Author: Neville

  • Australia will suffer the most economic damage from El Nino

    Allure Media
    Business Insider

    Tech
    Money & Markets
    Briefing
    Ideas
    Executive Life
    Video

    Briefing
    Australia Is One Of The Most At Risk Regions For Economic Damage From El Nino
    Chris Pash Yesterday at 9:34 PM 5

    Getty/Sergio Dionisio

    The latest international study has indicated that Australia is one of the most at risk regions for economic damage due to the El Niño climate event.

    The researchers constructed a model of flood impacts to populations and economies across the world using data from between the years of 1959 to 2000 and found that Australia is one of the worst hit areas for El Nino flood damage.

    Currently Australia’s El Nino watch by the Bureau of Meteorology is on Neutral.

    The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is characterised by extended periods of above or below average sea surface temperatures west of South America and can cause extreme climate fluctuations around the world that sometimes result in severe weather events including hurricanes, flooding or drought.

    Philip Ward of Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University, Amsterdam, and colleagues investigated the influence of ENSO on floods.

    The authors constructed a model of flood impacts to populations and economies using global population, gross domestic product, a hydrological model, and climate data between 1959-2000 from EU-WATCH.

    The model revealed that 34% of the Earth’s land surface experiences floods that are either lower or higher than average during El Niño events in which ocean surface temperatures are warmer than normal.

    Similarly, 38% of the Earth’s land surface experiences floods during La Niña events.

    Higher than average flood volumes tend to increase economic damage, whereas lower than average flood volumes reduce economic damage.

    The model showed that 44% of the Earth’s land area experiences levels of urban damage higher or lower than average during El Niño and La Nina events.

    The research is published in the journal PNAS.

  • Four reasons why Naomi Klein is right

    Four Reasons Why Naomi Klein is Right

    The following letter was written by Peter Victor, economist and professor in the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, in response to a review of This Changes Everything in the November 2014 issue of the Literary Review of Canada.

    Mark Jaccard draws on his detailed knowledge of climate change policies and mainstream economics to reject Naomi Klein’s argument that climate change represents a fundamental challenge to capitalism. And he makes some good points. Nonetheless, here are four reasons for thinking that Klein is essentially correct:

    Capitalism’s poor track record. Capitalism hasn’t solved the climate problem. Greenhouse gas emissions from countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are higher than in 1994 when they signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Jaccard cites California as “the leading jurisdiction in … arguably the world” because of its programs for reducing emissions. Yet he fails to mention that changing patterns of trade have disguised the fact that emissions have been shifted abroad from developed economies rather than reduced, as careful accounting demonstrates. Furthermore, the policy “solutions” of emission taxes and tradeable permits that Jaccard refers to have been known for decades, but have not been comprehensively implemented. Indeed, they have been actively resisted. The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which included economic policies favoured by Jaccard, and Canada, which did ratify it, rescinded its ratification. Why is this? Klein provides an answer. Jaccard does not.

    Capitalism is slow to transition to renewables. The fossil fuel industry is not leading the transition to renewables. Instead, it seeks access to more remote and environmentally damaging sources of fossil fuels and the relaxation of environmental protections. Energy prices do not adequately reflect environmental and social costs in their production and use, which favour fossil fuels, and no one can make monopoly profits by owning the sun and wind.

    Capitalism encourages competition and discourages cooperation. Competition and cooperation are both important in resilient, just societies. Climate policy is a failure of cooperation. Under capitalism, the public interest is supposed to be served through the self-interested behaviour of producers and consumers. Climate change is just one among numerous examples of where this doesn’t happen and, as Klein reports, the list is growing.

    Capitalism thrives on economic growth. The faster an economy grows, the faster it must reduce greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of economic output, just to stop total emissions increasing—and faster still to achieve an absolute reduction. How long could such a process continue, were it even to start? One generation? A couple? Questioning the longevity of economic growth entails questioning the structure of capitalism, which Klein understands and so should we.

    EDITOR’S NOTE: The Literary Review of Canada shared a pre-publication version of Mark Jaccard’s review with us in order to solicit a direct response from Naomi. We pointed out a number of glaring factual errors, some of which remain in the review. According to Jaccard, Naomi claims that supporters of employing carbon capture technology usually favor using captured CO2 for “enhanced oil recovery” (the book briefly profiles the push for EOR as a revealing case study, but makes no such broad claim). He also portrays Naomi as arguing that all climate policies are equally susceptible to trade law challenges (in fact the book is very specific about which kinds of policies are most likely to provoke challenges, the legal justifications for them, and why it matters). The editors and Jaccard opted not to correct these errors while there was still time to do so, and the review relies heavily on such distortions in a clumsy attempt to discredit rather than constructively respond to the book.

    This approach could have easily been anticipated by the LRC. While Jaccard has contributed valuable work on unsustainable resource extraction and other subjects, and we respect the strong stands he has taken against the Harper government’s failures on climate and energy, he is one of the country’s best-known advocates of market-based solutions and industry-backed technological fixes like carbon capture and storage. He has also been an aggressive supporter of deregulating British Columbia’s electricity system, contracting with an industry association of private power producers to respond to expert critics of BC energy policy. For Jaccard to have written a fair, thoughtful review of Naomi’s book would have required an unlikely ideological conversion.

    Because we disagree with how the review was handled, we won’t be responding in the LRC. Thankfully, other experts are writing responses further correcting the record, which we will be posting here. Please feel free to get in touch if you have written a rebuttal.

  • Daily Update Renew Economy

    forever
    AdSolar Systems Offergosolarnewcastle.com.au – Get Free Envoy & 1 Extra 250W Panel With Every 4KW PV System Order.

    Daily update: Was the Warburton Review a complete waste of money?

    Trash
    x

    RenewEconomy editor@reneweconomy.com.au via mail59.atl11.rsgsv.net 

    2:45 PM (1 hour ago)

    to me
    RET Review panelist paid enough for a 20kW solar system, as questions arise over Review’s terms of reference. Plus: solar industry hits back on modeling behind proposed tariff changes; How a community solar project raised $120k in 10 days; Graph of the Day; City of Adelaide’s emissions win; US solar system prices continue downhill slide; Europe’s climate and energy test; questioning the value proposition of energy storage; 2014 on track for warmest on record; UK conservatives call solar ‘blight on landscape’; into the low-down on oceans, climate and the hiatus; and micropower’s quiet takeover.
    Is this email not displaying correctly?
    View it in your browser.
    RenewEconomy Daily News
    The Parkinson Report
    RET Review member paid enough for a 20kW solar system, as PM&C concedes Warburton Review went beyond terms of reference. This comes as the Climate Change Authority, which the Abbott government says it still wants to ditch, says it will complete its own report on the RET.
    Solar industry scathing on modelling used to justify fixed and time-of-use tariffs. Households – particularly solar ones – might get dudded again on network charges.
    Repower Shoalhaven raised $120k of funding in just 10 days to install a 99kW community solar system that could save the local bowling club up to $400k.
    New report suggests wind energy could supply 19% of global electricity by 2030, up to 30 per cent by 2050.
    Renewable energy and green buildings help City of Adelaide cut community carbon emissions by 19% since 2007, electricity emissions by 31% from 2004-2014.
    US DOE report says distributed solar PV system prices dropped by 12-195 nationwide in 2013, and should fall by another 3-12% in 2014.
    EU leaders meet this week to set foundations of climate and energy policy for 2030. Can Europe convince the world it has a credible strategy?
    We are told energy storage is needed for variable wind and solar. But this is not true now, and won’t be for some time.
    As emissions steadily rise, the National Climatic Data Center has announced that 2014 will likely break the record for the warmest year on the books.
    UK Environment Secretary says she would prefer farms grew crops rather than “blighting the landscape” with solar arrays. Sound familiar?
    Are Earth’s oceans hotting up or aren’t they? And if so, how will this affect life on dry land? A top to bottom look at oceans and climate change.
    Micropower is  cost-competitive and rapidly scalable … and it democratizes energy choices, promotes competition, speeds learning and innovation.
  • Bermuda Triangle Mystery Could Be Solved

    A.U. Edition View all Editions
    Topics

    Bookmark IBTimes | Log In | Register Now
    Science
    SEARCH

    News
    Markets
    Careers
    Life & Style
    Topics
    TV
    Tools

    Subscribe Now

    World | AU | Economy | Companies | Tech | Real Estate | Sports
    Bermuda Triangle Mystery Could Be Solved

    Article

    11

    Rate this Story
    0
    0

    Print
    Email
    Order Reprints
    Text Size

    By Afza Fathima | October 20, 2014 1:21 PM EST

    A new report has made suggestions that several mysterious craters found in Siberia could be linked to the mysteries surrounding the Bermuda Triangle. Scientists who were not involved in the report said that the sink hole mechanism did not explain the vanishings in the Bermuda triangle.
    View Full Image

    Reuters
    A view of an empty beach in Termini Imerese in the southern Italian island of Sicily. A sun drenched island in the middle if the Mediterranean with wondeful food and beautiful beaches would be most people’s idea of heaven. But Sicily is less a case of paradise than the Bermuda Triangle, particularly when it comes to economics, with all attempts at betterment disappearing in a mysterious sinkhole.

    According to the Siberian Times, a huge crater was discovered by Siberian reindeer herders in July on the Yamal Peninsula, which is also known as “the end of the world.” Apart from that, two other holes were found in the Taz District and the Taymyr Peninsula. The origins of the Siberian holes remained a mystery.

    A report in the journal Nature said that the release of the gases trapped in the methane could have resulted in the sinkholes. The researchers who conducted the study said that the air that was found in the bottom of the crater had high concentrations of methane. They said that heating from above the surface as well as below the surface because of unusually warm climatic condition and geological fault lines respectively, could have lead to the high levels of methane.

    Researchers have said that the disappearance of ships and aircrafts in the Bermuda Triangle could be because of the high levels of methane in the sinkholes. Many people have said that the Bermuda Triangle does not exist while a few others say that it exists between Bermuda, Florida and Puerto Rico.

    Vladimir Romanovsky is a geologist and the professor of geophysics at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He is interested in the scientific and practical aspects of both, the environmental and engineering problems, that involve ice and permafrost. In an article by Live Science, he said it was probable that sinkholes were produced in the oceans were similar to the holes found due to the methane hydrates.

    Benjamin Phrampus is an Earth scientist at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas. He told Live Science that the methane hydrates were known to have existed along the U.S. North Atlantic continental margin. He said a large province on Blake Ridge which is located to the north of the Bermuda Triangle also was known to have the methane gases.

    To contact the editor, e-mail: editor@ibtimes.com

  • Rain-Making and Benefunder HANSEN

    1 of 5
    Ad850% + Investment Returnsthe-best-investments-today.com – Invest In Alternative Investments. Huge Profits. Free Top-Pick Guide!

    Rain-Making and Benefunder

    Inbox
    x

    James Hansen via mail201.atl21.rsgsv.net 

    8:57 AM (37 minutes ago)

    to me
    Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
    Rain-Making and Benefunder
    Rain-Making and Benefunder is available here in pdf format, on my website, and on our blog.

    ~Jim
    20 October 2014

    Like my Facebook page
    Like https://www.facebook.com/jimehansen on Facebook
    Share on social media
    Facebook Twitter
    Visit our program webpage
    csas.ei.columbia.edu

  • Living off the grid Good Idea ?

    Local Solar Discounts
    Sponsor a Post
    Buy Ads
    Important Media
    Contact Planetsave
    PlanetSave logo

    Green Your Life
    Science
    Energy
    Humor

    Living Off The Grid — Good Idea?

    October 19th, 2014 by Zachary Shahan

    off grid homeLiving off the grid has great appeal to a lot of people. It sounds idyllic. You are no longer dependent on broader society (well, at least not for electricity). You no longer send your money to a greedy monopoly month after month. You largely rely on the clean electricity generated by your rooftop solar panels or a big wind turbine. It clearly has some benefits, but it it’s not all peaches and cream. Living off the grid also comes with considerable downsides.

    In a time when “the sharing economy” is all the rage, you’d think we’d actually have more enthusiasm for our ultimate system of sharing — the electric grid. Through a massive amount of sharing, we’re all able to use electricity just when we need it, and at a discount. “A discount?!,” you ask in exclamation. Well, yeah, electric utilities may be monopolies making massive profits, but we are still benefiting from the efficiency of this smart system.

    Not hooked into the electric grid, if we only relied on our own solar panels or wind turbine, we’d also need expensive backup batteries or an even more expensive (and super dirty) diesel generator in order to have electricity whenever we wanted it. Over on CleanTechnica, our comment moderator has been living off the grid for decades, and he is one of the biggest proponents of the grid that I know. He lives far off the grid in Northern California, and the nearest utility was going to charge him hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend the grid to his home. So, he bought solar panels and batteries instead. But the combined system isn’t super cheap (yet). Furthermore, when it’s overcast for a long time, he has to run a diesel generator.
    On-Grid Solar or Wind

    When you have solar and you are on the electric grid, the grid is essentially your battery. If you have excess electricity, you send it into the grid (and often get compensated for that). If you don’t have enough electricity from your solar power system, you can use electricity from the grid. The grid electricity + infrastructure is a massive shared system. Much less backup power is needed, as there’s a diverse range of electricity sources feeding electricity into the grid from many regions and demand also varies, so you need electricity when someone else doesn’t, allowing the two of you to share an electricity generator. There’s a grid manager in place who is ensuring (or trying to ensure) that electricity supply and demand always match, so that the grid doesn’t go down and leave you without electricity.

    rooftop solar installation

    Microgrids

    There is one “off-grid” option that I think does make sense. However, it’s not truly off the grid, but is its own small grid. As the subheading states, I’m talking about microgrids. Microgrids are expected to rise in both the developed as well as developing world in the coming years. They offer many of the benefits of a large, centralized grid, but result in greater overall grid security. Also, they allow communities (or even neighborhoods) to together produce the key benefits of the grid but move away from a monopolistic utility.

    With low-cost rooftop solar power and battery costs dropping off a cliff as well, a high penetration of rooftop solar panels combined with cheap electricity from wind turbines and some backup energy storage can provide all that is needed for a relatively small community to form its own microgrid. In that way, you can cut yourself off from the monopolistic practices of a larger grid while still benefiting from shared electricity generation and storage technologies.

    On a recent trip to Germany, I actually visited a grid-independent village there. It may actually be the only grid-independent village in the developed world. You may think this came at a high cost, but it actually came at some huge financial savings, and the financial savings were reportedly what drove the villagers to go off the grid. From an article (linked above) that I wrote over on CleanTechnica:

    To finance the biogas system, the villagers took a loan of 1.3 million euros for a 10-year period, which is now 6 years over. That actually results in Feldheim having the cheapest electricity in all of Germany. The Feldheim villagers pay ~17.4 euro cents per kWh, while the average across Germany is ~28 euro cents per kWh. If you look at the situation about 20 years out, Feldheim villagers will likely be paying ~half the national average.

    Rather than relying on solar, Feldheim relied on wind power and biogas (with a minimal amount of biomass — sustainably forested wood burning), since they much better fit the village’s natural resources.

    Feldheim-wind-turbines-art-pinwheels

    Feldheim-wind-turbines-art

    I think we’ll see strong growth in the microgrid market in the years to come, but in the developed world, that would also rely on a shift in thinking and regulations, so we’ll have to wait to see how far that goes.
    Extreme Circumstances

    Of course, there are extreme circumstances where living off the grid makes sense. Small islands, or land-locked “islands” that the grid cannot easily reach, are obvious examples. In some cases, it doesn’t make sense to extend the grid or create a microgrid in your location.

    island solar home

    Also, if your electricity provider is hiking up electricity prices so much and not rewarding rooftop solar power installations, then it could be cheaper to go solar and get your own batteries and move off the grid. Of course, you also need to live in a region with enough winter sun that that makes sense. There are places in the world, such as regions of Australia, where this seems to be where things are headed… if they aren’t there already.
    Wrapping Up

    Living off the grid sounds nice, and it is the most logical solution in some extreme circumstances, but I do think the electricity grid is an efficient, practical, valuable solution. I think the electricity grid is in the process of changing a lot, and part of that will be breaking it out into more and more microgrids, but I don’t think the grid is going away, and it shouldn’t. If you are considering going off the grid, just be sure to give it some holistic thought. Don’t do it out of prejudice, and don’t do it without doing the math first!

    This is part of a series on “The Changing Grid.” Check in again soon for more stories in this series.

    Image Credits: Solar home in Germany by Zachary Shahan | Planetsave (CC BY-SA 4.0 license); Rooftop solar installation via Shutterstock; Wind turbine art in Feldheim, Germany, by Zachary Shahan | CleanTechnica (CC BY-SA 4.0 license); Solar home on island via Shutterstock (copyrighted)

    Keep up to date with all the most interesting green news on the planet by subscribing to our (free) Planetsave newsletter.