was the first to invent the conditional target offering a 20% reduction by 2020 but a higher 30% cut in the event of an international deal. Australia and New Zealand quickly followed suit. The difference between the lower and upper end of the range of targets in Europe represents some 3 billion tonnes of emissions between 2013 and 2020. This is a significant sum. As leaked UN documents showed the gap between what countries are pledging to do over the next decade and what science demands is already worryingly large. If Europe decides to allow 3 billion tonnes more emissions to occur it will knowingly increase the global risk we face, locking in high emission technologies and making the task of catching up more difficult in the following decade.

    For the EU, which has long proclaimed its leadership in committing to action on climate change, the move to the higher target should be a no-brainer. The 20% target is now so weak as to be equivalent to business as usual. Compared to a 2005 baseline it will deliver less investment in solutions in the near term than the paltry US target, despite the fact that we have a head start, with the policies in place already to deliver the reductions. Recent studies have shown that hitting the 30% target will cost over €100 bn less than the 20% target would have cost pre the recession partly because of the huge volume of ‘hot air’ that has been generated under the weak caps set under the much vaunted ‘EU Emissions Trading System’.

    Tightening caps provides a highly cost effective way of meeting the higher target.

    For all these reasons Europe has to move to a higher ambition target and enter it into the accord – to do anything less would be an insult to all those vulnerable countries relying on leadership from developed countries and put us well behind in the race to develop a low carbon economy.

    But despite these compelling reasons the EU is prevaricating. The stated reason is that they want to wrest greater commitments from other countries before agreeing to move. But that strategy has clearly failed. Europe cannot now stay at its lower number when it knows that doing so will take us ever further from the goal of 2 degrees they claim they so vehemently support. They would do well to listen to other countries who were unequivocal about their intention to press ahead unilaterally.

    President Lula demonstrated real leadership when he passionately explained why Brazil would be taking on an ambitious target despite having no obligation to do so, Premier Wen Jiabao used his speech to list off China’s unconditional unilateral climate policies and Obama firmly stated the actions the US was preparing to take to protect their own self interest irrespective of what the rest of the world did. Only Europe persisted in its ineffective ‘I will if you will’ schoolyard strategy.

    Obviously the real reason for the EU temerity is the fact that countries such as Germany and Italy are under considerable pressure from industrial lobby groups who know well that a move to a higher target will result in tighter caps on their emissions. But we must persuade Europe’s leaders to move. These are the voices of old industry – the voices of the bright green companies that are emerging to challenge the old order are less clear but they must become more vocal join with NGOs and counter the negative lobbying.

    We have a month to turn the EU’s position around. All European NGOs interested in salvaging something positive from the flames of Copenhagen must address their efforts at securing this policy change. Three billions tonnes is worth fighting for – we cannot allow our leaders to knowingly allow this level of pollution. Its time Europe started acting like it truly meant what it said.

    • This article was shared by our content partner Sandbag.org.uk, part of the Guardian Environment Network

  • Revealed: the electric BMW

     

    BMW says the lithium-ion battery packs – one is positioned under the bonnet, the other under the car – don’t restrict the coupe’s four-seat interior room, though the electric motor almost halves boot space, to 200 litres.

    The ActiveE also weighs about 400kg more than a regular 1-Series Coupe, though BMW claims the car can accelerate from 0-100km/h in less than nine seconds and reach an electronically governed top speed of 145km/h.

    According to BMW, a driver can also extend the ActiveE’s range by up to 20 per cent by lifting off the accelerator pedal rather than pressing the brake pedal to slow the car.

    This is made possible by the electric motor switching its function from propulsion unit to generator that tops up the battery pack after converting the kinetic energy into supplementary electric power.

    BMW says its electric car’s recharging time can be as fast as three hours using a fast-charging system, though owners can also use conventional electrical sockets.

    BMW has incorporated the electric motor into the rear axle to ensure the ActiveE adheres to the company’s preference for rear-wheel drive. The motor generates 125kW of power, as well as an instantaneous 200Nm of torque.

    The positioning of the battery packs is said to further aid the car’s handling by lowering the centre of gravity and contributing to a near-50/50 weight balance.

    Special alloy wheels (designed to reduce drag), the absence of exhaust pipes at the rear, and electrical-circuit graphics ensure the ActiveE concept won’t be confused with a regular 1-Series Coupe.

    The interior is near-identical, though the ActiveE’s dash features instruments specific to the electric-drive system.

    The Concept ActiveE will join the Mini E in real-world field trials, leased to both private and fleet customers for daily use.

    BMW will use the feedback from these customers to help develop its future city cars, including the Megacity Vehicle that will become part of a new sub-brand.

  • Preparing for the inevitable

     

    We have to make sure our own defences against climate change are in place before the seas rise and food supplies diminish. The most vulnerable are close to sea level, such as London and Melbourne and New York. They must be well prepared to rebuild and retreat in a humane way before the waters advance.

    Only our leaders, in business and government, have the clout to achieve this in time.

    We, the people, have to make them act NOW.

    Only the defence of our civilisation by people who can see the danger
    will ward off the chaos that may overtake us.

    For example, United Kingdom emissions have fallen 12% in the past ten years as coal has been replaced by natural gas, nuclear and renewables. Dupont has reduced its emissions by 72% since 1990. Government and business have found, often to their surprise, that this has saved money. Dupont in this instance saved more than $3bn.

    Being green makes both environmental and financial sense – and it is safer.

    In the end, government has to provide stable, long-term policies to unleash the innovation in our work, our homes, in technologies and lifestyles that is needed. This is how.

  • Plants and animals race for survival as climate change creeps across the globe

     

    “These are the conditions that will set the stage, whether species move or cope in place,” said Chris Field, director of the department of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution in the US, who worked on the project. “Expressed as velocities, climate change projections connect directly to survival prospects for plants and animals.”

    The study, by scientists at the Carnegie Institution, Stanford University, the California Academy of Sciences, and the University of California, Berkeley, combined information on current and projected future climate to calculate a “temperature velocity” for different parts of the world.

    They found that mountainous areas will have the lowest velocity of temperature change, meaning that animals will not need to move very far to stay in the temperature range of their natural habitat. However, much larger geographic displacements are required in flatter areas such as flooded grasslands, mangroves and deserts, in order for animals to keep pace with their climate zone. The researchers also found that most currently protected areas are not big enough to accommodate the displacements required.

    Healy Hamilton, director of the centre for applied biodiversity informatics at the California Academy of Sciences, said: “One of the most powerful aspects of this data is that it allows us to evaluate how our current protected area network will perform as we attempt to conserve biodiversity in the face of global climate change.”

    He added: “When we look at residence times for protected areas, which we define as the amount of time it will take current climate conditions to move across and out of a given protected area, only 8% of our current protected areas have residence times of more than 100 years. If we want to improve these numbers, we need to both reduce our carbon emissions and work quickly towards expanding and connecting our global network of protected areas.”

    The study found that global warming would have the lowest velocities in tropical and subtropical coniferous forests, where it would move at about 80 metres a year, and montane grasslands and shrublands – a biome with grass and shrubs at high elevations – with a projected velocity of about 110 metres each year.

    Global warming is expected to sweep more quickly across flatter areas, such as mangrove swamps and flooded grasslands and savannas, where it could have velocities above 1km a year. Across the world, the average velocity is 420 metres each year. The results are published in the journal Nature.

    Wildlife in areas with low projected climate change velocities are not necessarily better protected, the scientists point out. Habitats such as broadleaf forests are often small and fragmented, which makes it harder for species to move.

    The study examines the movement of climate zones, not species, the scientists stress, which means it is difficult to predict what the impacts may be on individual trees, insects and animals. Some are more tolerant to changing temperature than others, and the movement of species can be difficult to track. While trees are estimated to have spread northwards through a warming Europe after the end of the last ice age at a speed of about 1km per year, this could be down to dormant seeds reseeding the landscape, which would not be possible if species are forced to shift to new territories.

    The scientists say that global warming will cause temperatures to change so rapidly that almost a third of the globe could see climate velocities higher than even the most optimistic estimates of plant migration speeds.

    Some plants and animals may have to be physically moved by humans to help them cope, the scientists say, while protected areas must also be enlarged and joined together.