Tag Archives: Climate change

The price of solar in India could fall below that of coal within 5 years

November 21, 2015
Written by: The AIM Network
9 Replies

By Dr Anthony Horton

According to a KPMG report published this month, the price of solar power has declined more than that expected by many analysts since January this year. In India currently, the price of solar is within 15% of coal process on a levelised basis. In the report titled “The Rising Sun-Disruption of the horizon”, KPMG contends that while the current price of solar doesn’t include grid integration costs, even after taking them into consideration, solar would still be competitive with coal. By 2020, they forecast that the price of solar power could be approximately 10% less than that of coal.

By 2020, KPMG forecasts a generation price of INR 4.2/kWh and INR 3.59 kWh by 2025 (at today’s prices), and that wind and solar generation could constitute 20% of India’s energy supply mix by 2025. The biggest potential factor in solar power pricing in India could be rooftop solar, especially if it is supported by the continuing evolution of storage technologies. KPMG predicts that rooftop solar could provide 10 GW within 5 years and 49 GW within 10 years, and could mitigate as much as 275 million tonnes of carbon emissions in 2025. Thus it would make a sizeable contribution to India’s INDC which included a 33-35% reduction in emissions intensity of its GDP by 2030 from 2005 levels.

In addition to price forecasts, the KPMG report pointed to the need for stakeholders to understand the possible extent of the impact of falling solar prices on the coal industry, and to the need to face it. A new planning paradigm that takes into account a significant renewable energy input scenario (including storage and smart grids) going forward was needed in India, and the report also suggested that the Government focus on bolstering planning policy, institutions, resources and protocols. Appropriate incentives for investment in the integration of solar into the grid and balancing services should be implemented early, and consideration should be given to storage technologies being promoted in a similar fashion to the way solar power was encouraged through the National Solar Mission in 2009.

In flagging the significant competition utilities are likely to face from distributed rooftop solar, KPMG suggests they get into rooftop solar themselves and develop new revenue models based on the relationships they have with existing customers. If they don’t confront the competition, they could face losing customers and may need to rely on subsidies to remain solvent. They will also need to examine their power procurement portfolio and look at how they contract incremental capacities. The cost structures of new capacities should be scrutinised closely prior to committing.

On the basis that solar power in India would be at a sufficient scale from 2022, the coal sector would come under pressure. To meet that challenge, the sector should focus on cost efficiency and flexibility, according to KPMG. Imported coal prices could be influenced by a number of factors including slowing growth in China, energy efficiency (on the demand side) and a fall in the commodities cycle. KPMG further recommended that Coal India Limited conduct a study of long run costs and add flexibility to its operations so it can adjust to different demand and price scenarios as they arise.

A framework for encouraging private investment in ancillary services needs to be urgently addressed, according to KPMGs report. The solar sector represents significant investment opportunities, including storage solutions, demand response and grid balancing, however the significant ramp up needs are such that the availability of sufficient domestic capital may represent a challenge. International funds and domestic bond markets should be investigated by investors, according to KPMG. Given that solar is approximately four times as capital intensive as coal on a per kWh basis, a global economic recession could have a potentially significant impact-not just in terms of the availability of capital but also in terms of falling fossil fuel prices which would make solar potentially less attractive. If shale gas or clean coal technologies become more prominent they could also pose a threat.

In KPMGs opinion, solar power has the potential to be a significant part of India’s energy mix in the next decade. Solar is clean and will reduce coal consumption over time, which will help India’s fight against climate change. Rooftop solar can take the pressure off distribution grids, which are of lower quality especially in rural areas according to KPMG. The continued evolution of storage technologies could lead to further development of electric vehicles in India, which in turn would reduce oil consumption and could possibly increase energy self-reliance. From a global point of view, reduced oil consumption and storage technologies offer the potential for increased energy security which is critical for every nation.

About the author: Anthony Horton holds a PhD in Environmental Science, a Bachelor of Environmental Science with Honours and a Diploma of Carbon Management. He has a track record of delivering customised solutions in Academia, Government, the Mining Industry and Consulting based on the latest wisdom and his scientific background and experience in Climate/Atmospheric Science and Air Quality. Anthony’s work has been published in internationally recognised scientific journals and presented at international and national conferences, and he is currently on the Editorial Board of the Journal Nature Environment and Pollution Technology. Anthony also blogs on his own site, The Climate Change Guy.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Extreme event attribution is turning up the heat on climate change deniers

November 9, 2015
Written by: The AIM Network
1 Reply

By Dr Anthony Horton

According to a recently published report by the American Meteorological Society (AMS) entitled “Explaining Extreme Events of 2014 From a Climate Perspective”, there is increasing evidence of human influence on climate changing the risk profile of events including the 2014 forest fires in California and snow storms in Nepal.

In terms of the California forest fires, the analysis included in the report showed that drought was in part responsible for the frequency of such events. Although the exact mechanism linking the fires and higher temperatures couldn’t be identified, the authors showed that global warming was likely to exacerbate both the risk and intensity of such events in future.

Analyses of heat events conducted in recent years continued to show the impact of human induced climate change, according to the AMS report. The report examined events in Argentina, Europe, China, Korea, Australia and both the northern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and identified a climate change signal. Of the 22 other studies reviewed by the AMS, only one discussing heat events couldn’t detect a climate change signal.

The winter storms in North America in 2013/14 were less frequent than normal along the West Coast, and more frequent than normal in the region from central Canada to the Midwest United States. The storm activity was linked to atypical winds in the tropical Pacific and not to human induced climate change. The daily temperature variability over the Midwest and Eastern United States was found not to be influenced by human induced change. Seasonal extremes were also not unusual in the historic records. However, seasonal mean cold conditions in the greater Upper Midwest in 2013/14 are between 20 and 100 times less likely than in the 19th century as a result of long term higher temperatures.

Drought received significant attention in the report due to the complexity of meteorological, hydrological and societal drivers that play a part in the phenomenon. The results of analyses of drought events could vary greatly dependent on whether temperature or rainfall was examined. An analysis of the significantly lower rainfall associated with the severe drought in Southeastern Brazil could not find any human influence.

Two analyses of the drought in East Africa used different methods and reached different conclusions regarding the role of human induced climate change in drought intensity. While human induced climate change wasn’t linked to the Middle East and central-southwest Asia, lower rainfall as a result of climate change was linked to the drought in Syria.

Following an analysis of the tropical cyclone season in the vicinity of Hawaii, the AMS report concluded that the events were substantially more likely as a result of a combination of human induced factors and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The transition of Hurricane Gonzalo into a very strong extratropical storm that affected Europe was not found to have been influenced by human activity. The AMS report highlighted the importance of the limitations of models used to analyse such events, and in particular the extent to which they capture and process the relevant environmental data.

In addition, the authors of the report pointed out that a conclusion of no human influence may result from the chosen methodology not being able to detect it, or insufficient observations being used. Even though the report highlighted the importance of examining each analysis to maximise the effectiveness of attribution results, it was clear that with respect to investigations of the extreme weather around the world, they were increasingly likely to show a detectable human influence.

As a scientist who is interested in how methodologies evolve, become more rigorous and lead to results that are widely applicable in society, I was particularly engaged in the report’s discussion of future directions. The authors stated that event attribution could become more relevant to society by taking into account additional human induced drivers of extreme events above and beyond typical ones. The flooding in the Canadian prairies was reported to be more likely as a result of human impacts on rainfall and land use changes that influence the mechanisms of drainage.

The Jakarta floods may have also been influenced by land use change from urban development and land subsidence. These examples emphasize pathways by which human activity can increase the regional risk of extreme weather events. Information regarding the ways in which human activities can impact extreme events is critical for decision making.

In concluding the report, the authors highlighted that methodologies used in event attribution have come a long way such that they are now well established and could be used routinely. Being able to use such methodologies is this way can be a tremendous “shot in the arm” for scientists, insurance companies and corporations who are each looking at climate change risks and opportunities from different perspectives.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Australian Government review of vehicle emissions has a now familiar aroma of disappointment

November 5, 2015
Written by: The AIM Network
Leave a reply

Br Dr Anthony Horton

According to a Press Release from Federal Member for Bradfield and Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects Paul Fletcher, a “whole of Government” approach will be used to address vehicle emissions with the establishment of a Ministerial Forum which will be supported by a working group.

The working group will be examine the implementation of Euro 6 (a Regulation that reduces the emissions from light duty vehicles-cars and vans), fuel quality standards, fuel efficiency measures (CO₂) for light vehicles and vehicle emissions testing.

In addition to the future implementation of Euro 6, fuel efficiency measures for light vehicles, fuel quality standards and vehicle emission testing standards in line with those implemented by international Regulators, the terms of reference for the working group include consulting with Industry stakeholders and coordinating work that is already underway regarding Government measures under the National Clean Air Agreement, the Emissions Reduction Fund and Safeguard mechanisms relating to transport initiatives and future infrastructure to support new vehicles.

The working group will report to the Ministerial Forum by the end of this Financial Year on options for managing fuel quality standards and measurement reporting standards for air pollutants under the National Clean Air Agreement. By 31 March 2017 the working group will report to the Forum on a draft implementation plan for new measures. Given that the current Government has committed to announcing measures to meet Australia’s 2030 climate change targets in 2017, it is shaping as a very busy year indeed with respect to Climate related matters.

The Ministerial Forum will facilitate consultation between Environment Minister Greg Hunt, Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia Josh Frydenberg, Major Projects Minister Paul Fletcher (Forum Chair) and Industry to reduce motor vehicle emissions on Australian roads. Minister Fletcher stated that Australia already has tough emissions standards which ensures that air quality is good by international standards and the Government is taking Direct Action on climate change through a number of initiatives.

Australian Government policy is to bring vehicle emission standards with those developed by the United Nations. The recent adoption of Euro 5 vehicle emissions standards for light and heavy vehicles in Australia and consideration of Euro 6 was evidence of this according to Minister Fletcher.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt reiterated that while a number of programs were already in place which target vehicle emissions, the Government would continue working to reduce them further, including an Independent Review of the Fuel Quality Standards which will report before the end of this Financial Year.

I find it “interesting” (heavy sarcasm noted) that successive Federal Governments of both persuasions in Australia continue to promote bringing the population on a journey focusing on reducing vehicle emissions using initiatives including the Green Vehicle Guide and mandatory fuel efficiency labelling and at the same time seemingly ignore the personal exposure of drivers who refuel their vehicles at petrol stations. Fuel quality and vehicle engine efficiency are valid and important aspects, however surely the point of sale (e.g. petrol bowser) for that fuel should also receive some attention?

I wrote my PhD on personal exposure to benzene (an aromatic compound that is added to petrol to replace lead) with a focus on the lifetime excess leukemia risk of refuelling a vehicle once a week over a 70-year average lifetime. Therefore, I happen to know something about the significant excess risk that this one activity poses in comparison to others that individuals would probably do on a weekly basis without thinking too much about either the activity itself or what they are being exposed to as a result.

I wrote a blog on that earlier this year if you are interested in finding out more. You don’t have to worry-its not a lesson in chemistry or industrial hygiene however I’m pretty sure you’ll understand why we need to think a little more about some of the activities we do regularly. It may also cause you to ponder why Governments continue to ignore it from both an emissions and personal exposure perspective.

On this basis, I question how successive Governments continue to pick and choose which initiatives they will align with those of international counterparts under the premise of working to minimise what they label “noxious” emissions. In terms of minimising exposures during refuelling, vapour recovery at the petrol bowser has been in place in the US and Europe for decades and therefore Australia clearly has a long way to go. I am also growing tired of hearing that New South Wales is looking into implementing vapour recovery systems at the bowser (called Stage 2)-this statement has been trotted out for years.

I commend New South Wales for their persistence in this matter, however the lack of action from other states or from successive Federal Governments causes me to question their respective level of commitment to “noxious” emissions. If they intend to mention their new approach to vehicle emissions as part of their commitment at the upcoming Paris meeting and someone begins to probe a little deeper, the Australian delegation could well face questions as to why refuelling emissions aren’t part of such a review. Based on what I learnt from my PhD, I would certainly be asking such a question (among many others).

This article was originally published on The Climate Change Guy.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Bill Shorten takes climate change seriously, so guess who isn’t happy with him?

November 4, 2015
Written by: Roswell
24 Replies

‘The frontline of climate change’ was the appealing subject of the email I received from Labor this morning. It read:

We often talk about what effects climate change will have on our economy, or on agricultural land, or how many more natural disasters we’re likely to suffer.

What we talk about less is how climate change is affecting some of our closest neighbours right now. And it’s devastating. The Papua New Guinea and island nations in the pacific are facing real, existential threats from climate change.

Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek and Richard Marles are visiting these islands this week and talking to people about life at the frontline of climate change.

This is an issue that isn’t going to go away – we’re likely to see and hear a lot more about it as the International Climate Change Conference in Paris approaches at the end of this month. We’ll keep you informed as much as we can.

Now you’d think that’d be a good thing. Here we have a group of politicians and a political party taking climate change seriously and placing it front and centre on the table. And added to that, they are engaging with counties that are most likely to be the first victims of rapid change.

In most countries this concern and their initiative would be applauded. But they might just happen to be countries where the Murdoch media doesn’t have the same influence as it does here. Instead of it being applauded, we see it derided. Andrew Bolt of The Herald Sun led the way:

LABOR leader Bill Shorten will test the honesty of journalists this week when he tours Pacific Islands he claims are drowning.

Will they dare report that most of the islands are in fact growing or stable? Or will they again prove they cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the global warming scare?

Shorten and deputy Tanya Plibersek plan to visit Kiribati and the Marshall Islands.

As the gullible Sydney Morning Herald announced: “Labor wants to put climate change at the centre of public debate in the run-up to a major United Nations summit in Paris later this year.

Sister paper The Daily Telegraph could only feature the story as one that will see ‘Bill Shorten . . . fly 16,000km on a private jet . . .’ and mock him with the image above with the caption ‘Labor overboard with private jet tour’, while all that news.com.au wanted to tell us was that Bill Shorten danced awkwardly while in Kiribati with suggestions that it might give us a good reason to laugh at him.

One would think that the Murdoch media don’t like the idea of someone taking climate change seriously.

Personally, I’ve had it up to my teeth with the Murdoch media. How can any important issue or any non-Coalition politician get a fair run in this country while the Murdoch media has so much power and so many right-wing fanatics spreading the Murdoch gospel?

The Great Hoax, Climate Change or the GST?

November 4, 2015
Written by: Rossleigh
16 Replies

Personally, I think that maths is overvalued in schools. Now I’m not talking numeracy, I’m talking trigonometry, surds, quadratic equations and a whole range of things that most people won’t use past school. Fine for those who are going on to particular fields but a large number of students would be better off if they’d never had to struggle through them.

Of course, if you disagree with me, it’s not because you have a different perspective. It’s not because you think that maybe it’s a good idea to expose all people to maths because it’s good for them to be challenged. No, it’s because you’re gullible and a victim of the gigantic hoax that the maths teachers have invented. For a start, numbers aren’t even real. As for Pythagoras, not only did he believe that beans were souls migrating from one life to the next, he and his followers believed that numbers had magical powers. So, if you want to disagree with me, don’t cite a maths teacher or anyone who believes in maths teaching, don’t trust academics, they’re all part of the conspiracy. The best people to trust are your friends and family.

Yep, I sound ridiculous. While there is an argument to be had about how maths should be taught and whether it needs to be compulsory past a certain level, the idea that it’s a “hoax” and that you can rely on information from your friends and family makes me sound well, at least a little unbalanced.

Yet, this seems to be what the CSIRO’s survey on climate change revealed. People who didn’t believe in climate change found their friends and family their most trusted source. While I can support a degree of sceptism about what experts tell us, it strikes me that there are certain areas where the average person won’t have the necessary skills to be able to make an informed decision. Nobody says that they took their X-ray home and after everyone they know had a look at it, they decided that the doctor’s interpretation was wrong. In the case of climate change, many are arguing that they don’t even need to see the X-ray.

OK, there are “experts” on both sides of the climate change debate and it’s interesting to see how the media presents them. It was fine when Cardinal Pell gave his opinion, but Pope Francis should stick to religion. Anyone with a science degree or a couple of years at university hanging around the cafe is presented as an expert on climate change without much sceptism by the media and there’s no attempt to evaluate their credentials. . We have the absurd scenario where we’re asked to believe that a group of scientists decided that they’d find it easier to get funding to investigate something invented, and that rather than make actuall discoveries, they’d rather just take this funding and spend their time making stuff up. However, thanks to some intrepid physicists and geologists – often funded by fossil fuel companies – this hoax is being exposed.

Now, I’m not saying that the prevailing wisdom on climate change couldn’t be wrong. I’m simply saying that when one suggests that scientists have dishonest motives, one should be prepared to have one’s own motives scrutinised. Why climate scientists are supposedly part of a “hoax” and not just simply wrong is what gets me. For years, the cause of ulcers was misunderstood, but we don’t suggest that was because of some conspiracy to stop people stressing or eating spicy foods.

But speaking of hoaxes, how do you like this GST?

Remember when it came in?

No, I’m not talking about how “never ever” simply meant not until after the next election – although I suppose if that’s the case, then the assurances by Howard and Costello that it could never go up because, well, all the states had to agree and could you ever see a time when all the governments would agree to receiving more revenue, lasted a lot longer than we could have expected. That was “never” and not “never ever”, so I’m surprised that it’s taken so long before someone put it on the table.

Mm, I guess it’s easy to see why people don’t trust the “experts” and would rather listen to Uncle Frank and the guy next door.

Now, ignoring the politics, I can see an argument for putting up the GST. While the converntional argument is that it’s regressive and hurts the poor more than the rich, this needn’t be the case.

In the first instance, the poor have a limited amount to spend and so any increase in the GST won’t hit them in total terms as much as someone who spends more. If someone only spends twenty five thousand in a year, then a five percent increase can’t cost them more than $1250, whereas someone spending $100,000 could be hit for $5000. If the current exemptions on fresh food, education and health are included then it’s even less than the $1250. If you raise pensions and allowances by enough, as well as increasing the tax free threshold, you can compensate those who the five percent increase will affect.

Secondly, while income tax can be minimised by various accounting tricks to minimise one’s income, the GST is more difficult to avoid. I may have used the Cayman Islands to avoid the tax on my business, but when I buy my Jaguar, I’ll be hit for an extra five percent.

And finally, the extra revenue should enable the states to continue to provide services from which should benefit those who don’t have private health insurance or go to Xavier where they learn to be grateful that they don’t go to some “povo” school in Pakenham. (Hey, I know it was just one individual and private schools don’t really encourage that sort of class warfare thing. They just constantly tell you what a great education you’re getting and how their school is the best in the world. Why a student would think that government schools are “povo” is a mystery to them …).

So, I can see that a rise in the GST could be a good thing all round – even if it is the Liberal Party proposing it.

But then, I’m also gullible enough to fall for the climate change hoax.

Why would anybody want to re-elect this government?

November 3, 2015
Written by: Roswell
40 Replies

Voters must have an intense dislike of asylum seekers.

The latest Morgan Poll is great for the government, which sees them leading the opposition 56.5/43.5.

Taking away personalities (ie, disregarding that many people obviously like Malcolm Turnbull), it really is hard to see what the government has going for them.

If re-elected, they will make life harder or more miserable for near on all of the population. “Yes we can” says the poster. And yes they will. For example, if re-elected they:

will be doing nothing to address climate change
will possibly increase the GST, costing each family about $4,000 a year
will continue to ignore science of any description
will be doing nothing about housing affordability
will be doing nothing about the high unemployment levels
will be providing us with internet speeds that are the worst in the world
will continue to tighten the screws for people on welfare or income support
will still be giving billions to the mining companies
they will do nothing about the huge gap in wealth inequality (quite the opposite, they will continue to pander to the rich)
will do nothing to help the disadvantaged in our society (they will probably cut funding even further)
will continue to beat around the bush as far as same-sex marriage goes
have intentions of changing the media ownership laws which will give Murdoch even more control of our media (and they’ll probably cut funding to the ABC even further)
will continue to demonise innocent people (Gillian Triggs is a good example)
will make it more costly to see a doctor or a specialist
if economists are correct, the government will lead us into a recession
will keep ripping coal out of our beautiful country – coal that nobody wants
will make tertiary education unaffordable
will strip away our citizenship if (as a dual citizen) we do as much as destroy a government owned coffee table
will spy on our every movement
will jail anybody who dares report on atrocities committed by the government
. . . and on and on the list goes

But . . . they will keep telling us that they’ve stopped the boats and we’re safe from all those murderous would-be terrorists that did sneak through because they’re all locked up now on Nauru or Manus Island and with any luck they will either rot to death or be sent to a country with an unpronounceable name where they can perish without our knowledge.

And no matter how much misery this Coalition government casts over our own lives we will vote for them because of their asylum seekers policies.

And it’s got me beat.

China illustrates the true meaning of Direct Action on climate

October 29, 2015
Written by: The AIM Network
7 Replies

By Dr Anthony Horton

With 37 days to go until the Paris Climate Change conference in December, a report released by the Paulson Institute in Beijing on Friday October 23 outlined a plan to accelerate the economic and environmental improvement transition in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region in China, which last year was home to 130 million people and accounted for 10% of China’s GDP.

In addition to industrial areas, modern urban centres and districts trying to resist urban sprawl and maintain their rural character, the region is also called home by the largest steel and iron manufacturers in China, and some of the most polluted cities in the world. The steel, coke and cement industries are the largest greenhouse gas emitters in China.

According to a story in the weekend edition of the China Daily newspaper (24/25 October) which discussed the highlights of the report, the region is well placed to transition on the basis of its good infrastructure and relatively easy access to wind and solar power.

Former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson stated in an interview on the release of the report that in his opinion the next Five Year Plan (commencing in 2016) will be very ambitious and widely acclaimed. Figuring out how to make the Plan a reality will represent the biggest challenge though, and transitioning from “dirty” to “clean” plants without stifling growth was achievable but will take some time. Paulson also highlighted the huge opportunities that such a transition presents for international companies based on the size of the market for environmental goods and services.

Deputy Director of the Beijing Municipal Commission of Development and Reform, Wang Jiahui commented that it was possible to control air pollution, given the emissions reduction campaign conducted during APEC China last year. She also stated that nineteen coal fired power plants in Tianjin will meet the emission standards that gas fired stations are required to meet by the end of this year.

Liu Bozheng, also a Deputy Director of the Beijing Municipal Commission of Development and Reform announced that 1200 high energy consumption and highly polluting companies will be closed by 2017 rather than relocated to other regions. Four significant thermoelectric centres have been closed in Beijing and numerous coal fired boilers have been converted to gas boilers. A number of energy efficiency measures have also been implemented in Beijing as part of revamping more than 40 million square metres of office space.

Rather than simply revitalising industries in decline, the report recommended that City officers should identify opportunities for new growth industries. With respect to Hebei, officers should prioritise policies that promote renewable energy, energy efficiency and have strong growth and job creation potential, according to the Paulson Institute report.

I read the China Daily story on the flight from Beijing to Perth on Sunday, and have to admit that it brought to mind many of the conversations I had over the week I was in China. I was invited to speak on the role of innovation in the environmental protection space at the China Mining Conference and Exhibition 2015 in Tianjin, and in addition to speaking to a range of people in my session, I also spoke to many others over the three days of the conference.

After reflecting on the conference and the few days I spent in Beijing before and after, I left China with four main impressions. Firstly, there is an appreciation of the scale of transition that is required. There is also an understanding that the Green Mining Standard (initially conceived by the Ministry of Land and Resources in 2007) and the Guidance to Implement the National Mineral Resource Program, Develop Green Mining and Construct a Green Mine issued in 2010 (which essentially established a defined Green Mining Standard) is flexible enough to accommodate new knowledge and innovative approaches.

The Green Mining Standard takes into account nine operational aspects-operating legally, good practices, the efficient use of resources, technological innovation, limiting releases of wastes, environmental protection, reclamation, a harmonious relationship with the community and a good culture within the company.

Third, there is a willingness to listen to adopt learnings from international mining settings, and lastly (but by no means least), there is an optimism regarding what can be achieved in the short, medium and long term.

I am also heartened by the singularity of the messages I heard from Governments and Mining companies in China with respect to the need to protect the environments in which mining takes place as well as nearby ecosystems (which are linked in some way to those mined areas) as far as practicable and the importance of clear legislation and policies which facilitate that protection.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Malcolm’s test

October 24, 2015
Written by: Kaye Lee
69 Replies

In six weeks’ time, we will see if Malcolm Turnbull is a leader of substance or a snake oil salesman.

You have to admire his courage in deciding to personally attend the climate change talks in Paris but if he tries to push the Greg Hunt propaganda, he will get called out on it. Some 150 of the 200 or so countries attending have submitted their plans to move to a low carbon future and I doubt they will take kindly to spin.

Both the IMF and the World Bank, along with a growing number of world leaders, are calling for a price on carbon but Malcolm promised the Nationals and the right of his party that he wouldn’t do that.

As recently as July, we had two Western Australian Liberal MPs calling for an inquiry into the evidence of human influence on climate change.

“I’m open to being convinced but the data and the evidence that I’ve seen [on climate change] thus far certainly I don’t find compelling,” said Dennis Jensen. “You get the appeal to consensus when the data and the evidence is weak and it’s an appeal to authority rather than examining the data and the evidence.”

Dr Jensen said he was not alone within the party, and that there were “at least” 10 MPs who shared his view that the Government should not sign up to emissions cuts without a parliamentary inquiry.

We have Cory Bernardi whose argument runs along the lines of “Well, the Earth’s climate changes all the time, always has, always will and this happened well before we came along burning fossil fuels. Oh and by the way the world stopped warming since 1998 and I just saw an article the other day saying Chlorofluorocarbons were the real culprit of warming not CO2.”

Senator Fierravanti-Wells reminds us that CO2 is plant food which I assume means she thinks increased levels will be good for agriculture.

And then there’s George Christensen who, when addressing the Heartland Institute last year, said “The weather and climate in Australia has not changed in the last century but a new religious interpretation has arisen since then. When we are in a flood, they tell us ‘too much rain is a sign, more hurricanes is a sign, fewer hurricanes is a sign, the sky is blue – it’s a sign, gravity – it’s a sign’.”

The most strident critic of carbon pricing and the man who worked tirelessly to bring it down, Barnaby Joyce, is being touted as our next leader of the Nationals and Deputy Prime Minister.

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology said this month that the El Nino was now on course to challenge the 1997-98 event as the strongest on record, and was not expected to peak until late this year.

September was not only the seventh month so far this year to set a new record for heat, it was also the most anomalously hot month in 135 years of data, NOAA said and predictions are that 2015 will easily eclipse heat records in previous years.

Malcolm is going to have to explain why we are approving huge new coal mines and, with China and India both looking to cut coal imports, it is unlikely the ‘lift them out of poverty’ excuse will wash on the international stage.

Will he defend the Direct Action Plan that he previously described as “bullshit” and prohibitively expensive?

In an interview with the Guardian, Turnbull said “If something isn’t working as well as you want, chuck it out. I’m not afraid of people saying, it’s a backdown, or a backflip, an agile government is prepared to abandon policies that don’t work.”

We shall see.

Global fossil fuel divestment a tsunami of change

October 12, 2015
Written by: The AIM Network
3 Replies

By Dr Anthony Horton

According to a report published by Arabella Advisors, since Climate Week in September last year more than 250 institutions and 1300 individuals have joined the global fossil fuel divestment and clean energy investment movement. The scale of the increase in divestment over the last 13 months is indeed significant-growing from $50 billion to $2.6 trillion (eg. a 50 fold increase).

There has also been a significant broadening of sectors pledging to divest. Last year, foundations, universities, faith-based organisations and NGOs were leading the movement. Now, large pension funds and private sector companies hold more than 90% of the combined assets of those who have committed to divest.

The massive growth in divestment is in part being driven by an awareness that climate change poses a risk to investment portfolios. Citigroup, HSBC, Mercer, the International Energy Agency, Bank of England and Carbon Tracker Initiative have reported evidence of a significant (and now quantifiable) risk to portfolios that include fossil fuels when the world is increasingly constrained by carbon.

Historically, the United States was the focus of the divestment movement, however divestment now covers virtually the whole world. Last year, nearly 80% of organisations that divested were based in the United States. Currently, just under 60% of organisations that divest are based there. Significantly, divesting organisations now represent nearly 650 million people around the world.

Last year, global investment in clean energy reached $310 billion, and many organisations are also committing to invest in solutions to climate change. Approximately $785 billion in assets are now held by organisations and individuals that have pledge to divest from fossil fuels and invest in clean energy.

Faith communities are also making a very strong case for the moral responsibility of acting on climate change and providing access to clean energy for the world’s poor. Faith leaders are demanding meaningful climate change actions and they are also divesting their own assets. To date nearly 130 faith based organisations with $24 billion in assets have committed to divest.

Commitments from universities have almost tripled since last year, with 40 institutions and $130 billion in assets pledging to divest. Prominent universities including Georgetown, Oxford and the University of California have committed in the last year, with the latter committing its entire $98 billion portfolio.

The California General Assembly recently voted to divest its public employee pension funds (worth $476 billion) from companies that get more than 50% of their revenue from coal mining. Providence Rhode Island, the City of Newcastle (Australia) and the Government of the ACT are notable examples.

More than 110 Foundations with over $10 billion in assets have also committed to divest from fossil fuels since September 2014.

Divestment is one mechanism in an organisation’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) tool kit; as significant as the movement is, it is important to remember that there are a number of other strategies available from a CSR perspective including carbon pricing and emission reduction targets. Carbon pricing is a very well-known strategy which has revolutionised business operations and procurement in a number of countries and industries.

Evidence is growing that carbon pricing in some shape or form is one basis upon which decisions are being made as to the procurement of goods and services. Those corporations that provide goods and services and have implemented internal carbon pricing have an advantage over their competitors, and being a market based instrument, that advantage may grow more significant over time.

Emission reduction targets-based on what science currently tells us-are another mechanism available to corporations for inclusion in their CSR tool kit. Analysis by the We Mean Business (WMB) Coalition shows that there are a range of ways a science based reduction target can be determined.

The first method is entitled the 3% solution-based on the United States’ corporate sector’s need to reduce emissions by 3% on average each year from 2010 to 2020 in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. Businesses that act now can save $US 190 billion in 2020. If they wait until 2020 to start, corporations will have to cut emissions by 10% per year to maintain the correct trajectory for 2050.

The second method-entitled Cutting absolute emissions-involves corporations reducing emissions in line with IPCC recommendations (a reduction of 41-72% by 2050 of 2010 levels). This method isn’t sector or region specific, and importantly a 41-72% reduction effectively means there is still a 1 in 3 chance global warming won’t be kept under 2°C.

Value added approaches link a corporation’s carbon emissions to their contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As a corporation’s contribution to GDP increase, the emission reductions need to keep pace. These approaches can be implemented in developed and developing countries, are flexible and reasonably simple to implement. However, they don’t necessarily account for differences in sectors.

Lastly, the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach (SDA) allocates a carbon budget to each sector that is linked to the IPCC recommendations. Corporations in each sector can base targets on their contribution to their sector’s total activity and on their emissions intensity relative to their sector’s overall emissions intensity. It is a new method, however it should give a more accurate picture of the extent to which corporations need to maintain the 2°C ceiling. Being sector based, it also makes more sense for business.

Whichever method corporations choose to set emission reduction targets once they have considered their individual circumstances, the important point is that they are setting them in the first place. Along with divestment in fossil fuels and investment in clean energy, these mechanisms illustrate that corporations understand the challenges and opportunities that climate change presents. It is also somewhat illustrative of the need for Government to establish the policy framework and then get out of the way and let corporations do what they do best.

This article was originally published on The Climate Change Guy.

Why a 4 degree global temperature increase is the new game in town

October 10, 2015
Written by: The AIM Network
4 Replies

By Dr Anthony Horton

Numerous recent initiatives intend to precipitate action on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the lead up to the Paris Climate Summit, which is now less than 2 months away. In recent weeks, approximately 2000 people and 400 organisations have made commitments to cease investments in fossil fuel producing companies. Countries were asked to nominate actions they would undertake to reduce GHG emissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by October 1.

A US Clean Power Plan which was announced in August this year could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power stations by 870 million tonnes by 2030 (equivalent of taking 166 million cars off the road). China has committed to peak emissions by 2030, and there are indications that emissions may peak before that. Two weeks ago on September 25, China announced that a national carbon emissions trading scheme would commence in 2017. Shortly after that, Brazil announced a 43% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030.

When the Paris Climate Summit begins, the parties negotiating a deal need to consider the extent to which global warming is already occurring. Global carbon dioxide emissions in 2012 were 58% higher than they were in 1990 and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from approximately 340 parts per million (ppm) in 1980 to nearly 400ppm today. It is a commonly held belief that in order to limit warming to 2°C the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must stay below 1 trillion tonnes.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we were more than half way to 1 trillion tonnes in 2011 with a total amount of 515 billion tonnes in the atmosphere. If global greenhouse gas emissions continue at the rate of 140 billion tonnes each year, temperatures may rise by up to 4.5°C by 2100. Even if each country fully honours its Paris pledge, it is possible that global temperatures may increase by 3.5°C by then.

Global average temperatures are approximately 0.8°C higher than before the Industrial Revolution and a recent study in the journal Science showed that a suspected warming hiatus between 1998 and 2012 didn’t occur-the cooler temperatures arose from measurements from ocean buoys rather than ships. A subsequent study also found flaws in the statistical modelling in the research that pointed to the hiatus.

The world’s oceans are absorbing most of the heat which is being added to the Earth’s climate system. Arctic sea ice coverage in summer has reduced by more than 40% over the past 40 years, and mean sea levels have risen by approximately 20cm since 1880 and could rise by up to 1 metre more by 2100. The Kiribati Government has recently purchased land in Fiji to accommodate residents in the case of flooding.

Given that fresh water is less dense than salt water, melting sheets of ice interrupt oceanic circulation patterns. It is possible that Europe’s climate may cool slightly as a result of the Atlantic meridional driving cold salt water into the deep ocean and warm water northward. The changes in ocean currents may also be shifting jet streams and altering storm patterns.

According to Simon Lewis from University College London, forest fires in Indonesia could release up to 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. Recent US fires have consumed more than 2 million hectares of forest. Alaska fared worst due to soot from the fires darkening the ice and reducing its ability to reflect solar radiation away from the Earth.

The Arctic region is reportedly warming twice as fast as the rest of the Earth, and if the permafrosts (that store 1,700 Gigatonnes or 1,700 billion tonnes of carbon) thaw out, huge amounts of methane will be released. The big problem with that is the global warming potential of methane is 25 times that of carbon dioxide.

In a paper recently published in Nature Climate Change, researchers from Universities of Cambridge and Colorado estimated that the economic impact of both methane and carbon dioxide being released could be as high as 0.7% of global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2200 using environmental models. Their research did however include a high level of uncertainty.

A little more than a week ago Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney warned that measures necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change in the long term could result in huge losses in the shorter term by rendering oil, coal and gas essentially untouchable.

See more on the 4 degree warming scenario here.

I have to say I admire Christiana Figueres’ persistence in urging immediate action-seemingly on a weekly basis. As overseer of the Paris Climate Summit in December she has an unenviable task in obtaining an unprecedented global agreement. Her task is not made any easier given the justification with which some countries are defending their Paris commitments (despite considerable pressure from others) and their apparent lack of understanding that we are all residents of the one Earth.

Most developed countries understand that the old “business as usual” approach simply won’t cut it anymore and that they have a responsibility to take the needs of people in developing countries into account, especially as the majority of these countries have made little contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. Announcements are being made virtually every day on social media regarding renewable energy initiatives and/or countries, states or towns that are moving from a reliance on fossil fuels to larger and larger percentages of renewables in their energy mix.

Whether the global average temperature increase by 2100 is predicted to be 2°C or 4°C, it is inevitable that countries need to join together and help each other, including their nearest neighbours. Australia’s recent move to “throw its toys out of the cot” if the UN established an organisation charged with the responsibility of assisting people that are fleeing from the ravages of climate change surely flies in the face of the need to help those around us.

This article was first published on The Climate Change Guy.

Give Labor a big tick

October 9, 2015
Written by: Roswell
16 Replies

It was bound to happen and I’m glad it did.

After weekly emails from Labor – that were generally pointless or simply wanted me to sign a petition – I am pleased to announce that something constructive found its way into my inbox.

Instead of garbling on about nothing or inviting me/email recipients to send stern words to the government about whatever horrible policy they were trying to thrust upon us . . . Labor wants my opinion about the policies important to me.

I don’t know how many people received said email but I do hope that a hell of a lot of people are on their mailing lists. I want a hell of a lot of people telling Labor what is important to them.

Now to the email:

We want to make sure our community is heard. We have so many supporters who are passionate about so many different issues.

That’s why we’d like to hold a series of Facebook QandAs with Labor Shadow Ministers so that you can ask your questions about Labor’s plans and policies directly from the source.

So what issue are you most passionate about?

The Budget

The Economy

Education

Environment and Climate Change

Foreign Affairs

Health

Higher Education

Immigration and Asylum policy

Infrastructure

Innovation and Start-ups

National Security

The NBN

NDIS

Regional Australia

Social Security, Pensions and Welfare

Are Labor actually about to start implementing some policies? Are they actually trying to shake off the Liberal-Lite label? Are they actually trying to move forward again now that Tony Abbott and his wedge-style of politics have been swept away?

If ‘yes’ to all of the above, then “thank you, Labor”.

For two years I’ve been dumbfounded as to why the issues important to me have been ignored. There must be tens of thousands of Labor supporters who feel the same way, but at last Labor wants to hear from us.

As I’ve been the first to complain over these two years I will be making sure I am one of the first to tick some of the boxes. Please join me. We are about to be listened to.

The terrier has fangs

October 5, 2015
Written by: Dr Victoria Fielding
25 Replies

Malcolm Turnbull would love voters to think he’s a fluffy white dog who wouldn’t hurt a fly. How can a man who adorably blogs on behalf of his dogs be anything but a harmless, gentle, kind Prime Minister? How can a man who wears a leather jacket on Qanda not be a man of the people? How can a man who wants to stay living in his multimillion dollar mansion on Sydney Harbour to be close to his grandson be anything but compassionate, socially progressive and committed to quality education and healthcare for the whole community? I’m sorry to disappoint the hopeful progressives who really want to believe Turnbull is the messiah. But isn’t it best I tell you now before you give him a chance to do a whole new term of harm? Turnbull definitely is NOT the messiah. Turnbull is a very naughty boy.

It is not entirely Turnbull’s fault that voters don’t realise how extreme his free-market ideology is. I think the problem is that voters assume that it’s OK for Turnbull to be right-wing when it comes to the economy, whilst also being sort of warm and fuzzy in a social sense. But this charade is just that: a charade. In the recent past Turnbull has been busily differentiating himself from Abbott. But when it comes to the free-market-loving part of the values Abbott and Turnbull share, Turnbull would go much harder and faster on the free-market bit, where Abbott spent more of his energy on social conservatism. Remember WorkChoices? Turnbull’s free market values means he believes this attempted assault on workers’ rights didn’t go far enough. You think Howard was scary? You ain’t see nothing yet!

If you were watching the Grand Final on Saturday, you might have missed the idea floated by this cute little terrier of a PM’s Treasurer, Scomo, that the States really should start thinking about letting private companies run hospitals and schools. Shock horror! ‘But wait!’ I hear all the supposably progressive Turnbull lovers say, ‘that’s just Scomo being Scomo and still swinging the Abbott-wrecking-ball. That’s not our cute cuddly Turnbull’. Get real people. Turnbull chose Morrison to be his government’s Treasurer. He made the decision not just because he needed Morrison’s voting block to win the Libspill. Stop the wishful thinking. Turnbull chose Morrison as his Treasurer because they SHARE THE SAME IDEOLOGY. The desired end point for people with these values, values Turnbull has been very up front about, is that the free market solves all social problem, that there should be no government intervention in the economy, including any welfare of any kind, and therefore everything becoming user-pays. In this world, the more money you have, the more healthcare and education you get. See how well this works out for the mega-rich Turnbulls of the world? Funny that. You might be thinking, it’s OK, Turnbull’s never going to get that far. But just imagine the damage he could do if he only gets some of what he wants. Imagine the wreckage strewn in that path!

Don’t be fooled by the idea that Turnbull is centre-right, or, as I’ve even heard some very mistaken lefties say, that he’s ‘left’ on social issues. The truth is, he has to be pro-marriage equality because this position isn’t just electorally desirable in Wentworth, it is electorally 100% necessary. Turnbull might say the right thing about climate change action too, but surely you noticed he never crossed the floor in Abbott’s government and helped to destroy climate action. Instead, he supported expensive and useless Direct Action, which he now plans to keep even though he’s in a position to end it. In fact, Turnbull will say and do whatever he needs to say to make himself look however he needs to look to win votes. Sorry to disappoint, but the tooth fairy isn’t real, Santa is your parents and it’s not possible to be both right-wing-pro-free-market and socially left-wing. Being socially ‘left’ means that schools and hospitals are run for the good of the people, not the good of the market. Turnbull’s free market position means he’d happily let the market rip public hospitals and schools out of the hands of the public and into the hands of the highest bidder for the greatest profit.

When progressives realise what it really means for the country to have a free marketeer in charge, and they realise it’s actually impossible to be economically-right and socially-left at the same time, and when they don’t agree with Turnbull that healthcare and education should be run at a profit, they might realise their progressive vote definitely does not belong to Turnbull. ‘Privately run’ hospitals and schools is a very steep, buttered slope towards the end of free-for-all-and-all-alike hospitals and schools, which quickly leads to hospitals and schools only available to those who have the means to pay. I assume this is not an outcome progressives strive for?

So please, I’m begging you, don’t be fooled by the smarmy exterior and the cheesy grin. Turnbull is giving Australia a hug while stealing our public owned services and workers’ rights from our back pocket. Turnbull is a Prime Minister who looks like a cuddly terrier, but when you get to know him, you see he has fangs. Please be careful with your vote Australia. Turnbull has neo-liberal-sharp-as-diamond fangs. We’ve been bitten badly enough by Abbott. Please don’t now give the Turnbull terrier a chance to bite us even harder.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Has anything changed? Not judging by the comments

October 4, 2015
Written by: Eva Cripps
18 Replies

While many Australians, and no doubt the rest of the world, are still breathing a collective sigh of relief at the deposal of Tony Abbott, his supporters are still smarting and licking their wounds. Abbott himself is still pretending to not wreck, not snipe and not undermine, by telling his supporters he could still have won the election, while those within Abbott’s camp have conveniently forgotten Abbott’s own overthrow of Turnbull not even a decade ago, albeit as leader of the opposition.

Malcolm Turnbull is by far more popular than Abbott. A jump in the polls after Turnbull ascended to the top is a pretty clear indication that Abbott as leader was the problem. Even a commitment to retain the most odious of Abbott’s policies has not dampened Turnbull’s popularity. Likewise, Andrew Hastie’s easy win in the Canning by-election after the coup was a good indication that the Coalition’s policies were not the problem for most people – the problem was Abbott.

Despite Turnbull now giving the Coalition a fighting, and likely, chance of winning the next election, Abbott’s supporters are still coming out hard. With the Liberal party effectively split in two for loyalty, diehard Lib fans continue to fiercely support Abbott’s legacy. As a result, they are reminding Australian’s of what the Coalition stands for, regardless of leader. Consequently, Australian’s cannot forget that the same party is in charge and nothing has really changed.

On Saturday, 3 October 2015, Malcolm Turnbull (or his staff) posted a rather innocuous photo and caption on his Facebook page, to which I replied. Some of the responses to my light-hearted comment serve as a reminder of the sheer ignorance and wilful deceit of the Coalition rhetoric and propaganda.

Turnbull’s initial Facebook post which prompted my comment was not remarkable. It was rather normal and not the slightest bit inflammatory. It hardly gave the impression of aiming to boost Turnbull’s standings in the polls, nor indicated a desperate attempt to show Turnbull leading the nation as a humble servant.

The post showed a photo of Turnbull with actor Chris Hemsworth, with the following words:

“Good to meet Chris Hemsworth today – talked about the contribution of the creative sector to our economy. But a bit weird he insisted on me calling him Thor“.

My comment, intended as a light-hearted comparison to what we had come to expect was:

“I can just imagine Tony Abbott’s caption to this photo, ‘Good to meet Chris Hemsworth today – talked about the contribution of the creative sector to our economy. He told me I could be a god just like him because of my superpowers stopping the boats’.”

This sparked an immediate tirade of misinformation, absurd assertions and a litany of personal abuse. Clearly critical thought and fact checking are not considered necessary for the diehard Liberal supporters.

The obvious response, and one of the most perpetuated lies of the Federal Government was that Abbott did indeed stop the boats.

“He did stop the boats as promised.“

Granted, he stopped any boats landing on Australian shores, but he did not stop the boats. The Commonwealth has openly admitted that 20 boats were prevented from landing on Australian territory up until August 2015, and the Government has never refuted that it paid people smugglers to turn a boat around. If the boats had actually stopped there would be no need to turn them back.

Abbott cannot even claim credit for the massive reduction in boats leaving Indonesia: the credit belongs to Kevin Rudd II and his hard-line asylum seeker stance just before the 2013 election, where he declared no person arriving by boat would ever be resettled in Australia.

One response on the post demonstrated complete ignorance of Coalition policy and spending, saying:

“So you would rather pay for illegals than pay for what Australians need like bigger pensions better child care education etc etc. fix our own because no one else will, would or could!”

Ignoring the fact that it is not illegal to seek asylum, the Federal Government currently spends $1 billion a year on offshore detention. It also intends to cut pensions. Extra childcare funding is reliant on cutting family payments, leaving thousands of families worse off. New Treasurer, Scott Morrison has also announced that the Coalition is pushing for privatisation of health and education. It seems pretty obvious that the Government has a very clear intention to spend billions on arbitrary detention, and as little as possible on the Australian family.

Another poster astutely remarked:

“Eva is so far from the left she could probably fall over, let me guess your against offshore detention you probably believe in global warming. … I bet Eva is also against Christianity and private education.”

This disturbingly amusing ‘insult’ is a perfect example of the ignorance of the typical Coalition supporter. Apart from the billions of tax dollars currently used to arbitrarily detain asylum seekers and refugees, including young babies, it is laughable that someone would attempt to use the situation to cast aspersions on my character given the offshore detention regime supports rape, sexual assault, and physical abuse. A growing list of people are calling for the detention centres to be closed, on top of a Senate Committee inquiry recommending that children and families be immediately removed from Nauru.

Global warming, or climate change, is a pet hate of the Abbott supporter. With 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change is a serious issue, Australia has been criticised by a UN climate expert for its abysmally low greenhouse gas emissions targets. Despite Turnbull’s previous stance and criticism on the Coalition’s environmental policy, he has indicated an intention to retain Abbott’s laughable Direct Action. No doubt the Coalition supporters found Dutton’s recent shamefully embarrassing climate change ‘joke’ hilarious too.

It’s possible the curious comment on my alleged anti-Christian sentiment comes from the commenter’s observation of a satirical anti-radicalisation meme on my Facebook page: ‘Case Study: Jesus of Nazareth’. The meme describes Jesus as a ‘radical’ who left his loving family, was tempted by Satan, attempted to recruit followers, went against the Romans and the priests, and was ultimately hanged with thieves. Clearly the irony of this meme would be lost on most Coalition supporters, who would consider Karen, the alternative music loving, political activist, and environmentalist a genuine threat to their conservative, capitalist ideals.

Despite the overwhelming majority support of the Coalition and conservative politics within the mainstream media, Australians now source most of their news online, with a recent survey finding that 59% of people access news on their smartphones and 48% relying on Facebook. While there is no real evidence that the mainstream media in general has anything more than a ‘muted’ influence over an actual election outcome, the use of social media to access the news provides a new opportunity for all political stances and ideologies to share facts, lies, and opinions, whether informed or not.

A recent Nielson report found that approximately 13 million Australians (over 50% of the population) are active users of Facebook every month. The information also shows that on average, 60% of those that discover new information on Facebook will go on to learn more. Equal numbers of people reportedly use YouTube, with around a quarter of the population using WordPress.com and approximately 11% using Twitter.

With the rise of the use of social media, and the use of the same by the ill-informed, it is crucial that Australians who care about human rights, who believe in equality, and who deplore the dehumanisation of anyone other than white, middle-class, privileged Coalition party members and their friends, continue to speak out and demand accountability.

Turnbull’s new leadership will bring with it some changes, but not enough if Australia is to reach the standard expected of a Western democracy in the 21^st Century. Abbott returned Australia to the 1950’s with his personal ideology, and medieval times in more than one policy. However, as Abbott so kindly pointed out, “Border protection policy the same, national security policy the same, economic policy the same, even same-sex marriage policy the same, and climate change policy the same. In fact, the rhetoric is the same…” under a Turnbull leadership.

Turnbull may be popular, but the Coalition remains the same.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Australia’s $234 billion climate gamble

September 28, 2015
Written by: The AIM Network
8 Replies

By Dr Anthony Horton

As of last year, China and the US were first and third on the list of Australia’s trading partners. Australian trade with China was worth $152.53 billion-a total that has grown by 12.2% on average over the last 5 years. Australia’s trade with the US was worth $60.43 billion as of 2014, having grown 4% on average over the last 5 years.

In March this year, China raised a number of concerns regarding Australia’s Intended Nationally Determined Commitment (INDC) for greenhouse gas emissions in the lead up to the Paris Climate Summit in December. In particular, they queried whether replacing the planned Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) with the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) will yield the reductions that were likely under those two. The US also queried whether the ERF will primarily replace the ETS or whether other Policies and Measures will be considered.

I discussed a number of issues regarding the ERF (the Flagship of the Australian Government Direct Action plan) and the first Auction in April this year in an earlier blog. The second Auction will be held on 4 and 5 November, which is approximately three and a half weeks prior to the Paris Summit. It is possible that news of the second Auction results will spread as widely and quickly as for the first, including to representatives of other nations attending the Summit. The representatives may be keen to quiz the Australian party on the results, particularly if the results are questioned as extensively in social media as the results of the first Auction were. This will be very interesting to watch indeed.

In the time since the first Auction, it is fair to say that a lot has transpired politically in an international and domestic context that highlights and brings into focus Australia’s stance on emissions reductions. In an international context, China and the US have progressed a deal on emissions reductions reached last November with discussions earlier this month, as a result of which many cities including Atlanta, Houston, New York, Beijing, Guangzhou and Zhenjiang have pledged new actions. A number of other nations have announced their INDCs in the lead up to Paris.

Last Friday (US time) Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a nationwide cap and trade emissions program as part of efforts to tackle climate change. Cap and trade programs cap the total emissions and sources including power stations and factories purchase and sell credits. In terms of the US, although plans for a nationwide cap and trade program were defeated in 2009, California and other north-eastern states have implemented emissions trading schemes.

Domestically, the Government has changed leadership resulting in the installation of Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister. Last week, in response to the announcement of China’s cap and trade program, Environment Minister Greg Hunt announced that the Government will stay the course regarding the ERF which is reported to be “the best, most effective scheme in the world”.

According to the Government, further reductions could be considered in 2017/18 as part of discussions on Australia’s 2030 target policy framework.

Given that China and the US (amongst others) have raised concerns with Australia’s commitment for Paris and have signed agreements to peak and reduce emissions respectively, I would be very surprised if they (and other nations attending the Paris Summit) would be prepared to give Australia until 2017/18 to consider further emissions reductions. I think it more likely that the US and China lead the charge in maintaining pressure on Australia to do more in the global challenge that is climate change.

Given the recent announcements by the Australian Government with respect to the state of the domestic economy and the discussions as to the exact nature of the problem, I struggle to fathom why they believe they can maintain one particular strategy and direction with respect to emissions reduction when an increasing number of countries are going in another.

If trade with China and the US continues on their current respective trajectories, by 2017, the combined figure is at approximately $233.7 billion (at a minimum)-$170.84 billion from China and $62.85 billion from the US. I don’t know if many Australians would be prepared to allow their Government to gamble such a figure on any matter-least of all emissions reduction specifically but climate change more generally, especially given the global nature of today’s economy. This is effectively what they are doing by continuing to ignore the rising tide of emissions trading.

This article was originally published on The Climate Change Guy.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Review of the Pope’s Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’

September 25, 2015
Written by: The AIM Network
3 Replies

By Dr Anthony Horton

Upon review of the Pope’s Laudato Si’ from the point of view of a scientist working in the climate change space, I believe that overall, Pope Francis has successfully elucidated the significance of the issues related to climate change and in particular the role that every human being must play and the need for each of us to act rather than being complacent. Few people (if anyone) would still argue (if they ever did) that those fortunate enough to live in relative security and comfort should not spare a thought for those less fortunate and who find themselves struggling with the daily reality of survival in the context of poverty. In having this theme as a central tenet of his Encyclical, Pope Francis correctly establishes the lens through which climate change needs to be viewed, discussed and acted upon-this being a social justice/equity as well as an environmental issue.

Having reviewed numerous recent publications, online articles and posts on social media, I feel it is important to establish early that indeed climate change is being increasingly viewed and discussed as a social justice/equity issue, and indeed programs are emerging in a number of sectors that demonstrate concrete actions to assist the poor to deal with climate change in some way-whether it be financial assistance or initiatives such as free solar panels for their houses.

As a scientist I must also say that the style of the Encyclical letter was certainly not typical of the documents I typically review or write, and so from that point of view, it represented a challenge in terms of the breadth and generality with which some ideas were discussed and their order-the document jumped around quite frequently. That said, obviously the target audience wasn’t solely the scientific community and it was well worth persisting until the end in order to fully appreciate the message within the letter.

While I found myself agreeing with a number of the points and messages in the Encyclical, I think it is important to highlight a few points that need to be aired in any discussion of climate change from a scientific perspective. Firstly, the growth in the Earth’s population is a significant issue on its own-and while it is obviously part of the climate change challenge-it needs to be addressed in any balanced scientific discussion. I am challenged by the assertion that blaming population growth is somehow refusing to face the issues. Most people would recognise that the majority of the earth’s resources are being stretched and that this would continue with increasing population growth rates.

It is important to say here that the reality of climate change is bringing population growth rates into sharper focus from the perspective that the mobility of populations (either necessitated by climate change or as a result of a desire for a better standard of living thought to be found in urban areas near cities) brings new pressures to the areas where these mobile populations eventually settle. Peoples’ want for some of the symbols of a better standard of living (larger houses, motor vehicles etc) also inevitably add emissions into the mix, which when multiplied by every person living in the same area and wanting the same symbols, becomes a significant issue.

On a number of occasions in the Encyclical, Pope Francis challenged individuals or leaders/authority figures to step up and grasp the reality of the situation we face with respect to climate change. I would offer US President Barack Obama as an example of a leader who has already heeded this call and has implemented a number of policies which are demonstrating world leadership. The leaders of many other countries have also shown similar leadership on behalf of their constituents. As a result, well recognised and market leading brands are implementing their own commensurate internal emissions management and reduction policies and challenging the very way they do business.

I must admit to also being challenged by the Encyclical’s perspective of technology and in particular its motivations and shortcomings. As one who works in a space in which a variety of technology is available (and indeed very useful) I feel it is important to acknowledge that technology has evolved in ways that facilitate human collaboration and participation rather than just using it as a means to obtain an output that is to be believed and can somehow explain the particular aspect under investigation without the operator questioning or “sense checking”.

I was also somewhat surprised by the assertion that humans are predominantly wired to extract/exploit energy resources as they renew themselves quickly and that any negative effects can somehow be easily absorbed. As someone who dedicates time each week to social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, I would point to Divestment movements that can gain rapid momentum given the constant news cycle and immediate nature of communication in today’s society. A number of very high profile companies, Religious and Education institutions have also announced plans to divest significant proportions of their fossil fuel and other energy intensive investments. While some may argue divestment should go further, I think its existence and spread is symbolic of a shift in thinking and behaviour away from simply “mass exploitation at any cost”. I would also offer social media platforms as a tool for environmental education-although obvious caution is needed in terms of source and “sense” checking.

I commend the inclusion of the discussion of approaches and actions within the Encyclical, even if I am challenged by some of the points of view. There is increasing evidence that pricing carbon is bringing about the very challenge placed squarely at its feet in the document-that buying and selling carbon credits simply lead to speculation that would not help to reduce emissions. The sheer number of emissions trading schemes/cap and trade schemes in operation around the world and the nationalisation of China’s pilot schemes early next year points to the seriousness with which markets view emissions reduction. While I am not naïve to suggest that markets are the answer to everything, the indications to date show that in this case, the market is certainly responding positively and emissions are being reduced.

I also commend the inclusion of the discussion of the precautionary principle in the Encyclical, even if it wasn’t explicit. I would add that a number of the points expressed in the discussion of environmental protection could be addressed by a discussion of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. In brief, this process takes into account all of the environmental aspects of a project, the impact of that project on each aspect and appropriate mitigation measures for each impact.

I also couldn’t discuss the Encyclical from a scientific perspective without noting the slightly incorrect interpretation of the greenhouse effect in terms of the statement that gases in the atmosphere don’t allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space. The point regarding increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and the intensive use of fossil fuels was however well made and is valid.

From a local perspective, the Encyclical certainly elucidates and reinforces the need for all of us to act and that action must occur now, and is therefore aligned with recent announcements by Archbishop Costelloe that complacency is not an option.

About the author: Anthony Horton holds a PhD in Environmental Science, a Bachelor of Environmental Science with Honours and a Diploma of Carbon Management. He has a track record of delivering customised solutions in Academia, Government, the Mining Industry and Consulting based on the latest wisdom and his scientific background and experience in Climate/Atmospheric Science and Air Quality. Anthony’s work has been published in internationally recognised scientific journals and presented at international and national conferences, and he is currently on the Editorial Board of the Journal Nature Environment and Pollution Technology. Anthony also blogs on his own site, The Climate Change Guy.

Albanese Government leaves skilled construction machinery workers in…

Australia’s War History: From Britain’s Wars to Neutrality

The Syrian Civil War: New Phases, Old Lies

ACOSS demands immediate suspension of Targeted Compliance Framework…

Is that a real appeal? A warning to…

Politics for the People: A Vision for Australia

ACOSS welcomes RBA reforms and calls for RBA…

Trump’s Folly

Tag Archives: Climate change

The price of solar in India could fall below that of coal within 5 years

Extreme event attribution is turning up the heat on climate change deniers

Australian Government review of vehicle emissions has a now familiar aroma of disappointment

Bill Shorten takes climate change seriously, so guess who isn’t happy with him?

The Great Hoax, Climate Change or the GST?

Why would anybody want to re-elect this government?

China illustrates the true meaning of Direct Action on climate

Malcolm’s test

Global fossil fuel divestment a tsunami of change

Why a 4 degree global temperature increase is the new game in town

Give Labor a big tick

The terrier has fangs

Has anything changed? Not judging by the comments

Australia’s $234 billion climate gamble

Review of the Pope’s Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’