27 comments

1. ChrisDecember 18, 2015 at 10:08 pm

   “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through…a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”
   — U.S. President Lyndon Johnson to Congress
   http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2015/02/president-johnson-carbon-climate-warning

   This is a really interesting lecture “Erik M. Conway – Merchants of Doubt: How Climate Science Became a Victim of the Cold War”

   Lots of things are making all of the ‘solutions’ look like too little too late.
   http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-15/shift-in-australias-plankton-population-threatens-food-chain/7027588

   ‘the greatest and widest—ranging market failure ever seen’ (Stern, 2006)

2. Denis Bright in BrisbaneDecember 18, 2015 at 11:01 pm

   Apologies for this error:

   “The Clean Energy Authority advised the LNP’s Minister for the Environment to take higher emission targets to COP21 and is largely in agreement with Bill Shorten’s commitments on emission reductions to 2030.”

   Clean Energy Authority should read Climate Change Authority (CCA):

   “The CCA advised the LNP’s Minister for the Environment to take higher emission targets to COP21 and is largely in agreement with Bill Shorten’s commitments on emission reductions to 2030.”

3. ChrisDecember 18, 2015 at 11:23 pm

   As a kid I was greatly influenced by the ABC TV show Earthwatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthwatch_%28TV_series%29
   Along with this series of books http://2warpstoneptune.com/2014/03/04/usborne-publishing-the-world-of-the-future-future-cities-1979/
   and probably some news reports I have known of ‘the greenhouse effect’ ie global warming for most of my life. It frustrates the hell out of me that it is still ignored by many people….

   This is one of the later episodes after it had gone downhill somewhat (in an 80s kind of way)

4. Michael TaylorDecember 18, 2015 at 11:42 pm

   Thanks Denis. I missed it. Shall fix in the morning.

5. RoswellDecember 19, 2015 at 12:01 am

   Don’t worry. I’ve fixed it for you.

6. Miriam EnglishDecember 19, 2015 at 9:10 am

   This is what we should be doing about energy:
   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/17/1461055/-Now-THAT-S-how-you-do-solar-energy

7. Denis Bright in BrisbaneDecember 19, 2015 at 9:16 am

   Thanks Chris: The apathy about climate change is still appalling and the commitments supported by the Lowy Polling are probably soft.

   Look at the web sites of the big electricity generators and they all claim similar environmental commitments while still being on the ATO hit list.

   Australia is now a very conservative electorate which is encouraged by elites to consume more and more.

   The electorate is still very fractured with non-event senators getting over the line through the strategic exchange of preferences.

   Hopefully, the Labor Movement can renew itself around the COP21 commitments and push the government towards honest implementation.

   Greg Hunt has a good TV presentation but his address to the National Press Club showed his true ideological colours:

   http://www.greghunt.com.au/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/86/ArticleType/ArticleView/ArticleID/3570/Default.aspx

   All the big polluters have a similar style on their web sites.

8. Are we going places yet?December 19, 2015 at 9:20 am

   Consensus-building is a good start from the Age of the Big Polluters: Market focused politics by leaders who are puppets of big business lobbies with a positive message about their environmental credentials and their concerns for household power bills.

9. Sen Nearly IleDecember 19, 2015 at 9:38 am

   great read denis.(food for thought).
   We have a pre-cyclone clear out where items are put on the verge to be collected by the council (or anyone trolling by) the number of unbroken or easily repaired goods highlight the short-term use and throw away society we have.
   Assuming all rich countries are our equal, enormous energy is wasted by planned obsolescence.
   ps eating our emblems and camels as a positive alternative to veganism?

10. KyranDecember 19, 2015 at 10:44 am

    Surely it can now be accepted that the cost of action will be miniscule when compared with the cost of inaction.
    What causes great confusion to me is the combination of problems all put under the ‘climate change’ umbrella. We have ‘dirty’ power companies that provide ‘cheaper’ energy because their plant and equipment is so old, it no longer factors in their cost scenarios. I believe the term used is ‘stranded assets’.
    Add to that the financial scam depicted by Jess Hill in the Background Briefing report titled “The Big disconnect”, which clearly demonstrated the power companies manipulation of power prices whilst using the removal of ‘carbon pricing’ as an excuse for their manipulations.
    Add to that the reports being gradually released on the Hazelwood fires, the incompetence (at best) of the company that owned it and the government that was meant to be regulating it. These reports have recently become focussed on the costs of reparation (environmental and ongoing medical complaints) and who is going to pay. Not surprisingly, the company can’t afford it and the taxpayer will likely cop the bill. There have been some suggestions of all companies being required to pay a ‘bond’ prior to commencing activities that may have an environmental impact, for which there appears to be little political appetite.
    Add to that the financial trickery that these companies call tax minimisation. This essentially means that they don’t pay taxes so are not even a contributor to the taxpayer funded reparation for their misdeeds.
    Seems to me your article highlights the aspiration of COP21 and the unwilling incompetence of our current government.
    As with so many subjects these days, the bottom line is accountability. These companies are not accountable and our leaders have little appetite to take them on. Thank you, Mr Bright. Take care

11. brisbanejDecember 19, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    The electorate is resistant to brave new ideas and hesitates about implementing COP21 commitments. Let’s hope that some traction can be offered through consensus-building to ease the concerns of conservative sections of the LNP. Most electricity generation is now in the hands of the private sector. Profit making through the use of obsolete equipment is the commercial goal until worn out installations are taken over by multinational networks who will make consumers pay for new technology in their power bills.

12. JohnBDecember 20, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    The LNP have twisted priorities.
    They rush into committing $17Bn on a polluting (Vic, East West) motorway, without waiting for a cost benefit survey, they sign a (coincidentally $17Bn) contract for supply of problem plagued unproven F35 fighter/bomber planes, even without evidence of any immediate threat to Australia’s security, yet we take no substantive action to combat the very real and pressing human existential threat of AGW.

    What if we were spend $17Bn on renewable energy infrastructure instead of F35’s or expanding polluting urban traffic?
    Makes more sense – we will use it for decades, and science says we must urgently stop burning fossil fuels.

    I have made some rough calculations below based on currently available data on the impact of allocating $17Bn to renewable energy – specifically wind generation. (Wind generation was chosen because it has the capacity to supply energy 24 hrs/day.)

    The cost of wind energy is approximately $90 per Mwh – according to article published Jun 23 2015 in ‘The Conversation’ by Dylan McConnell, Research Fellow, University of Melbourne.

    The math…. $17 * 10^9 / $90 = 188 *10^6 Mwh = (approx) 189 TWh of wind power.

    2013 -2014 Australian Energy Statistics
    Total Australian Electricity generation = 248 TWh = 893 PJ
    (Table 4.2)
    Electricity generated from fossil fuels = 211 TWh

    189 TWh ( 189,000 MWh) is almost sufficient capacity to replace all 211 Twh of fossil fuel electricity generating capacity in Australia.
    It is more than enough capacity to eliminate all fossil fuel use in supply of Australia’s normal daily electricity requirements – See Nemwatch for today’s power usage.

    It is do-able if only we had the will.
    I suggest Australia (and the world) needs clean energy much more than it needs expensive fighter jets and yet more disruptive ineffectual urban roadworks.

    Even though solar is roughly twice as expensive/ MWh, if the second $17Bn was spent on subsidising solar PV panel installations we could well achieve another 189TWh of daytime energy capacity installed on consumers homes – of great assistance to the increasing power bills of low income earners.

13. PaulDecember 20, 2015 at 8:39 pm

    Thanks for the excellent article on such an important topic!

    “By the middle of this century we will trigger a runaway climate change – a process beyond our control. What do you do if you have that information? What do you do?” – Dr Steven Chu – Former US Energy Secretary and Nobel Prize Winner.

    Well, we have that information and we must act now. This is real. We can collectively effectively manage this incredible challenge if we work together.

    No matter your political view – we must lobby our leaders to stand together and tackle this issue.

    “Over the next 6 to 10 years, we have an urgent responsibility to decide how this world is going to be in the future” – Christina Figures, Executive Secretary, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    There is a lot that can be done even on an individual level – switch to solar or request green electricity from your provider, review the impact of your diet on the environment, reduce wastage of power.

    There are a lot of inspiring projects and progress being made in renewable technologies, which makes me confident that we have the ability to fix this but do we have the sense of urgency to make change now? This cannot wait!

14. Miriam EnglishDecember 20, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    JohnB, I agree with everything in your post, but I must disagree with one tiny thing which niggles at me. Sorry. You mentioned that solar power only operates during the day. This is a common misconception. While it is true of solar photovoltaic panels, it is not true of solar water heaters, solar space heaters, or solar farms that focus light with mirrors onto a tower which uses molten salt to run a steam-powered generator (I can’t remember if they have a special name). These solar-thermal electricity plants can operate 24 hours. I just needed to point that out. 🙂

    See my link earlier to a giant project to power Morocco with this kind of solar power:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/17/1461055/-Now-THAT-S-how-you-do-solar-energy
    and
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/26/morocco-poised-to-become-a-solar-superpower-with-launch-of-desert-mega-project

    These kind of power plants are being increasingly built in the world’s sunniest places and would be perfectly suited to Australian conditions.

15. JohnBDecember 20, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    Thanks for your reply Miriam.
    My post concentrated on wind and solar photovoltaic because with present technologies it is where one gets the most watts generated per dollar spent; to urgently replace fossil fuel powered electricity we need the maximum renewable electricity generation capacity that can be achieved in the shortest time.

    I did not set out to exclude other cost effective renewable energy sources like domestic/industrial solar hot water storage systems – my objective was to suggest a cost effective way to enable fast phase out of black coal, brown coal and gas from power generation in Australia.
    There are many other still developing technologies that certainly should be pursued and developed, however the present relative cost per KWh of these systems means they will be ancillary to onshore wind and solar PV.

    The solar energy concentrator/accumulator systems that you linked to are upwards of 4x more expensive than onshore wind turbines – and they have ongoing maintenance and technical issues during their service life; not to say they won’t improve as technology marches on.
    This publication sets out some cost comparisons – (Page 106 refers to parabolic/tower solar systems).

    I also did not include hydro – due geographical limitations on viable sites.

    This matter is urgent – we need the massive change and fast; and for that reason we must concentrate on already proven cost effective solutions.

16. JohnBDecember 20, 2015 at 10:46 pm

    Some highly respected scientists are not optimistic about the outcomes of COP21.
    “…“If agreed and implemented, this means bringing down greenhouse gas emissions to net zero within a few decades,” said said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “It is in line with the scientific evidence we presented of what would have to be done to limit climate risks such as weather extremes and sea-level rise.”

    Right now, the main mechanism for reducing emissions are countries’ Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which leave us far short of the 1.5-degree goal that scientists and many vulnerable developing countries are pushing for. We need stronger, short-term action, said Steffen Kallbekken, research director at Cicero:

    “By the time the [INDCs] enter into force in 2020, we will have probably exhausted the entire carbon budget for the 1.5-degree target.”…

    Kevin Anderson for the Tyndal center for climate research was scathing:
    “[The current text] has no reference to levels of carbon peaks, no reference to fossil fuels in text, and the language of neutrality [assumes] we can suck massive amounts of CO2 in the future,” said Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Center for climate change research.

    “We should do research on geoengineering, but should only develop policy assuming that it does not work.” Geoengineering – which is still unproven – should not be assumed, and we don’t need it. The progress of renewables in countries like Germany, China and, increasingly, the United States is showing that strong action can reduce emissions. We just need to scale up – fast.

17. ChrisDecember 21, 2015 at 7:09 am

    More Scientists React to Paris Agreement
    http://climatecrocks.com/2015/12/19/scientists-react-to-paris-agreement/

18. JohnBDecember 21, 2015 at 9:57 am

    Kevin Anderson on Paris Agreement: 13 Dec 2015

    “…However, whilst the 2°C and 1.5°C aspirations of the Paris Agreement are to be wholeheartedly welcomed, the thirty-one page edifice is premised on future technologies removing huge quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere many decades from today. If such highly speculative ‘negative emission technologies’ prove to be unsuccessful then the 1.5°C target is simply not achievable. Moreover, there is only a slim chance of maintaining the global temperature rise to below 2°C.

    In the absence of negative emissions, staying below the 2°C commitment demands levels of reductions in emissions far beyond anything discussed during the Paris negotiations.

    If we are serious about climate change, the 10% of the global population responsible for 50% of total emissions need to make deep and immediate cuts in their use of energy – and hence their carbon emissions. In addition, the huge and growing emissions from aviation and shipping, currently exempt from the Paris negotiations, need to be included for there to be any meaningful control over climate change in line with 2°C. …

    …However and despite this reliance [on negative emissions], there is no direct reference to such technologies throughout the thirty-one-page document….”

19. Human Footprint ChallengeDecember 21, 2015 at 10:26 am

    I linked the manner in which this article links political action against the big polluters to personal commitment.

    Why is the Australian government so eager to tolerate big polluters, tax evaders and conspicuous consumption as our new national symbols?

    Why is there such tolerance of the obesity plague led by soft drink manufacturers and the fast food industries?

20. ChrisDecember 22, 2015 at 7:24 am

    @John B Heh. I was just about to post this Kevin Anderson (Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research) lecture….You should watch it Denis. It puts the requirements of avoiding dangerous climate change in an ‘interesting’ perspective.

    “Kevin Anderson – Delivering on 2°C: evolution or revolution? ”

21. ChrisDecember 22, 2015 at 7:26 am

    Human Footprint Challenge…..Greed, crooks and hypocrites could be the only answer.

22. MBA StudentDecember 27, 2015 at 9:41 am

    Insightful article that reminds us of Australia’s extraordinary environmental impact that is one of the highest in the non-OPEC world and close to the emission levels of the USA.

    For our neo-colonial leaders in Australia, rampant consumerism is a cornerstone of personal freedom.

    The latest emission figures from the Department of the Environment show environmental impact particularly from ageing privatized electricity generators are still increasing as is profit taking by these firms.

    Eventually the electricity units will become so run-down that they can be offered to an international firm to fulfill the emission control standards of a more responsible government: this take-over will bring more rewards to shareholders and more increases in electricity charges to cover the purchase of new technology.

23. Mixed MessagesDecember 27, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    It’s a long stretch of the imagination from Australia’s preaching at the Paris Climate Conference to support for coal exports from the Galilee Basin. How could this high cost mining project be justifiable at a time of falling coal prices?

24. Sustainable AustraliaDecember 28, 2015 at 9:50 am

    I like the idea of consensus-building on emission controls and environmental planning as it must ultimately push the LNP into accepting a different style approach to public policy to overcome the damage wrought by consumerism.

    Who really wants a society where every Australian leaves an environmental footprint that has generated 20 tonnes of emissions?

    As the article tells everyone, this is close to the US emission levels and one of the worst the worst in the Non-Opec world.

    Surely, this is unsustainable to the most die-hard LNP stalwart?

    If the LNP is really into Australian conservatism, it must want to protect environment and heritage?

25. Patricia RyanDecember 29, 2015 at 9:22 am

    We must act now! Looking forward to a more sustainable future.

26. Sustainable New YearDecember 29, 2015 at 10:38 am

    A welcome article with an optimistic note for the New Year ahead.

    Until the political debate resumes in February, let’s work on sustainable lifestyles which have certain positive outcomes.

    As the article says, it’s the political elites who design the templates are enacted by the media, advertising and mainstream politics.

27. Challenges AheadJanuary 6, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Comparative data bases available support this interpretation of Australia’s high environmental impact based on Carbon dioxide emissions to 2013.

    EU Edgar Data Base (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2013

    The World Bank data contains mere projections for the period 2011-15:
    (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC)

    Australia is one of the worst per capita emitters of CO2 at 16.9 tonnes which is well down from a peak of 20.2 tonnes in 2005 during the pre-GFC period.

    This 16.9 tonnes represents about two thirds of all emissions when emissions from other industrial wastes and methane largely from farm animals is added. This takes Australia’s emissions to 25.35 tonnes per person.

    While pillaging Julia Gillard for the introduction of the carbon tax, the LNP is keep to take all the credit for emission reductions since 2005,

    I do hope that some accord can be achieved between the ALP and the Greens on climate activism as various approaches can work and the idea of a new carbon tax is politically toxic for the ALP.

    Winning one or two more inner city seats in Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne for the Greens will not defeat the LNP and they should call a truce on the new political sectarianism which had followed the elevation Richard De Natale to the leadership.