Flagrant double standards

28 04 2013

The season of burning is upon us! 

 As we collect firewood for the cold days ahead, we are facing not one but two challenges. While the State government allows us to go into forests and collect dead dry timber, their ritual burning program threatens to beat us to it. The object of this induced bushfire for disappointed arsonists is ‘Fuel reduction’ – that’s to say the burning of all the dead timber accumulated on the forest floor,- as well as the burning of flammable thickets which make for problems controlling a ‘wildfire’.   Considering the minimal gain to public security – ‘health’ – from this burning, as well as its significant contribution to asthma problems in nearby communities, and economic losses to wine growers from ‘smoke taint’, one wonders whether similar results of fuel reduction couldn’t be produced by encouraging people to go and get firewood with incentives.

 But our public health bodies and government departments have other ideas. Far from encouraging us to burn ‘Biofuel’ to heat our homes, and recognising that it is one way to reduce dangerous CO2 emissions, these bodies have concluded that the particulates from wood heaters are an intolerable health hazard, and on that basis would be better banned or regulated out of existence.  The Age reports:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/wood-fires-focus-of-pollution-cut-20130426-2ik44.html

The recommendation -

“Options being considered by COAG range from doing nothing and letting emissions decline as households moved to gas and electricity heaters, to introducing regulations that would require all new heaters to carry efficiency ratings and release just 1.5 grams of particulates per kilo of wood burnt.”

It is one thing to suggest people burn gas for home heating; gas is relatively clean, and using it this way makes use of most of its energy. But the suggestion that by using electricity to heat our homes ‘emissions would decline’ is dangerous nonsense.  Not only is the main source of electricity in Victoria from Brown Coal, and so inherently more than twice as ‘emissions intensive’ as gas, but the process of transforming it into electricity and bringing it hundreds of Kms to the consumer makes it perhaps FIVE times dirtier than gas. This is because the power station only extracts 35 – 40% of the heat energy from the Coal – the other 60 – 65% goes to heat the air in the Latrobe valley, and then a further proportion is dissipated in the transmission lines.

 These days of course, many people have solar power for electricity, and may use this as an excuse to use more electricity for home heating than they otherwise would. I actually have friends with underfloor heating who have done this – previously it was simply too expensive.  This however is not only a false economy but an extraordinarily decadent  option. If you want to heat your home with solar energy you need roof windows and good insulation, or a solar water heater and hydronic system; neither will be much use when the sun isn’t shining, and this is the time that your home will need heating.

 The problem with using the solar electricity in this way is that it simply means that the other things in your house which would run on it, like TVs and lighting, are powered by that dirty old coal in Gippsland; as we know it isn’t possible to run TVs or lighting on COAL directly. This means that those people who look out on Loy Yang’s smokestacks, between coughing fits and with watery eyes, will get even more of the same while we warm our toes on beautiful clean electric power.

 But back to the WOOD.  Even though the government and bodies who came up with this stupid advice admit that the dangerous particulates from wood burning happen mostly because of using damp wood and badly operated stoves, they still see the change away from them to Fossil Fuel power as ‘progress’, and alarmingly as progress that is already underway. Well it’s not progress! And if they like to give this advice on public health they first need to stop burning the bush except close around settlements, and restrict it to times when a genuine slow burn will not kill everything except old trees, leading to a progressive loss of ecological diversity. They also need to think hard about using ‘dry wood’ in Hazlewood power station, where 30% of the energy from brown coal is wasted in evaporating the water in it.

 So get in those wood stores, and don’t let them tell you there’s anything ‘cleaner’ than this remarkable renewable energy source.

– David Macilwain, Rayburn owner.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Community Action, Reducing Our Carbon Footprint (Mitigation), Renewable Energy

Tipping point in the Antarctic – 0.1degrees Centigrade?

16 04 2013

A report published this week in Nature Geoscience, reveals a steadily increasing temperature over the last few decades in the Antarctic Peninsula. This has been discovered by looking at the pattern of summer snow melt revealed in an ice-core, which represents conditions over the last 1000 years.

 Although results from similar recent research on the West Antarctic Ice sheet give a more ambiguous result, of periods of warmer and cooler conditions over the last 2000 years, it appears beyond doubt that in the peninsula – which is much further north, conditions have become significantly warmer, as well as spending a significant time above the critical temperature – freezing point.

 One of the researchers, Dr Nerilie Abram from ANU, was interviewed by Fran Kelly on Radio National about the research.

Sadly she gave the normal scientist’s response to Fran Kelly’s inavoidable question: “But it is possible that these changes could be due to ‘natural causes’?”  Instead of emphasising that while natural variation might have played a part in the last thousand years, but that the changes in the last 50 were categorically not ‘natural’, Dr Abram got diverted into a discussion about natural variation, and the fact that changes in other areas of Antarctica didn’t show the same result. ( the ABC had already emphasised this by talking about another research project on the West Antarctic ice sheet which indicated that warmer periods similar to the current one had occurred repeatedly in the last 2000 years – music to the ears of the denialists)
 
 It wasn’t until right at the end of the interview that in the process of explaining in detail about the conditions on the Antarctic peninsula, Dr Abram showed that the warming was directly linked to changes in the Ozone hole! Apparently this had resulted in an increase in wind speeds, and consequent changes in the local climate. Now if there is one thing that those wretched deniers can’t challenge, it’s the human cause of the Ozone hole.
 
 The whole slant of the ABC’s presentation of this research ( the need to provide ‘balance’ by reporting the views of a small group of cranks alongside the science)was echoed in a short report on the news, while a spot on AM somehow avoided the use of the word ‘HUMAN’; even when asked an open question:
 
“SARAH CLARKE: And looking at the fact that the most rapid melt has been in the last 50 years – why do you think that is?
Dr Abram gave a circuitous answer; one which was actually about this being evidence of a significant tipping point, but without saying so noone would really have got that idea:
NERILIE ABRAM: So what the ice core shows, which is quite interesting, is the changes in environment that happen when the climate warms don’t necessarily have to happen gradually or in a nice linear way.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3736742.htm
 
 It was however mentioned several times that ‘the coldest period’ was 600 years ago, without any apparent recognition that the key claim of the climate change deniers is that it was hotter 800-1000 years ago than it is now, and this report did nothing to counteract that stupid claim, particularly when combined with the mention of the ‘other research’.
 
I look forward to the time when the ABC and other official presenters of such reports put the emphasis where it is necessary – on the implications of this extra evidence of rapid change for the climate system, in this case the one that may affect Australia’s climate significantly.
 It is long past time when we need to give space to the climate science bullshitters; it’s as silly as interviewing a fundamentalist Christian to comment every time we have a report on something that happened more than 5760 years ago.

Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Scientific reports on climate issues

The critical decade report

10 04 2013

Last week the government released its latest report from the Climate Commission – “The Critical Decade – climate science, risks and responses.”

 
A useful summary of its findings, relating mostly to the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, and the necessity for action now, is contained in this digest:
 
 
It is very regrettable that despite some interest being shown in the media when the report was released, its serious concerns and calls for immediate action have not registered and other matters have allowed the focus to shift elsewhere.

Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Climate Change Adaptation, Evidence for Human-induced Climate Change, Reducing Our Carbon Footprint (Mitigation), Scientific reports on climate issues

Media release – Impacts of extreme weather on Border

5 03 2013

IMPACTS OF EXTREME WEATHER ON BORDER – MEDIA RELEASE – 22.2.13

[Submitted by Lizette Salmon]

Pigs unable to breed and thousands of local chickens dying; these are just two of the more unusual local consequences of this summer’s extreme heat.  “Bushfires, drought, crop losses and heat-related illnesses were consequences of climate change we anticipated in this region”, said Lizette Salmon, spokesperson for Wodonga Albury Towards Climate Health (WATCH), “but now we’re hearing some unexpected stories too”.

The National Environment Centre’s Rob Fenton has been a teacher of organic farming and permaculture for 26 years, but said the Border’s extreme January temperatures had impacted the farm in ways he’d not previously witnessed.  “Our free range pigs simply stopped feeding. At night they just lay in their wallow and whinged about the heat. Our breeding program has been set back because they dropped a cycle and still aren’t cycling. This will mean a reduction in our ability to supply bacon.” According to Mr Fenton, zucchinis were also affected. “In mid January they dropped their flowers and stopped growing. This was a problem with many of our student’s crops too”.

While the National Environment Centre did not report poultry deaths during the heat wave, other producers were not so fortunate. Nicole Stephens, coordinator of the Hume Region Farmers Market was told of at least three thousand chickens that had died across the region. “Chickens have poor cooling mechanisms and unfortunately the 42 degree day in January was too much for many of them.”

Ms Salmon has heard many locals comment on the number trees that are suffering. “Although this is not an unexpected consequence of climate change it’s getting discussed quite frequently. A friend who’d been out jogging noticed that nearly every garden she passed contained stressed or dead plants. I’m concerned, too, by the number of dead and dying trees along our roadsides; just take a look outside the new Tax Office or on Baranduda Boulevard.”

WATCH is compiling a data-base of extreme-climate consequences around the region and encourages residents to contact their group with descriptions of impacts. They anticipate the list will help identify and publicise climate risks. “It’s not possible for scientists to anticipate every possible consequence for every region, so we’re using real community experiences to help us track climate change impacts at the local level,” said Ms Salmon. “At the same time, of course, we urge everyone to do everything in their power to try to limit extreme climate change, at the personal level through to meaningful actions by governments and businesses, especially the power industry. A record 45 degree day now will become a record 50 degree day in twenty years. It’s imperative we act now before locking in even greater challenges to the survival of our children.”

Residents are encouraged to register their extreme weather experiences by emailing Ms Salmon on lizette@salmonfamily.id.au.

For link to subsequent article in Border Mail see: http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1332487/video-these-pigs-were-bakin/?cs=53


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Media Releases

On storing Carbon in Soil

24 02 2013

There’s a fair bit of talk going on right now around the issue of so-called ‘Carbon Sequestration’ in Soil, and most of it is avoiding the key issue. This of course is that there is only one good long term storage method for Carbon in the ground, invented by mother nature some 250 million years ago when there was an awful lot of the stuff sloshing around in those swampy humid Carboniferous forests: it’s called ‘fossil fuel’.  Although this stuff is all ‘Carbon’, it’s not all the same; Coal is pure Carbon alone, whereas Natural Gas is Carbon with Hydrogen – Methane, and Oil is Carbon with Hydrogen in chains – Hydrocarbons.  Also stored by mother nature is an interloper, Carbon Dioxide, and its relative Carbon Monoxide, in varying amounts mixed with natural gas.

 One needs to know this most basic science to understand the ‘Carbon Cycle’, where Carbon is used as a means to convert energy from the sun into plant and animal bodies.  Carbon exists in the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide, which is a stable gas and a useless one; it is the final waste product of all living processes, following its ‘combustion’ in their metabolism, or its combustion by fire. In living plants and animals, compounds containing Carbon and Hydrogen – Carbohydrates and Hydrocarbons – are the energy source necessary for life. To extract their energy they are ‘burnt’ in the body by combining them with Oxygen, so the Carbon becomes Carbon Dioxide, and the Hydrogen becomes water – Hydrogen Dioxide.

 The other side of this cycle is performed only by plants, which use ‘photosynthesis’ – solar energy – to separate the Oxygen from the Carbon Dioxide and synthesise compounds such as fats and starches….

 Why this matters  is that there is currently far too  much oxidised Carbon in the atmosphere from which all the energy has been removed, and not enough energy and space for plants to remove it to restore the balance. We desperately need to restore this balance before the increasing CO2 overheats our home, and so look for ways to ‘sequester Carbon’ in the soil and take it out of circulation. This means it must be in a form that cannot be broken down by microorganisms, or eaten by animals or termites.  While some forms of ‘organic matter’ in the soil are very slow to decompose, ecosystems require that they eventually do; the only consequence otherwise is an accumulation of carbon such as happened in the Carboniferous era, or as happens in Peat bogs, where carbon compounds are prevented from breaking down because of lack of oxygen in waterlogged ground.  There is however one exception to this – Charcoal.

While various bodies, both governments, research stations, and private businesses, all try to promote the idea of ‘Carbon Farming, or sequestration, as an opportunity and a necessity, all such schemes fall down at the first two gates.  The first of these is that all  carbon that goes into the soil through natural processes will finally come out again, with no net gain. ( unless it is charcoal as the result of fire that gets buried)

 The second gate is that Charcoal is chemically much the same as Coal. So we may go to extraordinary lengths to safely  bury Carbon as Charcoal, for instance by growing tree crops, burning them for fuel in limited oxygen, and burying the Charcoal – while in the next paddock some bloke is digging up COAL. And until we stop mining and burning coal, and mining and exporting coal to be burnt ( what else?) we are simply kidding ourselves that our efforts have the slightest effect.

Some recent reports about the subject:

Background briefing on Carbon Farming:
The World Today on the Australian Terrestrial Carbon Budget:
Abstract of Aus terrestrial carbon budget:
Abstract. This paper reports a study of the full carbon (C-CO2) budget of the Australian continent, focussing on 1990–2011 in the context of estimates over two centuries. The work is a contribution to the RECCAP (REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes) project, as one of numerous regional studies. In constructing the budget, we estimate the following component carbon fluxes: net primary production (NPP); net ecosystem production (NEP); fire; land use change (LUC); riverine export; dust export; harvest (wood, crop and livestock) and fossil fuel emissions (both territorial and non-territorial). Major biospheric fluxes were derived using BIOS2 (Haverd et al., 2012), a fine-spatial-resolution (0.05°) offline modelling environment in which predictions of CABLE (Wang et al., 2011), a sophisticated land surface model with carbon cycle, are constrained by multiple observation types.
 
(If this seems incomprehensible, the key to its essence is in the ‘Net ecosystem production’ – a quantity based on various models which the report explains can vary so much as to be more than Australia’s total annual emissions, depending on whether it’s wet or dry for instance. The idea contained in the WT report, that soil is currently sequestering one third of Australia’s fossil fuel emissions, is to my mind a complete fabrication, and little more than wishful thinking. In any case, as related early in Background briefing’s report, since settlement Australia has lost 70% of the carbon in it soils. SO we need to replace ALL that before we’re even back to square one!)
 
But that’s just my view—  David Macilwain.

Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Reducing Our Carbon Footprint (Mitigation)

Stealing the dirt

15 02 2013

Some comments on the Mining Tax from David Macilwain…

In a collision of parallel universes – that of the ordinary taxpayer and that of the extraordinary non-taxpayer – the revelation of the new Mining Tax’s pitiful returns coincided with the concealment of Rio Tinto’s extraordinary tax-free profit.

 The returns to the people’s fund from rattling the can around the coal-pits and slag heaps for the last six months was a mingy $126 million. a ‘poor result’ put down to falling demand for iron ore and difficult trading conditions – the mining companies simply couldn’t afford to give any more.

 At the same time, Rio Tinto announced that 2012 was the first year it had not been able to record a profit, and had allegedly made a loss of $2.9 Billion. Unlike the paper money that the government collects to spend on US, Rio’s money is only ‘on paper’, and the announcement of its ‘loss’ was soon followed by an admission that thanks to a profit of $9.3 billion it would be able to pay its shareholders a dividend up 15% on last year.  

 A little quick maths reveals that Rio’s profit was 72 times the little bit thrown to the Tax agents by mining companies, though Rio wasn’t one of them – it paid nothing. Simply couldn’t afford it!

( The explanation for the ‘disparity’ is that Rio marked down the value of some of its assets/investments in Mozambique ( a coal mining project) and aluminium refining, to the tune of $13.5 billion, these assets being allowable against Tax on earnings.)

 Never mind that the NT government has just mortgaged its future gas supply in a vain effort to keep open the polluting Aluminium refinery which Rio plans to sell, once the indefinite guaranteed gas supply has been assured. Nowhere else in the world can Aluminium be made with fossil fuel – it’s either too expensive or too polluting, and the plans to replace the dirty heavy oil burning plant at the NT refinery with ‘Clean’ gas rely on it being supplied at a knockdown price, just as the Portland refinery uses dirty brown coal power from Gippsland supplied under a 30 year deal for  minus peanuts – it costs Victorians $120 million a year to subsidise it.

 So why do we do it? It’s not a question I can answer.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3690940.htm


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Renewable Energy

Economic literacy for environmental advocates – notes from presentation by Richard Denniss (The Australia Institute)

11 02 2013

MISLEADING ‘ECONOMIC’ ARGUMENTS

We shouldn’t spend more money on renewables etc because Australia has a large deficit

Politicians often refuse to spend more $ on pro-environmental actions, arguing it’s too costly and will increase the public deficit, BUT:

  1. We have the third lowest debt in the world.
  2. Many Australians go into debt to buy a house, and call it an investment.
  3. In 1950 when our GDP was 1/8 its current size, the government spent a massive amount of money building the Snowy Hydroelectricity scheme.

It’s not that we cannot afford it, it’s because the top end of town (in politics and business) doesn’t want it. A sensible country would borrow $s for renewable energy and public transport infrastructure.

We need to understand big numbers:

GDP in Australia is $1,400 billion (i.e. $1.4 trillion), therefore a figure like $10 billion is nothing (‘a rounding off error’). The Australian government is borrowing $100 million a day (i.e. $5 per person per day) – a figure some argue is a high debt but it’s not relative to many other standards. We’re about to spend $50 billion building 12 submarines to replace other submarines that weren’t being used. Opposition hasn’t complained about this because they realise it’s pocket money.

Australians pay high taxes

Joe Hockey and others in Opposition often refer to our high taxes. In reality we are the 6th lowest taxing country (from the 34 OECD – developed – countries).

Businesses want a free market economy

There’s no such thing as a free market. Free markets imply an Adam and Eve state. You cannot have a market without rules and regulations. While fossil fuel industries decry carbon taxes they love government subsidies. They make a lot of noise about the regulation they hate. The truth is they love some regulation and hate other regulation.

We must not risk job losses

In Australia this month 350,000 people will move from a state of employment to unemployment. In the same month 360,000 people will move from being UE to employed. This will be described as an increase in employment of 10,000. It doesn’t take into account all the upheaval involved. It’s ridiculous to argue against something on the basis of job losses. Privatisation of electricity by Kennett cost 10,000 jobs, yet that wasn’t a big deal.

DEFINITION OF ECONOMICS: “The science of the efficient allocation of scarce resources.”

When you use up a scarce resource (be it time, a commodity, water etc) you lose the opportunity to use it elsewhere. So if the govt spends money on building roads it has less money to spend on building railways. This is referred to as ‘opportunity cost’ or ‘the production possibility frontier’. If we understand that scarce resources once used for one purpose are unavailable for other purposes we can start talking about allocation.

Businesses rarely confess to the fact that making profits is their priority (witness Twiggy and his claims that he’s concerned about jobs for indigenous people and employment in remote communities). Similarly they will never tell Fran Kelly they’re doing well – firms have no incentive to confess their profits.

When you provide a business with free access to a resource (eg free labour through slavery) their supply increases.  Often free access to a resource (eg water, the atmosphere etc) is not valued. (Consider all-you-can eat buffets where people heap their plates with food but a lot of it is left uneaten). So if you want to ‘efficiently allocate scarce resources’ you need to charge for them.

Giving fossil fuel companies free waste disposal (into the atmosphere) is inefficient. We don’t give the construction industry free hard waste disposal. We now realize the atmosphere is a scarce resource but in the 1900s it was thought to be abundant. Where the politics of economics gets hard is when we’ve already set off in a certain direction (i.e. providing free use of atmosphere).

Notes taken by Lizette Salmon, 5.12.12


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags:
Categories : Uncategorized

« Previous Entries


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.