Author: Neville

  • All Give and No Take Monbiot

    2 of 42
    Why this ad?
    HostGatorStart Your Website Today – Get your website online today for just a penny!

    Monbiot.com

    Inbox
    x

    George Monbiot news@monbiot.com via google.com

    6:03 PM (51 minutes ago)

    to me

    Monbiot.com


    All Give and No Take

    Posted: 10 Mar 2014 01:05 PM PDT

    Do those negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have any interest in democracy? Here’s a test.
    By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 11th March 2014

    Nothing threatens democracy as much as corporate power. Nowhere do corporations operate with greater freedom than between nations, for here there is no competition. With the exception of the European parliament there is no transnational democracy, anywhere. All other supranational bodies – the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, trade organisations and the rest – work on the principle of photocopy democracy (presumed consent is transferred, copy by copy, to ever greyer and more remote institutions) or no democracy at all(1).

    When everything has been globalised except our consent, corporations fill the void. In a system that governments have shown no interest in reforming, global power is often scarcely distinguishable from corporate power. It is exercised through backroom deals between bureaucrats and lobbyists.

    This is how negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) began. TTIP is a proposed single market between the United States and the European Union, described as “the biggest trade deal in the world”(2). Corporate lobbyists secretly boasted that they would “essentially co-write regulation”(3). But, after some of their plans were leaked and people responded with outrage(4,5), democracy campaigners have begun to extract a few concessions. The talks have just resumed, and there’s a sense that we cannot remain shut out.

    This trade deal has little to do with removing trade taxes (tarriffs). As the EU’s chief negotiator says, about 80% of it involves “discussions on regulations which protect people from risks to their health, safety, environment, financial and data security”(6). Discussions on regulations means aligning the rules in the EU with those in the US. But Karel de Gucht, the European Trade Commissioner, maintains that European standards “are not up for negotiation. There is no ‘give and take’”(7). An international treaty without give and take? That is a novel concept. A treaty with the USA without negotiation? That’s not just novel, that’s nuts.

    You cannot align regulations on both sides of the Atlantic without negotiation. The idea that the rules governing the relationship between business, citizens and the natural world will be negotiated upwards, ensuring that the strongest protections anywhere in the trading bloc will be applied universally, is simply not credible when governments on both sides of the Atlantic have promised to shred what they dismissively call red tape. There will be negotiation. There will be give and take. The result is that regulations are likely to be levelled down. To believe otherwise is to live in fairyland.

    Last month the Financial Times reported that the US is using these negotiations “to push for a fundamental change in the way business regulations are drafted in the EU to allow business groups greater input earlier in the process.”(8) At first the European trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht, said this was “impossible”. Then he said he is “ready to work in that direction”(9).  So much for no give and take.

    But this is not all that democracy must give so that corporations can take. The most dangerous aspect of the talks is the insistence on both sides on a mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)(10). ISDS allows corporations to sue governments at offshore arbitration panels of corporate lawyers, bypassing domestic courts. Inserted into other trade treaties, it has been used by big business to strike down laws that impinge on its profits: the plain packaging of cigarettes; tougher financial rules; stronger standards on water pollution and public health; attempts to leave fossil fuels in the ground(11).

    At first Mr de Gucht told us there was nothing to see here(12). But in January the man who doesn’t do give and take performed a handbrake turn and promised that there would be a three-month public consultation on ISDS, beginning in “early March”(13). The transatlantic talks resumed on Monday. So far there’s no sign of the consultation.

    And still there remains that howling absence: a credible expanation of why ISDS is necessary. As Kenneth Clarke, the British minister promoting TTIP, admits, “it was designed to support businesses investing in countries where the rule of law is unpredictable, to say the least.”(14) So what is it doing in a US-EU treaty? A report commissioned by the UK government found that ISDS “is highly unlikely to encourage investment” and is “likely to provide the UK with few or no benefits.”(15) But it could allow corporations on both sides of the ocean to sue the living daylights out of governments that stand in their way.

    Unlike Mr de Gucht, I believe in give and take. So instead of rejecting the whole idea, here are some basic tests which would determine whether or not the negotiators give a fig about democracy.

    First, all negotiating positions, on both sides, would be released to the public as soon as they are tabled. Then, instead of being treated like patronised morons, we could debate these positions and consider their impacts. Secondly, every chapter of the agreement would be subject to a separate vote in the European parliament. At present the parliament will be invited only to adopt or reject the whole package: when faced with such complexity, that’s a meaningless choice. Thirdly, TTIP would contain a sunset clause. After five years it would be reconsidered(16). If it has failed to live up to its promise of enhanced economic performance, or if it reduces public safety or public welfare, it could then be scrapped. I accept that this would be almost unprecedented: most such treaties, unlike elected governments, are “valid indefinitely”(17). How democratic does that sound?

    So here’s my challenge to Mr de Gucht and Mr Clarke and the others who want us to shut up and take our medicine: why not make these changes? If you reject them, how does that square with your claims about safeguarding democracy and the public interest? How about a little give and take?

    www.monbiot.com

    References:

    1. George Monbiot, 2003. The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order. Harper Perennial, London.

    2. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/

    3. US Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope, October 2012. Regulatory Cooperation in the EU-US Economic Agreement.

    http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/businesseurope-uschamber-paper.pdf

    4. eg: http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2013/12/leaked-proposal-eu-us-trade-deal-increases-business-power-decision-making

    5. and: http://corporateeurope.org/trade/2013/11/leaked-european-commission-pr-strategy-communicating-ttip

    6. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1007

    7. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-12_en.htm

    8. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e9b7190-9a65-11e3-8e06-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2uEHV6YIc

    9. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e9b7190-9a65-11e3-8e06-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2uEHV6YIc
    10. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy

    11. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/02/transatlantic-free-trade-deal-regulation-by-lawyers-eu-us

    12.  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/18/wrong-george-monbiot-nothing-secret-eu-trade-deal

    13. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-56_en.htm

    14. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/eu-us-trade-deal-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-democracy

    15. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260380/bis-13-1284-costs-and-benefits-of-an-eu-usa-investment-protection-treaty.pdf

    16. This idea came up during a discussion with John Healey MP, who, while broadly in favour of TTIP, is campaigning for better transparency and accountability in the agreement.

    17. John Healey’s researcher kindly asked the Commons research service to look into renewable agreements. They produced a few examples: the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreements, a number of treaties between India and Tanzania and India and Bangladesh, the Lomé Convention trade-and-aid agreements between the EU and some African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries, and its successor, the Cotonou Agreement.

  • Antony Green’s Election Guide The Battle for the ‘Hinge’ Seats

    Antony Green’s Election Guide

    The Battle for the ‘Hinge’ Seats

    The multi-member nature of the Hare-Clark electoral system means that Tasmania does not have ‘key’ seats as we describe them in single member electoral systems.

    With each electorate having five members, all five electorates are key contests. However, only one and sometimes two seats in each electorate play a part in determining which party or parties win the election.

    We can call these seats ‘hinge’ seats, as in the same way that hinges are the point around which a door swings, so under the Hare-Clark electoral system it is the hinge seats on which electoral swing impacts.

    At every election, two of the five seats in each Tasmanian electoral will be won by parties of the left, and two by parties of the right. It is the fifth seat, the hinge seat, that determines whether left or right wins a majority in an electorate, or whether a third party wins the balance.

    With one hinge seat in each electorate, the party that wins the majority of the hinge seats wins a majority in the House of Assembly.

    The diagram below shows the party composition of the five members elected for each electorate at the 2010 election. Both the Labor and Liberal Parties won two seats in each electorate. The five hinge seats in the middle were won by the Greens, creating the current hung parliament.

    The above diagram is not meant to represent the Greens as the middle ‘balance of power’ party. It can be argued that the median Tasmanian voter is closer to both the Labor and Liberal Parties than they are to the Greens.

    However, to explain how hinge seats work, it is best to set out the diagram with the Labor Party on one side and the Liberal Party on the other, with majority government achieved if either party can push its way into the central hinge seats.

    The diagram below sets out the results of the 2006 election in the same format, and shows how Labor achieved a majority by winning four of the five hinge seats.

    In 2010 Labor lost the hinge seat in Braddon to the Greens, but in Denison, Franklin and Lyons, it was Labor losing seats to the Liberal Party that changed the balance of power and pulled the Greens into the hinge seats.

    With polls indicating the Liberal Party is on the cusp of achieving majority government, the election will be decided by how many of the hinge seats can be won by the Liberal Party. It does not matter whether the Liberal Party win these seats from Labor or the Greens, just whether a third Liberal member ends up occupying the hinge seat.

    Three hinge seats would deliver the Liberal Party 13 seats and a one seat majority. Four hinge seats gives 14 seats and a three seat majority, while winning all five hinge seats would deliver the Liberal Party 15 seats and a landslide five seat majority.

    One problem confronting the Liberal Party is the near record field of candidates and the emergence of the Palmer United Party. If some of the swing away from Labor and the Greens is captured by minor parties, then the Liberal Party’s quest for the hinge seats may be blocked and another hung parliament becomes possible.

    The hinge seats will determine if the Liberal Party can form majority government. Beyond the hinge seats, what happens to Labor and Green support will determine the composition of the new parliamentary opposition.

    So what are the prospects for candidates and parties in each electorate?

    Bass

    At the last three elections Bass has displayed divided loyalties, electing two Labor MPs, two Liberal MPs and one Green. Bass was the only electorate that did not deliver three of its five seats to the Labor Party at the 2002 and 2006 elections.

    In 2010 the Liberal Party polled 2.56 quotas (42.6%), the Labor Party 2.07 quotas (34.5%) and the Greens 1.26 quotas (21.0%). Based on current polling, the 2014 election will see the Liberal Party poll close to if not more than three quotas, winning Bass’s hinge seat. Labor looks set to slip below two quotas, delivering Labor only one certain seat and leaving Labor’s second placed candidate battling with the Greens for the fifth and final seat.

    As in 2010, Liberal Michael Ferguson will easily attract more than a quota in his own right, while party colleague Peter Gutwein should increase his vote enough to capture a quota of his own. The surpluses of Ferguson and Gutwein will then determine which of Sarah Courtney, Barry Jarvis or Leonie McNair win the hinge seat for the Liberal Party.

    On Labor’s ticket, Michelle O’Byrne attracted more than a quota in her own right in 2010, but the decline in Labor’s vote means she may fall short of a quota in 2014. O’Byrne should still be the highest polling Labor candidate and be elected, leaving second Labor MP Brian Wightman battling with Greens MP Kim Booth for the final seat.

    Vote for the Greens is usually heavily concentrated with Booth, where Labor’s vote will be more evenly divided between candidates. If the Green vote remains above one quota (16.7%), then Booth will win the final seat. If the Green vote falls below a quota and is roughly equivalent to Labor’s surplus beyond its first quota, Booth will still be advantaged because there will be more opportunities for votes to leak out Labor’s more evenly divided ticket. The Greens polled only 7.9% in Bass at last September’s Federal election, and it would take a similar collapse in Green support at the state election to allow Wightman to win a second seat for Labor at the expense of Booth.

    Braddon

    Over the last two decades the electorate of Braddon has played an important part in determining majority or minority government. In 1989 it was the Green victory in Braddon that deprived the Gray Liberal government of its majority. The Greens lost their seat in Braddon when the Parliament was downsized in 1998, Labor winning three of the five seats in Braddon in 1998, 2002 and 2006. The Green victory in Braddon in 2010 has coincided with another spell of minority government.

    In 2010 the Liberal Party polled 2.71 quotas (45.2%), Labor 2.41 quotas (40.2%) and the Greens 0.83 quotas (13.8%). In 2014 polls indicate the Liberal Party vote will be up, delivering the critical third hinge seat to the party. The Liberal party’s biggest concern would be if increase in their vote stalls because of the high profile campaign being run in support of Palmer United Party’s Kevin Morgan.

    The problem for the Greens in Braddon is that Labor can lose six percentage points of support and still poll above two quotas, where any loss of Green support would see their support slip below the Liberal surplus beyond two quotas. Unless there is substantial support for Palmer United, the mostly likely result is the Liberal Party taking a seat off the Greens.

    On the Liberal ticket, both Jeremy Rockliff and Adam Brooks will be re-elected, with Roger Jaensch maybe better placed that Kyron Howell and Joan Rylah to win the third Liberal seat. Braddon is a seat of regions, and there is an advantage for candidates able to draw on votes from their home region but also poll well in other areas.

    On the Labor ticket, Deputy Premier Bryan Green should retain his seat, as should Brenton Best unless there is a catastrophic collapse in the Labor vote. Labor voters in Braddon would be in little doubt of Best’s antipathy to Labor having formed government with the Greens.

    Also on the Labor ticket, agricultural scientist and former rower Shane Broad is having his second run at Braddon. Victory looks unlikely, but he would be well placed at any by-election re-count if either Green or Best retire.

    The re-election chances of the Green’s Paul O’Halloran look bleak. The Green vote in Braddon more than halved to 5.2% at last September’s Federal election, while Kevin Morgan polled 9.3% as the Palmer United Party candidate. In 2014 the Greens may be left with only core supporters, as the presence of both Palmer United and the revived National Party provide voters with several alternatives to cast a protest vote against the major parties.

    Denison

    Denison has been described as being Australia’s greenest electorate, and it is the seat where the Liberal Party are least likely to win three seats at the 2014 election. The hinge seat in Denison looks set to stay with the Greens, unless the weakened Labor ticket sees a collapse in support and a larger than expected swing to the Liberal Party.

    In 2014 Labor polled 2.18 quotas (36.3%), the Liberal Party 1.79 quotas (29.8%) and the Greens 1.49 quotas (24.9%). Also on the ballot paper ahead of his successful Federal bid, Andrew Wilkie polled 0.41 quotas (8.4%).

    In 2010 the Liberal Party had a weak ticket following the retirement of the late Michael Hodgman. Two Liberals were elected, Matthew Groom and Elise Archer, and both should be easily re-elected in 2014 as the Liberal vote rises above two quotas. It seems unlikely that the Liberal Party could win a third seat, but if it did, the choice is between motivational speaker and cancer survivor Deborah De Williams, and two lower profile businessman in Rene Kling and Robert Mallett. For technical reasons to do with the conduct of the count, the Liberal Party’s chance of winning three seats in Denison might be helped if both Groom and Archer fall short of winning full quotas.

    Reaching three quotas looks an unlikely prospect for the Liberal Party, but with 10 columns and 30 candidates on the ballot paper, a higher than normal rate of exhausted preferences might see the final seat filled with less than a quota of votes. The final member elected could be the candidate left standing with the highest total of votes.

    Labor goes into the 2014 election with a weaker ticket than in 2010. Then Labor had three sitting members, Premier David Bartlett plus Lisa Singh and Graeme Sturges. Singh and Sturges were defeated, newcomer with Scott Bacon winning the second Labor seat. Bartlett has since retired from Parliament, Graeme Sturges elected at the by-election re-count, but he will be retiring at the 2014 election.

    Scott Bacon will easily top the Labor ticket, but Labor has had to dig into the past by nominating Julian Amos, a former MP who has twice before been defeated. Amos’s antipathy to the Greens is well known and might go down well with Labor’s traditional base at the Glenorchy end of the electorate. Madeleine Ogilvie will have her second tilt at the seat, the Labor ticket rounded out by Sharon Carnes and Alphonse Mulumba. The presence of Andrew Wilkie makes the Federal election result a poor guide, but there is still probably enough Labor votes, especially in the Glenorchy end of the electorate, to elect a second Labor MHA, even if it is unclear who that would be.

    The Greens have gone beyond their usual ‘Snow White and the four dwarves’ tactic by nominating several strong candidates. Sitting member Cassy O’Connor should be easily elected, and Hobart City Councillors Bill Harvey and Philip Cocker should bolster the Green vote, or at least divide it between candidates in a more effective way. The odds are still that only O’Connor will be elected, but Harvey and Cocker will be on the ballot and eligible for any by-election re-count should O’Connor retire in the next parliament.

    Complicating Denison is a full ticket of Plamer United Party candidates, including former Integrity Commissioner Barbara Etter. She is no doubt hoping to appeal to the 38.1% ‘anti-party’ vote for Andrew Wilkie at last September’s Federal election. Given Labor’s weak ticket, the likelihood of a decline in Green support, and how much the Liberal vote would have to rise to win a third seat, Etter’s chances of victory can’t be ignored.

    Rounding out the Hobart City Council putsch in Denison are councillors Marti Zucco and Leo Foley, repeat candidates who have obtained enough signatures to each have their own columns on the ballot paper. All six independents will be hoping to attract some of the 38% of Denison voters who backed Andrew Wilkie at last September’s Federal election.

    Were Etter to win the hinge seat in Denison, it would mean the Liberal Party could not win more than 14 seats and give greater importance to the hinge seats in the other four electorates.

    Franklin

    Franklin is an unusual contest in 2014 because all three party leaders represent the seat. It is a seat where Will Hodgman’s personal vote will dominate the Liberal ticket, but will it be large enough to take a seat of Labor’s ticket headed by Premier Lara Giddings, or the Greens headed by that party’s leader Nick McKim?

    In 2010 the Liberal Party polled 2.47 quotas (41.2%), Labor 1.83 quotas (30.5%) and the Greens 1.64 quotas (27.4%). Labor’s ticket had been weakened in 2010 by the retirements of Paul Lennon and Paula Wriedt in the preceding term of parliament.

    It seems certain that the Liberal vote will rise, approaching three quotas, with Will Hodgman likely to get in excess of two quotas in his own right. His surplus should re-elect the seat’s other Liberal MHA Jacquie Petrusma, while recently resigned Huon MLC Paul Harriss should be able to harness his local support to win a third Liberal Franklin’s hinge seat.

    Any Liberal gain looks most likely to come at Labor’s expense. Premier Lara Giddings should top Labor’s ticket, which would leave Police Minister David O’Byrne facing defeat. Only a collapse in the Green vote can save Labor’s second seat.

    The Greens have polled above 19% at the last three Tasmanian election, rising to their record level in 2010. The Green vote fell from 20.9% to 12.2% at last September’s Federal election, but Nick McKim has a strong personal vote.

    The lead Palmer United Party candidate is Debra Thurley, but realistically the most likely result in Franklin is Paul Harriss grabbing the hinge seat for the Liberal Party, most likely at the expense of Labor’s David O’Byrne. That is unless O’Byrne can outpoll his Premier on the Labor ticket.

     

    Lyons

    Lyons is the most geographically diverse of Tasmania’s electorates and it is unusual for any candidate to poll more than a quota in their own right. The usual tactic of the Labor and Liberal Parties is to select balanced tickets with candidates from different regions of the electorate in an attempt to use local support for candidates to maximise the overall party vote.

    In 2010 the Labor party polled 2.57 quotas (42.8%), Liberal party 2.17 quotas (36.1%) and the Greens 1.27 quotas (21.1%). The seat held by Labor’s Heather Butler was lost to Liberal Mark Shelton, while long serving Labor MHA David Llewellyn was defeated by Rebecca White.

    In 2014 Labor will be disadvantaged by the retirement of 42 year veteran Michael Polley, while the Liberal Party have chosen a high profile and geographically balanced ticket.

    Both sides will have paid attention to last September’s Federal result when Dick Adams became only the second Federal member in 70 years to taste defeat in Lyons. There was a 12% shift of first preference support, the Liberals polling 44.4%, Labor 36.8% and the Green vote halving to 8.3%. The Federal result points to the Liberal Party having a strong chance of grabbing the hinge seat in Lyons.

    On the Liberal ticket, long serving MP Rene Hidding will be re-elected, as should Mark Shelton. The Liberal Party start from a low base looking at the 2010 result, but will be encouraged by the Liberal surge last September. Best placed to capitalise on this will be former Senator Guy Barnett, based in the north of the electorate but known across the state for his past national role. Campaigning on the east coast is flamboyant French-born Mayor of Glamorgan Spring Bay Council Bertrand Cadart. The Mayor of Derwent Valley Martyn Evans rounds out the Liberal ticket.

    After her upset victory in 2010, Rebecca White should easily win the first Labor seat. Having lost Michael Polley from the ticket, Labor has returned to David Llewellyn, though it seems he would be unlikely to improve much on the vote that saw him defeated in 2010. Former Forestry Tasmania head Bob Gordon has been backed by former federal MP Dick Adams and AWU boss Paul Howes, so will stand a chance of election if Labor’s vote can stay in the vicinity of two quotas.

    The Greens have polled above 15% at the last three elections, but Greens MP Tim Morris will be under pressure if there is a substantial fall in Green support. Liberal chances of winning the hinge seat looking strong, so Morris is likely to be in a contest with the second placed Labor candidate to win the final seat in Lyons.

    Antony Green

    Antony Green is the ABC’s election analyst.

    Antony has worked on every federal, state and territory election since his first election with the ABC in Queensland in 1989.

    He has appeared regularly on camera since the 1993 Federal election, when he was the first to call the return of the Keating government.

    15 March Election

    The Tasmanian election will be held on the 15 March 2014.

    For all information on electoral enrolment, when and how to vote, visit the Tasmanian Electoral Commission website.

    Other Elections

    For other elections, visit the ABC elections site or go directly to the South Australian election.

    Send your feedback

    To make a comment or suggest a change to the Election Guide, please contact us.

    Site Map

  • Ambitious plans for 2014 350 0rg

    Why this ad?
    Solar Systems From $2,399energyaustralia.com.au/Solar – If You Find A Better Price, We’ll Match It. We Are The Solar Experts

    Ambitious plans for 2014

    Spam
    x

    Bhavik Lathia – 350.org 350@350.org

    9:54 AM (1 hour ago)

    Images are not displayed. Display images below

    Friends,

    We have ambitious plans for 2014, and we want your help in making them stronger. Take this survey and let us know what you think.

    Already this year is off to a strong start. Here’s what we’ve accomplished so far:

    • “Power Shift” convergences from Japan to Congo to Kyrgyzstan, training climate leaders around the world
    • A divestment movement that is spreading quickly across Europe, to strip the fossil-fuel industry of its social license
    • “Summer Heat” actions against dirty energy expansions in full swing in Australia

    And so much more.

    Over the past few months, we have been thinking hard about what to do next. At the same time, we want to learn from what we did last year and hear from you on our priorities for 2014. We know that people in the 350.org network — that’s all of you — have untapped reserves of passion, creativity, and ideas.

    As we chart the path forward in 2014, we want to make sure we’re harnessing the collective insights of this incredible movement.

    Click here to add your voice: 350.org/global-priorities

    Thanks in advance for your time and thoughts,

    Bhavik, Will, and the 350.org Global Team


    350.org is building a global climate movement. Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for email alerts. You can help power our work by making a donation. To change your email address or update your contact info,

  • Sleepless in Ningbo HANSEN

    1 of 40
    Why this ad?
    1.5kW System From $2,399energyaustralia.com.au/Solar – Now W/ Free Upgrade To SMA Inverter Covered By Our Price Match Promise

    Sleepless in Ningbo

    Inbox
    x

    James Hansen via mail320.us3.mcdlv.net

    4:35 AM (6 hours ago)

    to me
    Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
    Sleepless in Ningbo
    Here is a note concerning a draft op-ed written during my recent trip to China. Both are also on my web site.

    ~Jim
    10 March 2014

    Like my Facebook page
    Like https://www.facebook.com/jimehansen on Facebook
    Share
    Facebook Twitter

  • Mysterious new man-made gases pose threat to ozone layer

    9 March 2014 Last updated

    Mysterious new man-made gases pose threat to ozone layer

    Matt McGrath By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News

    ozone hole Dealing with the hole in the ozone layer has been one of the most successful international science projects

    Scientists have identified four new man-made gases that are contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.

    Two of the gases are accumulating at a rate that is causing concern among researchers.

    Worries over the growing ozone hole have seen the production of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gases restricted since the mid 1980s.

    But the precise origin of these new, similar substances remains a mystery, say scientists.

    Lying in the atmosphere, between 15 and 30km above the surface of the Earth, the ozone layer plays a critical role in blocking harmful UV rays, which cause cancers in humans and reproductive problems in animals.

    Continue reading the main story

    “Start Quote

    We don’t know where the new gases are being emitted from and this should be investigated”

    Dr Johannes Laube University of East Anglia

    Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey were the first to discover a huge “hole” in the ozone over Antarctica in 1985.

    The evidence quickly pointed to CFC gases, which were invented in the 1920s, and were widely used in refrigeration and as aerosol propellants in products like hairsprays and deodorants.

    Remarkably, global action was rapidly agreed to tackle CFCs and the Montreal Protocol to limit these substances came into being in 1987.

    A total global ban on production came into force in 2010.

    Now, researchers from the University of East Anglia have discovered evidence of four new gases that can destroy ozone and are getting into the atmosphere from as yet unidentified sources.

    Halley The Halley Research Station in Antarctica, where the hole in the ozone layer was first discovered

    Three of the gases are CFCs and one is a hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC), which can also damage ozone.

    “Our research has shown four gases that were not around in the atmosphere at all until the 1960s which suggests they are man-made,” said lead researcher Dr Johannes Laube.

    The scientists discovered the gases by analysing polar firm, perennial snow pack. Air extracted from this snow is a natural archive of what was in the atmosphere up to 100 years ago.

    Grim discoveryThe researchers also looked at modern air samples, collected at remote Cape Grim in Tasmania.

    They estimate that about 74,000 tonnes of these gases have been released into the atmosphere. Two of the gases are accumulating at significant rates.

    “The identification of these four new gases is very worrying as they will contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer,” said Dr Laube.

    “We don’t know where the new gases are being emitted from and this should be investigated. Possible sources include feedstock chemicals for insecticide production and solvents for cleaning electronic components.”

    “What’s more, the three CFCs are being destroyed very slowly in the atmosphere – so even if emissions were to stop immediately, they will still be around for many decades to come,” he added.

    Continue reading the main story

    Mysterious gases

    • The four new gases have been identified as CFC-112, CFC112a, CFC-113a, HCFC-133a
    • CFC-113a has been listed as an “agrochemical intermediate for the manufacture of pyrethroids”, a type of insecticide once widely used in agriculture
    • CFC-113a and HCFC-133a are intermediaries in the production of widely used refrigerants
    • CFC-112 and 112a may have been used in the production of solvents used to clean electrical components

    Other scientists acknowledged that while the current concentrations of these gases are small and they don’t present an immediate concern, work would have to be done to identify their origin.

    “This paper highlights that ozone depletion is not yet yesterday’s story,” said Prof Piers Forster, from the University of Leeds.

    “The concentrations found in this study are tiny. Nevertheless, this paper reminds us we need to be vigilant and continually monitor the atmosphere for even small amounts of these gases creeping up, either through accidental or unplanned emissions.

    “Of the four species identified, CFC-113a seems the most worrying as there is a very small but growing emission source somewhere, maybe from agricultural insecticides. We should find it and take it out of production.”

    The research has been published in the journal, Nature Geoscience.

    Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmcgrathbbc.


  • What on Earth is an Angry Summer? FLANNERY

    4 of 9
    Why this ad?
    Dodo Electricitywww.dodo.com – Electricity rates too high? Get 15% OFF your usage rates.

    What on Earth is an Angry Summer?

    Trash
    x

    Tim Flannery – Climate Council via sendgrid.info

    1:39 PM (3 hours ago)

    to me
    Hi Inga 

    More than 156 extreme weather records have been broken across Australia this summer. Extraordinary heatwaves and hot days, drought and rainfall deficiency, and bushfires have dominated.

    This comes on the heels of last summer which broke 123 extreme weather records.

    While we’ve always experienced some extreme weather in Australia, climate change is increasing the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. 

    Today I’m in Adelaide – a city that has really suffered these extremes – to launch the Climate Council’s latest report The Angry Summer.

    This info-graphic gives you a snapshot of just how intense the summer has been.

    Angry Summer Infographic

    Click to share this with your networks to help us communicate this warning.
    Avoiding more frequent Angry Summers requires urgent and deep reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases. The decisions we make this decade will largely determine the severity of climate change and its influence on extreme events for our grandchildren.

    This is the critical decade.

    Our community-funded reports give people the accurate & independent climate information they need to make decisions and take action.

    Today I will be talking to the media – getting this information out as far and wide as I can. Please take a moment to help me do this by sharing this information with your networks.

    Click to see the full report and images to share. 

    Thank you for your support.

    Tim Flannery,
    Chief Councillor

    P.S If you have further questions I encourage you to watch this Q&A where I answer a range of really interesting questions from the public about the summer and other topics: www.climatecouncil.org.au/ask-tim-flannery.