Rudd Government bypasses proven renewables for 'imaginary' geosequestration
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Tuesday 11th November 2008, 4:44pm
by TimHollo in
Yesterday the Rudd Government demonstrated very clearly where its climate and energy priorities lie - not with the proven renewable energy solutions, but with the geosequestration pipe-dream that Al Gore has recently called "too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate".
Fresh from burying Christine Milne's feed-in tariff Bill with a majority Senate Inquiry report saying it's a "great idea, but let's not do it", the Rudd Government went on last night to push through a Bill which gives a huge benefit to those who seek to bury CO2 under the sea floor - letting them make profits without having to carry the liability. This is a recipe for a new sub-prime crisis, telling industry that they can make significant profits safe in the knowledge that they will not need to carry the can for more than 20 years.
The debate on this bill is worth reading in its entirety if you have time. It exposes quite how blinded by industry rhetoric the Government and Opposition both are. Perhaps the pinnacle of this is to be found in Senator McLucas's statement that, as far as leaks from storage are concerned, "we do not predict that will happen". Considering it is widely acknowledged by government, industry and bodies such as the IPCC around the world that leaks will happen, at the rate of at least 1% a year on average, this is a rather heroic prediction.
The Bill is largely about settling arguments between the petroleum exploration industry and the geosequestration industry, but the sting in its tail is how it deals with the planning approvals and long-term liability issues that arise from dumping massive quantities of a dangerous substance under the sea bed - what Christine has called a "21st century landfill strategy". The original Bill left the issue open, as discussed in this media release. After a closure certificate was issued for a burial site, the liability was to be settled under common law - not an ideal solution due to the uncertainties, timelines and costs involved.
The Greens' proposal was that, acknowledging that companies will not be around for the lengths of time the carbon needs to be stored for (ie perpetuity), we should take a leaf out of the book of mining regulation and require companies to post a bond to cover potential liability into the future. This, however, was not acceptable to the Opposition, who negotiated with the Government an amendment that keeps liability on the company for 20 years after a closure certificate has been issued, and then passes all liability onto the taxpayer.
Christine moved an array of other amendments to try to make the legislation somewhat more environmentally responsible, only to be told by Liberal Senator David Johnston that the changes were unnecessary because "This whole act has the environment as its fundamental objective." Only people who have no idea about environmental protection could say such a thing, as their efforts to be 'green' are frequently self-contradictory. It is not uncommonly their actions that purport to be about environmental protection that need the most scrutiny. The whole advocacy for geosequestration (let alone nuclear power) is testament to this fact.
Those who elected the Rudd Government on a platform of climate action need to know just how much they are bypassing renewable energy in favour of coal. But, when the Government deliberately tabled the feed-in report at 6pm and scheduled the debate on the geosequestration bill to conclude at 9.50pm, it is no surprise that there has been virtually no media coverage of either. We have to work hard to make sure people understand what is happening.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
A Joke.
This just goes to prove Rudd doesnt care. The Greens have to do something to get widespread media coverage of this issue so the public is made aware that Rudd is no better than Howard.
Have your say on emissions trading design.
Get with the program if you want to make a difference. Arm yourself with facts then go to http://www.climatechange.gov.au/and fire at them.
Be on the solution side of the pre decision- making process. Not the disgruntled aftermath.
If the only thing the government is hearing on the decision making field are high priced lobbyists sponsored by big companies then the score will go their way. The people have a voice too. Say your thing in the correct forum. Participate in the decision-making process by staying on the ball being played. Sideline heckling after the game is for losers.
Current issues on the scoreboard are available for your unemotional informed contributions at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/renewabletarget/consultation/index.html#...
Download the consultation paper, read it, then make your submission. Submissions close by 13/2/2009.
Who can blame the government if they build policies based on what they’re hearing prior to policy finalisation?
If your to busy to make a major contribution and just want to spend a couple minutes mentioning your preference try copy and pasting this to your submission, “please implement option 1 with regards to the options outlined in the Discussion Paper on the “Treatment of electricity-intensive, trade-exposed industries under the expanded national Renewable Energy Target scheme.”
The following is similar to the submission I shall submit.
With regards to the options outlined in the Discussion Paper on the “Treatment of electricity-intensive, trade-exposed industries under the expanded national Renewable Energy Target scheme” my preferred options are outlined below.
Option 1 no assistance to RATE industries is the best solution. This would be consistent with their treatment under the MRET scheme, cause no extra work for governments or funding from public money, and impose little or no extra financial strain on individuals or un-assisted companies.
Option 2 is extremely un-worthy of consideration.
Option 3 is best if assistance without modification is required.
Option 4 is not beneficial to the greater electorate.
Compromises that may have to be considered are:
1. Assistance only for the quantity of goods that are traded to countries actively engaged in a carbon pollution reduction scheme that comply with targets outlined by the Kyoto Protocol and/or future agreements Australia has or intends to sign (should they be more stringent).
2. No assistance for the percentage of goods traded directly or indirectly to non-compliant countries.
3. Goods birthed in a country of non-compliance should be penalised in a financial way to make similar goods from compliant countries the best value. Or where no competition for these goods exists, a substantial financial carbon tariff to finance reduction measures on their behalf.
4. Policing of products birth to consumption CO2 use will need a system of tracking and reprimand.
5. Government imposed assumptions based on trading history of the industry or company could simplify criteria for assistance.
6. All energy contracts for assisted companies should be made public in line with normal standards of accountability for the expenditure of public funds.
Rater than give incentives to industries to continue polluting via assistance, all incentives to stop using coal and create alternative energy sources should be explored.
Methods that may be employed if anything other than option 1 no assistance to RATE, TEEI and EITE industries:
1. A body should be created to monitor and bestow approvals for projects that will unquestioningly deliver green energy within a tight timeframe both here and over seas. Perhaps an added tax break on funds for research on approved promising technologies with longer expectations to commercialization.
2. Green generators should be given RECs now for 50% of their anticipated energy deliveries up to and including 2030 (extra years). This will help with incentives, initial capital raisings and expedite new installation completion. Tri annual reviews could bestow up to another 50% for the preceding period provided production targets are met, and penalize for running behind schedule.
3. EITE, RATE and TEEI industries should be made to directly invest portion of their profits in approved green generation plants either locally or overseas. This provides equity to the developing renewable energy sector and a share in the profits for participants.
4. Carbon Scrubbers that remove exiting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or smoke stacks should be made viable with funding for research and development and disposal coming from TEEI and EITE industries. Again profits from products and systems developed go to participants. Bonus RECs could be supplied for unit’s sold/used depending on their effectiveness.
5. "Banking and borrowing will make a cap-and-trade system work more efficiently” [1]. For example, save some of this year's allowance for use next year or borrow/use some of next year's allowances now and not have them available next year, thereby creating a necessity to buy RECS or earn them by investing in solutions.
6. The market should not be flooded with RECSs from assisted companies as this lowers the price and curtails the investment incentives in green generators. Instead an inbuilt undersupply should drive demand and investment.
7. Companies gaining RECs from investing in renewable energy generation should never be allowed a disproportionate number of RECS relative to their share holding.
8. All financial incentives should be focused away from coal, since sequestration research for this industry is and has been in the past heavily financed from public funds. Coal, already profitable industry would appear to be using the prospect of sequestration as a delaying tactic for capital expenditure on available technologies. However products already developed with proven abilities should be encouraged to be immediately implemented on pain of penalty. Products like Calera Corporation ‘s “nature-mimicking process that converts CO2, such as from a coal power plant, into cement. By thus removing CO2 from the atmosphere in the process of making a product that usually produces a lot of CO2 using other methods” [2]. Also the GreenShift CO2 Bioreactor might be apropriate .
9. Assistance if provided at all for TEEI, EITE and RATE industries should have a Base Amount. The Base Amount is the amount of assistance/subsidy government is willing to give an industry. The base amount should then be varied downward for all-of-government assistance; subsidies, infrastructure and tax-breaks already provided that industry or business.
10. Stiff penalties should be included in legislation naming and fining directors and managers directly.
Penalties could include:
1. Action taken against EITE or TEEI industries for impairment of profits or health of other businesses (hospitality closures from destruction of coral reefs).
2. Action taken against EITE or TEEI industries for complaining and threatening to leave Australia such as a ban on their products in Protocol compliant countries.
3. A Penalty guide for non-compliance should be written into any legislation of between $1,000,000 and $100,000,000 or 6% to 12% of the companies gross profit whichever is greater indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
4. Mandatory insurance premiums applied retrospectively for class action lawsuits aimed at compensation for loss of health, income or property arising from climate change.
5. A quadrupling of annual RECs required to be handed over to the government for a period of time greater than 10 years.
6. Confiscation of non-compliant products, and reimbursement for their destruction.
Other conciderations that could be considered are as follows:
Global agreement.
No global agreement has been signed much less ratified in the past. The prospect of such an agreement should not be considered in assessments nor should it be an excuse to delay implementation of pollution remedies.
Coal.
There are many areas in which the coal industry seriously inhibits our ability to meet our international greenhouse gas emissions obligations. The industry heavily pollutes by removing the coal initially, transporting it, and ultimately it’s use. Basically every time it is moved it increases the ambient CO2. Covered excavation with exhaust and particle scrubbers should be mandatory. Coatings applied to prevent dispersal of particles during transportation and possibly assist in downstream capture.
Cessation of public money to the industry, as historically it is used to fund research and infrastructure. This after initial construction often ultimately results in loss of jobs in the long term.
Major polluters.
The worst polluters including the aluminium, pulp and paper, chemicals and coal industries should not receive any benefits at all, and should instead be made to finance the cost of the clean up. This or face prosecution retribution for loss of income to other industries (holiday/hospitality), loss of health to societies and class action similar to the tobacco industry. Government should be held accountable financially too for promoting polluters to the detriment of the nation and global humanity.
Aluminium.
Aluminium production without assistance would probably be abandoned in Australia. The question is do we need the industry at all. Since aluminum is a stand out polluter throughout the world it needs consideration on a global level.
Some of the cost benefits of ceasing aluminum production are:
1. The global price will go up from scarcity and further reduce pollution as alternative rigid substances fill needs.
2. Australian taxpayers need not fund or subsidize infrastructure requirements of industry.
3. Australian taxpayers need not subsidize electricity consumption of the industry.
4. Other businesses and individuals do not have to sacrifice as much time effort and money to reach carbon targets.
5. Australian taxpayers need not fund superfluous usage of aluminum such as the cladding of high-rise office blocks in Soul Korea.
6. Australian government will no longer need to provide an exclusive tax agreement for industry participants.
7. Australian government will no longer need to watch as much of the tax for profits from Australian product are paid not in Australia but over seas.
8. Increases Australia’s standing in the international community by demonstrating the assertiveness to make decisions based not on skilled and aggressive lobbying, but on getting the best possible outcomes while minimizing the impact to voters.
9. Australia’s Bauxite mines can remain untapped reserves ready for fast development as new improved sustainable energy sources are brought on line such as Geothermal and the ITER fusion reactor < http://www.iter.org/> .
The temporary loss of a few hundred jobs as workers find other employment is regrettable. Lessening the burden on all other businesses and individuals by the amount that aluminum smelters pollute, 10-15%. Of course many of the government assistances currently provided the industry could be redirected to more suitable endeavors.
European experience with other greenhouse gasses.
Signed
______________________________________________________
[1] Stauffer, Nancy MIT Energy Initiative “Carbon emissions trading in Europe: Lessons to be learned” undated. 25.1.2009
[2] PESWiki.com, Pure Energy Systems Wiki “Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies” undated. 25.1.2009 .
Even more insidious....
It's much worse than Christine makes out. The engineers working on geosequestration are looking at 1% leakage. That means the problem won't be 20-50 years down the track, but right now. At 1% leakage, over the 40 year lifetime of a plant, 18% of the total pumped into storage would have leaked already, and 75% would leak within another 100 years.
See http://en.envirowiki.info/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Leakage
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide geosequestration technology does not exist in operation in any meaningful way, anywhere in the world. The technology just doesn't exist, it's not mature, and it's decades away from being used.
I really think that those operators of coal-fired power plants, and other industrial enterprises to which geosequestration is particularly relevant, which really is almost exclusively the fossil fuel energy generators, should forget about it right now, and come back when geosequestration actually works, when the technology is actually developed to the point where you can sequester the 20 million tonnes per year of CO2 from even just one Loy Yang type plant, and then come back, and we'll talk about who takes liability for it.
That said, however, in 30, 40, 50 years, then yes, maybe, CCS technology could very well be useful for us. Right now, we should focus on the technologies that actually do exist, in practice.
Maybe, then, in 30, 40 or 50 years, the industry might come back and say, OK, we have the technology ready to use, now we need to talk about insurance and liability. But right now, the technology is of no relevance to solving any problems anyway, with or without the liability, because it just doesn't exist.
Some people have suggested in the past that what we might see in regards to geosequestration of CO2 is something similar to the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act in the US, where nuclear energy industry is required to provide 10 billion dollars of their own insurance, and the government covers any claims beyond that. (As an aside, the US taxpayer has never been required to pay one cent to anybody under the Price-Anderson act in the entire history of nuclear energy.)
That said, however, I think the risks of hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 being pumped underground are far more real than those of nuclear energy.
The insurance industry is all about quantitative understanding of risks. If they don’t understand the risks, quantitatively, then they cannot make money selling insurance. In the very beginnings of commercial nuclear energy in the United States, insurance companies wouldn’t provide insurance, because they didn’t have quantitative understanding of the risks associated with nuclear energy; but once they had a better understanding, however, commercial insurance of nuclear power became commonplace.
Just like commercial insurers wouldn’t insure commercial nuclear energy in the early days of that technology, I doubt commercial insurers will deal with carbon dioxide geosequestration until they know enough about the risks of CO2 escaping to allow them to quantitatively assess the risks.
Just like nuclear energy, the insurance industry will probably provide insurance for geoseqestration, eventually, but it will take a little while after the technology is in place starts being used for the insurers to be able to understand it and to understand the risks.
Apologies for the long post.
Rudd coal support and scuppering renewable energy is a disgrace
Rudd's unwavering support for the fictitious oxymoron of clean coal is a clear indication that they favour business as usual for greenhouse gas polluting industry - such as coal fired power and exports - rather than making any real reductions in carbon emissions. See http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Clean_coal for more information.
Rudd's refusal to support a national feed in tariff again favours industry and ignores world's best practice for encouraging genuine renewable energy such as we see in Germany. Rudd is consigning Australia to being a backwater for new industry and jobs based on clean and green renewable energy.
Its seems there is now little difference between Rudd and Howard on climate change - both support ineffective emissions trading that won't reduce our emissions. Howard's solar rebate was actually better, since Labor now applies a means test - those that can afford to fit solar panels don't get the incentive to do so.
Contact your MP and all the ministers and tell them they need to represent that Australian public and Australia's best interests, not 19th century polluting industries.
More power!
Let's assume for the moment that carbon sequestration technology is here today and works properly.
One problem is that capturing, compressing and pumping down into the ground the CO2 takes energy. It takes a certain minimum amount because of the physical processes involved - liquefying CO2. For each 100kWh from fossil fuel-fired electricity generation, it will take at least another 25kWh of energy to sequester the CO2.
So we have to build 25% more power plants to sequester the carbon from the original 100%. If we're building more power plants anyway, why not build renewable power plants - they're cheaper than new fossil fuel plants with sequestration, and use proven technology. 25 out of 125 would be 20% of all power generated renewably - this is obviously achieveable since Denmark and Spain have managed it already.
Alternately, we could still generate the same amount of electricity, but conserve 20% of it so we can sequester the CO2 from the whole 100%. But if it's possible to reduce power consumption by 20%, why don't we forget spending billions on new power plants and do that straight away? We would thus reduce our electricity-related emissions by 20%, certainly at less cost than building new power plants, and most likely saving money.
Or perhaps we could even do both - conserve 20+% of our electricity, and with the money saved build renewable generation to 20+% of our capacity. We would thus achieve a 40+% reduction in electricity-related emissions overall. Does the CCS plan expect to do better than that?
Thus, even when we assume the sequestration is ready to put in place today and it works perfectly, it doesn't look very good compared to the alternatives of more renewables and/or conservation.
It won't fit!
Every tonne of coal burnt produces 1.8 tonnes of CO2. A trainload of coal a day of around 12,000 tonnes for an average power station means 20,000 tonnes need to be transported out as well and put somewhere. 12,000 tonnes in, 20,000 tonnes out.
The numbers 'in' boggle my mind by themselves.
Bring on and welcome the 'clean coal'/'NewGenCoal' debate and expose the concept for what it is, a short term subsidy for the coal industry while the Rudd government stalls for time. Time for the coal industry to cope with reality, time for more evidence of climate change, time for the world to work together on climate change, time for renewable technologies to prove themselves to all but the most delusional, time to adjust to a steady state economy, perhaps even time to see the first few people die as a direct result of climate change and resource depletion.
resource depletion
more amazing is the silence by the Greens on the the IEA report released on 12 November
the current hiccup in the economy has as its root cause the end of cheap energy which nessitated
huge increases of debt to sustain the pretence of growth
the consensus of analysts (dirty word i know) is for peak energy to hit us within the next 5years
problem is that transitioning will probably take 10 to20 years..... meantime millions will die
oh and there seems to be a bit of aproblem with the environment too!!
silence
Hi Kiwichick,
only reason for our silence on that report islack of time and resources to comment on all the major stories that come through. We saw it, Christine noted it a a doorstop in the morning (which didn't get covered), but we simply didn't have time to put a press release out on it. We have, however, noted similar things many times.
A solution to the CCS legislation problem?
I wonder if The Greens would consider, until CCS is proven, only building new centralised, base-load power stations fueled by alternative energy - such as solar thermal systems like AUSRA (see: http://www.ausra.com.au/)?
See blog below:
Battle for the truth on Climate Change
By the end of this year, the Rudd government will announce the Australian Emissions Trading System target for reducing CO2 emissions. (see: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/emissionstrading/about.html )
A major battle is forming between what the science requires, and what the politicians think they can achieve.
We need to understand the truth in order to recognise when we are being lied to.
The current world level of atmospheric CO2 is 380 parts per million (ppm).
Dr James Hansen (NASA) leads 12 of the world’s leading climate scientists, to outline the case for reducing the existing level to 300-350 ppm in order to avoid average temperatures rising beyond the point of no return
See: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081030_Target.pdf
and:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=hansen+TippingPointsNear_2008062...
and: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9216
Essentially, the scientists warn that recent evidence of acceleration of the Arctic and Antarctic ice melt, outdates the warming predictions contained in the 2007 IPCC report.
Climate scientists now predict that unless 300-350ppm becomes the global target, our children will face an uncomfortable future within the next 30 years and their children’s future will be one we would not wish to see them suffer.
The primary requirement to achieve that objective is for the world to eliminate all CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. How quickly we can achieve that determines how much hotter the planet will get.
However, in his final report to the government, Ross Garnaut recommended a target of 550ppm, as he believed that is all that can politically be achieved at a global level.
See Lateline: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200811/r313007_1380710.asx
And: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200811/r313030_1380826.asx and: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf
Hopefully we can eliminate all CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels in the necessary timeframe by putting the following projects on a ‘war time priority’ footing:
• Developing technology to retrofit our 300 existing coal fired power stations with ‘Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) of CO2’ equipment by 2020 - see: http://www.newgencoal.com.au/ .
• Only building new centralised, base-load power stations fueled by alternative energy (see: http://www.ausra.com.au/ ) until CCS is proven;
• Providing Feed-in Tariff incentives for distributed clean energy systems.
See: http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/taxonomy/term/246/all
• Migrating to Electric Vehicles (EV’s) and Plug-in Hybrids (PHEV’s) - see
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4468312a30.html and: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/02/1209235157161.html?s_rid=sm...
• Introducing an ETS to provide economic incentives for major polluting industries to reduce emissions – see: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/emissionstrading/about.html
The politicians are struggling to find a balance between reducing emissions at the speed the science recommends, versus the resistance to change being exhibited fiercely by the fossil fuel and other essential industries, likely to be negatively affected.
In my view it is critical that Rudd/Wong first of all publicly acknowledge the real target, which is no less than the climate scientists recommend, and then commit to doing everything in their power to gain a majority agreement for an initial target as close to the science as technically viable.
Australians will then be in a position to unite, agree with, and support the political task ahead.
The nearer to the climate science target that Australia commits to, the greater our chance of convincing other countries by example to do the same, during future international diplomatic Climate Change negotiations.
Hopefully Rudd, the diplomat, will not be tempted to ‘compromise’ on a 450ppm target without acknowledging the real climate science target.
All politicians need to be reminded that Mother Nature does not negotiate. She simply reacts to the emissions we send her.
What really matters is that everyone in the world clearly differentiates between the real target that the Climate Scientists recommend versus what the politicians may be telling us.
The longer it takes for the politicians to gain the courage to agree to lead us towards the real target, the tougher the scientists target will need to become as we near the tipping point.
The UK Govt Stern report (http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm ) noted that the threat from Climate Change would become so large that no matter how much it might take to solve the problem, the cost of not controlling it was going to be worse.
For further understanding of these issues, I highly recommend reading ‘Climate Code Red’ by David Spratt & Philip Sutton (see: http://www.climatecodered.net ). Their book clearly articulates the science, the consequences of each option and provides insights into understanding the politics involved.
The following is quoted there and is as appropriate today as when it was written:
“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” – Winston Churchill, November 1936.
A solution for the CCS legislation problem
Well written Chis, you obviously have done considerable research on the topic.
There is however a great divide between the theoretical and practical side of both this and the ETS which need to be taken into account. It would be very disruptive to the reduction in carbon emissions if the Governments attempted to push too far without full community backing, which I believe is not yet evident. Sure there is considerable backing in the big city inner suburbs, but from my travels around the mortgage belt (mainly in Melbourne), there is some support, providing that the Mr and Mrs Average are not impacted in their day to day costs. Some states are warning residents that they may be up for 30% increases in energy costs ($1 / day), or 90+% over 3 years, which could be sufficient to have changes in Government at state levels, back to Liberal Governments, and possible emission reduction stagnation.
On the motor vehicle side of things, Hybrid / Electric vehicles, again are a possible solution for inner city usage, but are not practical for the distances Australians travel. Hybrid vehicles have been shown to emit standard amounts of carbon emissions as soon as you move out of a start, stop, start inner city environment, and we are 10+ years away from having sufficient infrastructure for any type of general Plug In electric car usage. The Feds have also stated that there is expected to be 50% increase in truck requirements over the next 10 - 15 years, and, as goods cannot be carried on rail within cities, without severely impacting passenger traffic, we will have even more carbon emissions to deal with.
I suspect that it will take Australia around 20+ years to decrease our carbon emissions to a level the scientists will be happy with, especially as the Governments (today) are using most of their available funds just attempting to keep people in their current jobs. Having said this, there are a number of actions the Governments can take which will point us in the right direction for emission reduction without considerable expenditure (remembering that Mr and Mrs Average generally do not have surplus funds to install energy saving infrastructure, even with rebates ((eg. Solar Hot Water Services etc.))
a. Reduce immigration (ordinary and refugee) so we do not keep moving the goal posts to greater required reductions, due to ever increasing population growth.
b. Encourage State Governments to move business out of central hubs (CBDs) into satellite suburbs, so people have a less need to travel / drive.
c. Encourage Governments to expand public transport to satellite suburban centres. In most cases, public transport (eg. rail) has bottlenecks which preclude much expansion to existing CBDs.
d. Mandate for all new housing that solar hot water services be installed, and if economically viable (taking into account the need to keep housing costs to a level people can afford), also solar electricity generation.
e. Encourage multi family / residential development in suburbs which are, say, 25Km from existing CBDs.
f. Governments to have achievable (reduction and time objectives) for emission reductions. As a retired Project Manager, I know that if you push for non-achievable objectives / deliverables, people will switch off, and you will never achieve your objectives.
g. Encourage business to review their energy requirements / usage, being careful not to encourage movement of business off shore.
h. Many more options already document, where the Carrot is used, not a bloody big stick.
In summary, Australian Governments will need to expect that major reductions will take up to 20 years, but if they do not jump from the frying pan into the fire through trying to rush reductions, they will slowly get the general population onside, and providing they have defined achievable objectives / deliverables, Australia will have a reasonable chance of achieving the objectives.
There is more that can be done, Satellite towns not answer
While much of what you say here makes sense, I would like to make the following points.
Firstly, by moving people INTO cities rather than moving business's out you can acoumplish the same thing with the added benefit that you have the ability to free up more land for farming and conservation purposes, rather than creating more land grabbing sprawl.
Secondly by concentrating people into a smaller space and removing the moter vehicle from that space you could dramatically reduce the amount of pollution, and congestion, and at the same time improve the living conditions in cities. I would suggest that if people could afford to live in inner Sydney for example many would. Urban sprawl creates to many problems. People could store their car in a central hub in the city, and could use it to travel long distances, out of the city.
It has been shown that over a 5km distance within a city a bicycle is just as fast as a car and has no carbon emmisions. It is also an off the shelf technology ready to go.
Access Economics supports gross FIT
Wonders will never cease, Access Economics has come out in favour of a renewables gross feed in tariff.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/21/2426017.htm
Try not to read the comments section, most of them are depressingly ignorant and/or ill-informed.
Fuel Cell Cars
Hi There Christine. Thanks for all the good work. I wonder if anything is able to be done with regard to the development of Hydrogen Refuelling Infrastructure for Fuel Cell Cars in this country.
This would allow the rollout of Pollution-Free Fuel Cell cars to be released here. Thanks
Pat McGee
Fuel cells vs Lithium Batteries vs Bicycles
Not sure about fuel cells, they have been a long time coming, still horribly expensive and still require a gaseous fuel - cracking hydrogen off natural gas is hardly progress. My bet would be lithium polymer batteries - recharge off the mains - some magic available if the charging could be coordinated with excessive electricity from windfarms overnight which is sending wholesale electricity prices negative in some areas of Denmark, Germany and the US.
In any case, most trips, most people do are less than 5km and could be easily done by BICYCLE! (Vehicle for a small planet, remember?) Massive fitness/health issue here as well. Oh, and ask motorists in peak hour traffic (and any cyclist, pedistrian or public transport patron) if they want more cars . . .
No surprises from Rudd
When PM Rudd called for faster development of carbon capture technologies at the UN I took that as code for "we will keep mining, selling and using coal without restriction". I could only assume those present read it the same way.
Patrick, from what I have been able to determine, Hydrogen is mostly greenwash. As Andrew points out, batteries already do it better and I think they are more likely to see ongoing improvement than hydrogen technologies. Most of the R&D with hydrogen for transport exists because money was allocated for that specific area of research by gov'ts looking for green credibility - but the cheapest source of hydrogen is fossil fuels. It ultimately looks like a way for entrenched industries to point out that green & clean can't deliver.
Why do so many people overlook the pushbike as transport
Why do so many people overlook the common pushbike as an environmentally freindly form of transport?
Why are we fixated with the car as the primary form of transport?
Yes we need to get more fuel efficient cars as some trips involve carrying heavy items or long distances, but most travel is done within 5km, and can easily undertaken by bike. A bicycle is an off the shelf proven method of transport that requires no more development and is ready to go as a form of transport. It not only is carbon neutral, but also reduces obesity, and improves health, not to mention, that it is a form of transport that reduces dangerous exhaust emmisions.
In order to get people on bikes, a fourfold approach must be taken.
Firstly, roads must be safer for pushbike riders, and pushbike infrastructure needs to be incorporated into public transport. This includes viable cycleways off road, and on road facilities that protect cyclists from traffic.
Secondly, we need more police on pushbikes, preferably in plain clothes in order to protect cyclists from dangerous behaviour by motorists, and yes, to make sure pushbike riders obey the road rules, themselves. Often people will not ride a bike to work for no other reason than they dont feel safe.
Thirdly, we need a sound education campaign to inform motorists and pushbike riders of their rights and responsibilities to each other while on the road. Unfortunately there is much confusion over this, mainly by motorists. We also need to promote the benefits of cycling as a means of transport.
Fourthly, we need to develop mixed use high density affordable housing in mixed use buildings in cities, so that all amenities, facitilies and places to go can mostly be found within a 5 km Radius, thus making the car redundent. If we can develop affordable high density mixed housing, within large cities, we can eliminate the need fo the car altogether.
I believe there is a tipping point at which the public will embrace cycling more fully.
Post new comment