We find the eruption of Mt. Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland in 2010 AT THE SAME TIME THE WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS ATTEMPTING TO STUD THE COASTLANDS OF SCOTLAND AND OTHER BRITISH ISLES WITH NUCLEAR REACTORS to be perfect.
For a long time we have noted that the World Solution of Nuclear Power everywhere anywhere is deeply resented by Nature.
It is quite possible that the volcano Mt. Eyjafjallajökull erupted as a direct natural response to World Nuclear human plans to turn Planet Earth into a deadly radioactive waste ball.
This would be similar to the eruption of Mount Pinatuba in the Phillipines in 1991 as Nature did her best to smother, with gear gritting ash, the nearby Clark Air Force Base of the human World Military. This air base and its planeloads of bombs and poison had wreaked much havoc during the SE Asia War 1965 - 1975, and was regarded by Nature as a major terrorist staging and war waging centre.
Please Keep up the Good Work Mother Nature.
20 August 2010
15 August 2010
Climate Skeptics Attack Green Rally
On Sunday 15 August 2010, while on a whirlwind tour, we were attending a green rally in the centre of Adelaide South Australia.
There were speakers, music, vegetarian food and organisation tents.
It was a good gathering of about 300 people at Darndangyanga : Victoria Square.
We came to the rally with a small painted Green Power sign and were sitting on a stone monument, back from the main stage, when a white Toyota ute (utility truck) jumped the curb, crossed the main pedestrian walkway and rolled straight at us with its driver screaming or shouting some yahoo something.
The Climate Skeptics had arrived.
Fortunately the stone monument we were sitting on would have wrecked the Climate Skeptic armoured vehicle if it had proceeded to charge us.
The Climate skeptic truck also had an empty trailer in tow and carried signage that was critical of "Green Dreams" such as "Who Pays for Green Dreams".
After a few minutes the oafish driver became edgy, perhaps because police were closing in. The oaf then backed up and sped around the main green group area, on top of the grass, that is a public park but NOT a car park, to the other side of the green rally, where there would be less exposure to the police who were coming to check and question the other Climate Skeptics that had just arrived in a panel van, and in greater numbers, with banners, megaphones, etc.
Women and children were among the Green Group at the event.
The truck was a white Toyota utility truck with SA license plate UCB 442, that was only partially visible near the rear bumper. (There was no registration plate visible on the front and had there been a plate, it would have been hidden by the large sign mounted on the very front of the truck.) The pitiful empty trailer towed behind the truck had a Victoria license plate of P31 177. Perhaps it was brought in hopes of carting away some of the Green items or bringing the large banners and other junk the Climate Skeptics were waving about.
We tried passing the numbers and model to a leather-jacketed policeman but he refused to take the details.
After about an hour, the main group of Climate Skeptics probably decided the rally was too well attended, and after being cautioned by police, took off elsewhere.
Good speakers from The Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation delivered well-polished speeches, and fine singers such as Heather Frahn provided a meaningful meal of tunes.
Some of the food caterers graciously included Zen House and Tibetan Fine Foods.
All in all, a fine day to have a say and have it the green way...
No matter what Climate Skeptics say.
There were speakers, music, vegetarian food and organisation tents.
It was a good gathering of about 300 people at Darndangyanga : Victoria Square.
We came to the rally with a small painted Green Power sign and were sitting on a stone monument, back from the main stage, when a white Toyota ute (utility truck) jumped the curb, crossed the main pedestrian walkway and rolled straight at us with its driver screaming or shouting some yahoo something.
The Climate Skeptics had arrived.
Fortunately the stone monument we were sitting on would have wrecked the Climate Skeptic armoured vehicle if it had proceeded to charge us.
The Climate skeptic truck also had an empty trailer in tow and carried signage that was critical of "Green Dreams" such as "Who Pays for Green Dreams".
After a few minutes the oafish driver became edgy, perhaps because police were closing in. The oaf then backed up and sped around the main green group area, on top of the grass, that is a public park but NOT a car park, to the other side of the green rally, where there would be less exposure to the police who were coming to check and question the other Climate Skeptics that had just arrived in a panel van, and in greater numbers, with banners, megaphones, etc.
Women and children were among the Green Group at the event.
The truck was a white Toyota utility truck with SA license plate UCB 442, that was only partially visible near the rear bumper. (There was no registration plate visible on the front and had there been a plate, it would have been hidden by the large sign mounted on the very front of the truck.) The pitiful empty trailer towed behind the truck had a Victoria license plate of P31 177. Perhaps it was brought in hopes of carting away some of the Green items or bringing the large banners and other junk the Climate Skeptics were waving about.
We tried passing the numbers and model to a leather-jacketed policeman but he refused to take the details.
After about an hour, the main group of Climate Skeptics probably decided the rally was too well attended, and after being cautioned by police, took off elsewhere.
Good speakers from The Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation delivered well-polished speeches, and fine singers such as Heather Frahn provided a meaningful meal of tunes.
Some of the food caterers graciously included Zen House and Tibetan Fine Foods.
All in all, a fine day to have a say and have it the green way...
No matter what Climate Skeptics say.
07 February 2010
What To Do ?
This discussion paper rejects the response of Ross Garnaut and the federal government, as well as the majority of environmentalists, for reduction of C02 atmospheric pollution. They are all seriously wanting : not only would they fail to significantly reduce the problem, but they fail completely to tackle the underlying causes of human "overshoot" : overpopulation and living way beyond our means.
Rapid social transformation is rarely desirable. The enormous expansion of technologies from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, which sped up greatly following World War Two, lead to social disruption and dislocation. However, the luxury of incrementally introducing the required radical shifts to a conserver society and no-growth economy is no longer available. There is now no longer any choice but to make these enormous changes, and to do so over a very short time.
William Catton in his book Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change (1982) believes that "our best bet is to expect the worst". "Believing that crash won't happen to us", he says, "is one reason why it will. The principles of ecology apply to all living things". And, that includes us.
Therefore, as a first step we must
Rapid social transformation is rarely desirable. The enormous expansion of technologies from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, which sped up greatly following World War Two, lead to social disruption and dislocation. However, the luxury of incrementally introducing the required radical shifts to a conserver society and no-growth economy is no longer available. There is now no longer any choice but to make these enormous changes, and to do so over a very short time.
William Catton in his book Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change (1982) believes that "our best bet is to expect the worst". "Believing that crash won't happen to us", he says, "is one reason why it will. The principles of ecology apply to all living things". And, that includes us.
Therefore, as a first step we must
- Respect the limits inherent within all natural systems
Economic development by its very nature involves further increasing the impact of our activities on the world of living things and on its atmospheric environment. Even, a 2% growth rate of GNP would result in a roughly 8-fold increase in the size and impact of our economic activity on the environment and atmosphere. Edward Goldsmith, founding editor of The Ecologist says that, "This (growth rate) is not even remotely tolerable." We must, therefore, stop believing that economic growth in a finite world is a source of all benefit when, in fact, it is destroying life. Economic growth is no longer an option. We must, therefore,
- Shift to a zero-growth economy
(No sectors should be exempt: government, military, science etc)
- Stop seeking to blame China, India and Brazil and ecognize that they will change when the developed nations take the lead
It is necessary to make these major shifts in our value system, while at the same time adopting the following proposals, so as to rapidly curtail pollution levels and assist the restoration of the biosphere.
- Move towards self-sufficiency at the community, regional and national levels
- Ration all basic requirements just as in war time
Many proposals have been put by others for the provision of energy entitlements and whether or not they should be tradeable. However, it is necessary to limit consumption to a much wider range of necessities, e.g. water, than is usually proposed.
- Reduce consumption in Australia to one-tenth of present levels
- shift to renewablo energy sources, giving priority to direct solar, g,& hot water collectors, and microsystems that benefit from the dispersed nature of wind and solar sources
- stretch the supplies of fossil fuels as long as possible instead of competing and fighting wars to hasten their consumption
- fund the above changes from a windfall tax on fossil fuel corporations
Recognising that the problem of climate change is inseparable from other planetary crises, and that we can only make effective changes if they are holistic, we propose that we:
- rein in the over-sized "too big to fail" financial institutions instead of bailing them out so as to prop up further growth
- shift to diversified and organic farming practices (James Lovelock estimates that industrial agriculture reduces the carbon-storing capacity of soils by 40 percent.)
- strictly enforce all measures for the conservation of land, water and biodiversity revegetate large tracts of pastoral and agricultural lands
- remove all financial incentives for having children, and remove subsidies for high-tech reproductive technologies. Aim to stabilize our population, promote zero-population growth and greatly reduce levels of immigration
- foster non-consumptive modes of human enjoyment, and
- develop an ethic based on simplicity and frugality. (Catton considers that our indispensable hope lies in human self-restraint both individually and collectively)
Ally Fricker 2008-2010
This is produced by the group PRECIPICE
(People Representing Ecological Consciousness and Integrity of the Planet Instead of Committing Ecocide)
Phone (O8) 8581 8255.
International Phone (61) 8 8581 8255.
Write:
Ally Fricker
RSD 3
ROBERTSTOWN SA
5381
AUSTRALIA
Ally Fricker
RSD 3
ROBERTSTOWN SA
5381
AUSTRALIA
or Email kbarrett@adam.com.au.
The Tipping Point
The Tipping Point
Climatologists predict catastrophic consequences when average global temperatures increase by 2 degrees Centrigrade. The global average is currently 0.74 degrees Centrigrade above pre-industrial temperatures, and Australia's average is higher still. Over the past 2 million years, temperatures have never been more than 2 degrees Centrigrade warmer than at present.
Feedback processes in climate are a natural occurrence. Positive or negative feedback is a major contributor to the shifts from glacial to interglacial periods and back again. These processes accelerate the warming or cooling of the earth. They are reactions in the biosphere triggered by climate change.
Examples of feedback are the large changes in the earth's albedo: reflection of the sun's heat from white surfaces; or absorption of heat by dark surfaces. When the planet warms, polar ice-melt increases exposing a greater expanse of dark surface from the sea. Thiss then, promotes more warming, and still more ice melt. Or, when the planet warms, life in the oceans changes in such a way that the oceans' ability to absorb carbon is diminished. More carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere, thus promoting more warming. As temperatures rise and precipitation changes, organisms could respond by releasing carbon from soils and biomass, creating another feedback loop. These are examples of positive feedback but negative feedback also comes into play and eventually halts global hemming thus preventing a `runaway' situation.
Feedback is critical in determining impacts now and in the not too distant future because the world's vegetation, including its forests, contains some 600 billion tonnes of carbon; tundra, permafrost and other, soils contain about 1,600 billion tonnes of carbon, and 10,000, billion tonnes of methane; and the oceans nearly 40,000 billion tonnes of carbon.
In comparison, the atmosphere currently contains about 750 billion tonnes (figure from early 2000s) (At the time of writing this document, the CSIRO reported that recent estimates have doubled the amount of CO2 and methane stored in the permafrost, which is already melting.) It is not difficult to see, from these figures, why further warming of the planet could lead to a very rapid escalation of our self-made climate change crisis, and much higher temperature and sea level rise than forecast by the T CC.
HAVE WE REACHED A TIPPING POINT ?
Soil, vegetation. and the world's oceans between them absorb some 50% % of CO2 emissions, so changes to the biosphere as temperatures rise is of critical importance and yet is largely ignored.
If we continue emitting greenhouse gases at present rates - and nothing we are doing yet suggests otherwise - then much of our soils, forests and oceans will be transformed into CO2 sources rather than sinks. This, of course, would add very significantly to projected temperature rise. It is thought that a tipping point grill be reached when positive feedback is speeded up to such an extent that the earth's balancing mechanisms will be overwhelmed and we will have unleashed a runaway global climate change. At such a point, it is considered that no matter what action is taken to reduce human impacts, it would have no effect.
Increasing numbers of scientists, and science writers, believe feedback is already accelerating warming of the planet and that a tipping point may have been reached. For example, Barrie Pittock of the CSIRO says that the frequency and severity of droughts in southern Australia greatly exceeds climate change forecasts for so early in the 21 ' century.
Responding to the Garnaut Climate Change Review, 2008, three organisations working on climate change issues: Friends of the Earth (FOE) Vic., Greenleap Strategic Institute and Carbon Equity said that Arctic floating ice is headed towards rapid summer disintegration as early as 2010, a century ahead of IPCC projections, saying that a rise in sea levels by as much as 5 metres by the turn of the century is not unreasonable. Record ice melt occurred in 2005 and 2007, and improved slightly in 2008 with a cooler year.
James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies believes that the reason for the massive and rapid ice melt is that climate is hitting a tipping point a century ahead of projections. Hansen recently said he now considers 350 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere is the critical concentration to trigger a tipping point. We have already exceeded this level (see above).
In 2007, researchers at Bristol University, in the UK, reported that a previously unexplained surge in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere in recent years is due to more greenhouse gasses escaping from trees, plants and soils, and making vegetation less able to absorb carbon pollution pumped out by human activity. The severe drought in the Amazon Basin in 2005 is the type of extreme event that will greatly speed up carbon emissions from forests.
James Lovelock, best known as the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, expects that within 100 years 80% of the human race will be wiped out. He became convinced of the irreversibility of climate change in 2004.
Climatologists predict catastrophic consequences when average global temperatures increase by 2 degrees Centrigrade. The global average is currently 0.74 degrees Centrigrade above pre-industrial temperatures, and Australia's average is higher still. Over the past 2 million years, temperatures have never been more than 2 degrees Centrigrade warmer than at present.
Feedback processes in climate are a natural occurrence. Positive or negative feedback is a major contributor to the shifts from glacial to interglacial periods and back again. These processes accelerate the warming or cooling of the earth. They are reactions in the biosphere triggered by climate change.
Examples of feedback are the large changes in the earth's albedo: reflection of the sun's heat from white surfaces; or absorption of heat by dark surfaces. When the planet warms, polar ice-melt increases exposing a greater expanse of dark surface from the sea. Thiss then, promotes more warming, and still more ice melt. Or, when the planet warms, life in the oceans changes in such a way that the oceans' ability to absorb carbon is diminished. More carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere, thus promoting more warming. As temperatures rise and precipitation changes, organisms could respond by releasing carbon from soils and biomass, creating another feedback loop. These are examples of positive feedback but negative feedback also comes into play and eventually halts global hemming thus preventing a `runaway' situation.
Feedback is critical in determining impacts now and in the not too distant future because the world's vegetation, including its forests, contains some 600 billion tonnes of carbon; tundra, permafrost and other, soils contain about 1,600 billion tonnes of carbon, and 10,000, billion tonnes of methane; and the oceans nearly 40,000 billion tonnes of carbon.
In comparison, the atmosphere currently contains about 750 billion tonnes (figure from early 2000s) (At the time of writing this document, the CSIRO reported that recent estimates have doubled the amount of CO2 and methane stored in the permafrost, which is already melting.) It is not difficult to see, from these figures, why further warming of the planet could lead to a very rapid escalation of our self-made climate change crisis, and much higher temperature and sea level rise than forecast by the T CC.
HAVE WE REACHED A TIPPING POINT ?
Soil, vegetation. and the world's oceans between them absorb some 50% % of CO2 emissions, so changes to the biosphere as temperatures rise is of critical importance and yet is largely ignored.
If we continue emitting greenhouse gases at present rates - and nothing we are doing yet suggests otherwise - then much of our soils, forests and oceans will be transformed into CO2 sources rather than sinks. This, of course, would add very significantly to projected temperature rise. It is thought that a tipping point grill be reached when positive feedback is speeded up to such an extent that the earth's balancing mechanisms will be overwhelmed and we will have unleashed a runaway global climate change. At such a point, it is considered that no matter what action is taken to reduce human impacts, it would have no effect.
Increasing numbers of scientists, and science writers, believe feedback is already accelerating warming of the planet and that a tipping point may have been reached. For example, Barrie Pittock of the CSIRO says that the frequency and severity of droughts in southern Australia greatly exceeds climate change forecasts for so early in the 21 ' century.
Responding to the Garnaut Climate Change Review, 2008, three organisations working on climate change issues: Friends of the Earth (FOE) Vic., Greenleap Strategic Institute and Carbon Equity said that Arctic floating ice is headed towards rapid summer disintegration as early as 2010, a century ahead of IPCC projections, saying that a rise in sea levels by as much as 5 metres by the turn of the century is not unreasonable. Record ice melt occurred in 2005 and 2007, and improved slightly in 2008 with a cooler year.
James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies believes that the reason for the massive and rapid ice melt is that climate is hitting a tipping point a century ahead of projections. Hansen recently said he now considers 350 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere is the critical concentration to trigger a tipping point. We have already exceeded this level (see above).
In 2007, researchers at Bristol University, in the UK, reported that a previously unexplained surge in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere in recent years is due to more greenhouse gasses escaping from trees, plants and soils, and making vegetation less able to absorb carbon pollution pumped out by human activity. The severe drought in the Amazon Basin in 2005 is the type of extreme event that will greatly speed up carbon emissions from forests.
James Lovelock, best known as the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, expects that within 100 years 80% of the human race will be wiped out. He became convinced of the irreversibility of climate change in 2004.
Ally Fricker 2008-2010
This is produced by the group PRECIPICE
(People Representing Ecological Consciousness and Integrity of the Planet Instead of Committing Ecocide)
Phone (O8) 8581 8255.
International Phone (61) 8 8581 8255.
Write:
Ally Fricker
RSD 3
ROBERTSTOWN SA
5381
AUSTRALIA
Ally Fricker
RSD 3
ROBERTSTOWN SA
5381
AUSTRALIA
or Email kbarrett@adam.com.au.
Carbon Capitalism
Carbon Capitalism : Sorry, but Ecology into Economics Won't Go
Nicholas Stern, economic advisor on climate change to the U.K. government, is probably best known for his statement that climate change represents the biggest market failure in history - bigger than two world wars and the Depression put together. His view is echoed by his Australian counterpart Ross Garnaut and in the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper, July 2008, which states that, "Emissions trading schemes are designed to redress this market failure."
Far from reflecting market failure, human-made (anthropogenic) climate change, and most other ecological disasters, are the inevitable result of the success of just such market forces; indeed, they are the unhappy eventuality of a market based system in which all other considerations are subordinated to economic interests. Markets are treasured above all else: families, communities, cultures and natural systems because they facilitate economic development, profits and the rapid turnover of technologies.
Throughout the Green Paper, the government's prior concern with maintaining "long-term economic prosperity" is repeated. Reducing carbon pollution is equated to "a significant reform" for which, "The Australian economy is well placed to respond." The ability of Australia's ecosystems to respond to current levels of climatic disruption, let alone with larger, future perturbations, is given much less consideration.
Stem's comment blaming market failure for climate change, of course, refers to the exclusion by the economic system of costs known as 'externalities'. Such costs include all types of pollution or social disruption which are eventually borne by all. But, why Stem, Garnaut et al consider the markets have failed now, by not including the economic costs of climate change in companies' accounts, when they have not considered it necessary for any other polluting activity, is not explained.
The notion that climate change is the result of market failure is absurd, when, in fact, it is the failure to respect and live within the limits inherent within all natural systems which is the underlying cause of this and a multitude of related problems. To apply a market based mechanism, such as the government's proposed carbon emission reduction scheme, to a crisis in the earth's biosphere will do little if anything to reduce the problem, but does run the risk of making matters worse by allowing people to think that governments are seriously tackling climate instability.
Even within the limited economic parameters of the government's proposed cap and trade system, whereby permits to emit C02 (and other greenhouse gasses) are given and/or sold to the nation's largest emitters, within a specified overall cap and a trade in carbon can then ensue, there are many flaws. From the outset, only the largest of the nation's corporations will be affected by the system, leaving 99% of businesses to continue as usual.
An investigation by the UK's Guardian newspaper found that the Clean Development Mechanism has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud. And why would it operate any differently to other sectors in the market? In Australia, it is possible for people with a guilty carbon conscience to off set various activities such as 6-months of driving, flying or keeping a pet cat! Such gestures are futile. A few people with a clear conscience will not save the planet by off loading their C02 emissions to be neutralised somewhere else.
A lengthy article in a 2008 New Scientist magazine on the global C02 market concluded that reductions in carbon emissions could appear on the books while increases (from deforestation, agricultural practices, draining wetlands etc) always stay off them - in other words, carbon capitalism becomes disconnected from the reality of the planets carbon cycle.
Such disconnection with the real world of the biosphere could not be better summed up than by the then premier of NSW Maurice lemma who asked, "What is the use of saving the planet if it wrecks the economy?" Only when politicians are preoccupied with the inverse of lemma's question will we know that they are finally beginning to grasp the problem.
Precipice does not consider that the government's proposed scheme is intended to seriously reduce our impact on the earth's atmosphere. It is intended, however, to allow business to continue pretty much as usual and to ensure that any changes that result are too minimal to cause any economic slow-down.
Furthermore, the introduction to the government's scheme is so slow and the targets so low that many politicians will no longer be in parliament by the time any intended deeper cuts occur. The government's carbon emissions reduction scheme is a cop out. It is based on the dangerously deluded assumption that economic growth is a natural process without which we cannot survive.
The government proposes many reimbursements, incentives and funding to provide a soft-landing for the energy sector, and also to what are termed high-emitting trade exposed corporations, such as coal and alumina exporters. To such businesses the government intends to give at least 30% free permits. In Europe, the first-phase of its carbon trading scheme has been greatly criticised for providing too many free permits to big business, resulting in a very low price for carbon and eroding the scheme. Were these lessons learnt? No, not at all.
In 2008 the second-phase began and, once again, too many permits were simply handed out to 200 large companies (in the U.K. alone) and, in effect, giving those companies a substantial subsidy. The second-phase will last until 2013, so the free permits translate into permission to pollute until then. This over-allocation of permits is a clear result of the bargaining power of business - a process now well underway in Australia.
After the energy sector, transport and agriculture are the next two most carbon polluting sectors within the Australian economy. These two sectors are included in the government's proposed scheme but with so many caveats that they might as well not be. In the case of road transport anticipated price increases in fuel will be offset by a cent for cent reduction in existing fuel taxes and, thereby, disadvantaging rail. As for agriculture it is simply considered too difficult to include in any scheme `at this stage'.
It is expected that once a market in carbon is established by the trade in permits, the price of energy intensive products, such as electricity delivered to homes and businesses, will rise. Given that the demand for such products is regarded as `inelastic' i.e. it is difficult for many people to reduce their demand, such schemes are regressive and, therefore, unfairly impact low-income members of the community. The government proposes to deal with this by reimbursing the proceeds from the sale of carbon permits (that is, the sale of those permits it doesn't just give away).
This all sounds very reasonable and fair, but what is the point if it encourages the same old patterns of consumption? Instead, the moneys raised should be invested in small-scale energy and water-saving appliances such as tanks, solar hot water collectors, greatly improved public transport, safe bike paths, etc. People could then reduce their demand for energy without being disadvantaged.
Not only is the majority of the business sector and agriculture (for now) outside the proposed scheme, but it also does not include - except on a voluntary 'opt-in' basis - forestry, and totally fails to take into account activities such as land use changes which can dramatically alter carbon absorption from soils and wetlands.
Governments around the world which are proposing to adopt carbon trading schemes (or similar) base their proposals on IPCC reports. However, there is a significant time lag between the publication of the reports and the data on which they are based. The failure of such reports to fully consider the impacts of climate feedback (referred to above) is, together with the out-dated data, incorporated into governments responses, such as in the Green Paper.
Thus, the already limited nature of the Australian government's proposal is exacerbated by a failure to acknowledge the rapidly changing and deteriorating situation, whereby, the rate of CO2 production exceeds the IPCC's worst case scenarios and is now growing faster than any time since the industrial Revolution. (From 1970 - 2000 concentration of C02 in the atmosphere rose by about 1.5 ppm each year. Since 2000 this figure has leapt to 2.1 ppm, according to the National Ocean and Atmosphere Administration.)
The government's Green Paper considers that a 2° - 3°C increase in average global temperature is a threshold above which the earth's climate would produce catastrophic consequences. But, climate change is now occurring very rapidly (events predicted by the IPCC to occur at the end of this century are already happening) and the 2° - 3° figure is based on out-dated data.
As mentioned above, the global average temperature increase is 0.78°C and in Australia it is 0.9°C. At these increases - well below the so-called threshold of 2°C - climate extremes are already catastrophic for many species (most famously, polar bears) and for many humans who have lost lives, land or livelihoods.
Following the publication of the Green Paper, Ross Garnaut advised the government to set the carbon emission reduction target at 10% by 2020. But, this was only to be in the unlikely event of an international agreement on carbon trading being reached soon. Assuming no such agreement, his advice was for a target of 5%, a target eventually adopted by the Rudd Government. Such low targets condemn us to an unliveable planet.
The true target of the government's scheme is to maintain and expand Australia's economic wealth. Defenders of the scheme, including some trade unionists, consider that the scheme strikes `a balance between the environment and the economy'. Such people should take up the notion of balance with the myriad of natural processes and life forms which play a part in maintaining the stability of the planet's climatic system - from microorganisms in soil and oceans, to forests and fungi.
The possibility of finding such a balance between nature's complexity and diversity (often not well understood by science) and the economic prosperity of one species is ludicrous. The earth's biosphere, taken as a unitary system, is attempting to maintain its own balance, even as we do all in our power to destroy it.
Carbon trading systems could, in theory, reduce some carbon emissions, and pricing mechanisms could play some role in providing incentives/disincentives within a broader and more serious determination to radically reduce CO2 emissions. However, trading in carbon inevitably results in reductions in one area being bought at the cost of increases' in another. Quite simply, carbon credits are purchased so someone else can pollute.
Even more problematic are those trading systems which deal in so-called carbon off-sets whereby individuals or corporations can purchase the right to emit a certain quantity of CO2 in exchange for a company (usually in the developing world) not emitting an equivalent amount. What human activity, other than the free market, could devise such a scandalous trade? Off set schemes operate at the global level and within Australia. Such schemes are not well regulated and in Australia off-sets are not standardised at all.
At the global level, and under the Kyoto umbrella, the scheme is known as the Clean Development Mechanism. It has spawned a large financial infrastructure of bankers and traders. In 2007, the value of this market was estimated to be $60 billion and attracting big players (or were, until the financial turmoil of mid-2008) such as JP Morgan and Morgan-Stanley, and Barclays Capital.
But CO2 is not being kept out of the atmosphere.
Nicholas Stern, economic advisor on climate change to the U.K. government, is probably best known for his statement that climate change represents the biggest market failure in history - bigger than two world wars and the Depression put together. His view is echoed by his Australian counterpart Ross Garnaut and in the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper, July 2008, which states that, "Emissions trading schemes are designed to redress this market failure."
Far from reflecting market failure, human-made (anthropogenic) climate change, and most other ecological disasters, are the inevitable result of the success of just such market forces; indeed, they are the unhappy eventuality of a market based system in which all other considerations are subordinated to economic interests. Markets are treasured above all else: families, communities, cultures and natural systems because they facilitate economic development, profits and the rapid turnover of technologies.
Throughout the Green Paper, the government's prior concern with maintaining "long-term economic prosperity" is repeated. Reducing carbon pollution is equated to "a significant reform" for which, "The Australian economy is well placed to respond." The ability of Australia's ecosystems to respond to current levels of climatic disruption, let alone with larger, future perturbations, is given much less consideration.
Stem's comment blaming market failure for climate change, of course, refers to the exclusion by the economic system of costs known as 'externalities'. Such costs include all types of pollution or social disruption which are eventually borne by all. But, why Stem, Garnaut et al consider the markets have failed now, by not including the economic costs of climate change in companies' accounts, when they have not considered it necessary for any other polluting activity, is not explained.
The notion that climate change is the result of market failure is absurd, when, in fact, it is the failure to respect and live within the limits inherent within all natural systems which is the underlying cause of this and a multitude of related problems. To apply a market based mechanism, such as the government's proposed carbon emission reduction scheme, to a crisis in the earth's biosphere will do little if anything to reduce the problem, but does run the risk of making matters worse by allowing people to think that governments are seriously tackling climate instability.
Even within the limited economic parameters of the government's proposed cap and trade system, whereby permits to emit C02 (and other greenhouse gasses) are given and/or sold to the nation's largest emitters, within a specified overall cap and a trade in carbon can then ensue, there are many flaws. From the outset, only the largest of the nation's corporations will be affected by the system, leaving 99% of businesses to continue as usual.
An investigation by the UK's Guardian newspaper found that the Clean Development Mechanism has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud. And why would it operate any differently to other sectors in the market? In Australia, it is possible for people with a guilty carbon conscience to off set various activities such as 6-months of driving, flying or keeping a pet cat! Such gestures are futile. A few people with a clear conscience will not save the planet by off loading their C02 emissions to be neutralised somewhere else.
A lengthy article in a 2008 New Scientist magazine on the global C02 market concluded that reductions in carbon emissions could appear on the books while increases (from deforestation, agricultural practices, draining wetlands etc) always stay off them - in other words, carbon capitalism becomes disconnected from the reality of the planets carbon cycle.
Such disconnection with the real world of the biosphere could not be better summed up than by the then premier of NSW Maurice lemma who asked, "What is the use of saving the planet if it wrecks the economy?" Only when politicians are preoccupied with the inverse of lemma's question will we know that they are finally beginning to grasp the problem.
Precipice does not consider that the government's proposed scheme is intended to seriously reduce our impact on the earth's atmosphere. It is intended, however, to allow business to continue pretty much as usual and to ensure that any changes that result are too minimal to cause any economic slow-down.
Furthermore, the introduction to the government's scheme is so slow and the targets so low that many politicians will no longer be in parliament by the time any intended deeper cuts occur. The government's carbon emissions reduction scheme is a cop out. It is based on the dangerously deluded assumption that economic growth is a natural process without which we cannot survive.
The government proposes many reimbursements, incentives and funding to provide a soft-landing for the energy sector, and also to what are termed high-emitting trade exposed corporations, such as coal and alumina exporters. To such businesses the government intends to give at least 30% free permits. In Europe, the first-phase of its carbon trading scheme has been greatly criticised for providing too many free permits to big business, resulting in a very low price for carbon and eroding the scheme. Were these lessons learnt? No, not at all.
In 2008 the second-phase began and, once again, too many permits were simply handed out to 200 large companies (in the U.K. alone) and, in effect, giving those companies a substantial subsidy. The second-phase will last until 2013, so the free permits translate into permission to pollute until then. This over-allocation of permits is a clear result of the bargaining power of business - a process now well underway in Australia.
After the energy sector, transport and agriculture are the next two most carbon polluting sectors within the Australian economy. These two sectors are included in the government's proposed scheme but with so many caveats that they might as well not be. In the case of road transport anticipated price increases in fuel will be offset by a cent for cent reduction in existing fuel taxes and, thereby, disadvantaging rail. As for agriculture it is simply considered too difficult to include in any scheme `at this stage'.
It is expected that once a market in carbon is established by the trade in permits, the price of energy intensive products, such as electricity delivered to homes and businesses, will rise. Given that the demand for such products is regarded as `inelastic' i.e. it is difficult for many people to reduce their demand, such schemes are regressive and, therefore, unfairly impact low-income members of the community. The government proposes to deal with this by reimbursing the proceeds from the sale of carbon permits (that is, the sale of those permits it doesn't just give away).
This all sounds very reasonable and fair, but what is the point if it encourages the same old patterns of consumption? Instead, the moneys raised should be invested in small-scale energy and water-saving appliances such as tanks, solar hot water collectors, greatly improved public transport, safe bike paths, etc. People could then reduce their demand for energy without being disadvantaged.
Not only is the majority of the business sector and agriculture (for now) outside the proposed scheme, but it also does not include - except on a voluntary 'opt-in' basis - forestry, and totally fails to take into account activities such as land use changes which can dramatically alter carbon absorption from soils and wetlands.
Governments around the world which are proposing to adopt carbon trading schemes (or similar) base their proposals on IPCC reports. However, there is a significant time lag between the publication of the reports and the data on which they are based. The failure of such reports to fully consider the impacts of climate feedback (referred to above) is, together with the out-dated data, incorporated into governments responses, such as in the Green Paper.
Thus, the already limited nature of the Australian government's proposal is exacerbated by a failure to acknowledge the rapidly changing and deteriorating situation, whereby, the rate of CO2 production exceeds the IPCC's worst case scenarios and is now growing faster than any time since the industrial Revolution. (From 1970 - 2000 concentration of C02 in the atmosphere rose by about 1.5 ppm each year. Since 2000 this figure has leapt to 2.1 ppm, according to the National Ocean and Atmosphere Administration.)
The government's Green Paper considers that a 2° - 3°C increase in average global temperature is a threshold above which the earth's climate would produce catastrophic consequences. But, climate change is now occurring very rapidly (events predicted by the IPCC to occur at the end of this century are already happening) and the 2° - 3° figure is based on out-dated data.
As mentioned above, the global average temperature increase is 0.78°C and in Australia it is 0.9°C. At these increases - well below the so-called threshold of 2°C - climate extremes are already catastrophic for many species (most famously, polar bears) and for many humans who have lost lives, land or livelihoods.
Following the publication of the Green Paper, Ross Garnaut advised the government to set the carbon emission reduction target at 10% by 2020. But, this was only to be in the unlikely event of an international agreement on carbon trading being reached soon. Assuming no such agreement, his advice was for a target of 5%, a target eventually adopted by the Rudd Government. Such low targets condemn us to an unliveable planet.
The true target of the government's scheme is to maintain and expand Australia's economic wealth. Defenders of the scheme, including some trade unionists, consider that the scheme strikes `a balance between the environment and the economy'. Such people should take up the notion of balance with the myriad of natural processes and life forms which play a part in maintaining the stability of the planet's climatic system - from microorganisms in soil and oceans, to forests and fungi.
The possibility of finding such a balance between nature's complexity and diversity (often not well understood by science) and the economic prosperity of one species is ludicrous. The earth's biosphere, taken as a unitary system, is attempting to maintain its own balance, even as we do all in our power to destroy it.
Carbon trading systems could, in theory, reduce some carbon emissions, and pricing mechanisms could play some role in providing incentives/disincentives within a broader and more serious determination to radically reduce CO2 emissions. However, trading in carbon inevitably results in reductions in one area being bought at the cost of increases' in another. Quite simply, carbon credits are purchased so someone else can pollute.
Even more problematic are those trading systems which deal in so-called carbon off-sets whereby individuals or corporations can purchase the right to emit a certain quantity of CO2 in exchange for a company (usually in the developing world) not emitting an equivalent amount. What human activity, other than the free market, could devise such a scandalous trade? Off set schemes operate at the global level and within Australia. Such schemes are not well regulated and in Australia off-sets are not standardised at all.
At the global level, and under the Kyoto umbrella, the scheme is known as the Clean Development Mechanism. It has spawned a large financial infrastructure of bankers and traders. In 2007, the value of this market was estimated to be $60 billion and attracting big players (or were, until the financial turmoil of mid-2008) such as JP Morgan and Morgan-Stanley, and Barclays Capital.
But CO2 is not being kept out of the atmosphere.
Ally Fricker 2008-2010
This is produced by the group PRECIPICE
(People Representing Ecological Consciousness and Integrity of the Planet Instead of Committing Ecocide)
Phone (O8) 8581 8255.
International Phone (61) 8 8581 8255.
Write:
Ally Fricker
RSD 3
ROBERTSTOWN SA
5381
AUSTRALIA
Ally Fricker
RSD 3
ROBERTSTOWN SA
5381
AUSTRALIA
or Email kbarrett@adam.com.au.
25 October 2008
Technology to the Rescue ?
This document sets out to show that simply by the substitution of fossil fuels with renewable sources, and other so-called clean and green technologies, such as geothermal and nuclear, that very little would change.
There are, additionally, other shortcomings with most alternative energy technologies, especially when scaled up in an attempt to meet the gargantuan energy demands of wealthy and developing nations. Alternative energy is not necessarily the panacea that so many people and, in particular, environmentalists, are counting on.
Over the past few decades, critical thinkers both in Australia and overseas have written about the fallacy of relying on the expectation that technology will come to the rescue :
In the US, Howard Odums, and Eugene and Elizabeth Odums pioneered the field of energy evaluation, writing and teaching about the importance of taking into account the full energy equation of a particular technology. For example, Eugene Odums in his recent book, A Prosperous Way Down, 2001, considers that,
"Although there are enormous outflows of energy in the sun, the energy spreads out when it flows to Earth and has to be reconcentrated to be used for high-quality purposes. Wherever accumulated, the sun's rays do many valuable services, but the most of the services do not yield net emergy"
(Emergy spelt with an 'm' is the available energy of one kind that has been used up directly or indirectly to make a product or service. Odums defined this new word so as to more accurately compare the amounts of energy of various kinds - expressed in solar equivalents that have gone into making products and services).
"The solar technological hardware devices directly and indirectly use more emergy in resources and services in their manufacture, operation, maintenance, cleaning, and orientating to sunlight, than they produce in electricity. Just to make a magnifying glass to concentrate the sun's rays takes more work of high-temperature heat than the glass can concentrate. Advocates who quote net energy (instead of net emergy) calculations to claim the opposite, use emergy without multiplying by the transformities necessary to properly evaluate materials and human services on a common basis. The technological devices that convert solar energy directly to mechanical or electrical energy analyzed so far have no net energy yield."
Odums' assessment of wind power is a little more optimistic, but not much !
In the U.K. Peter Bunyard, science editor for The Ecologist journal wrote persuasively in the 1970's and 80's about the inability of renewables to substitute for fossil fuels due to their dispersed and intermittent nature.
Peak oil athor and campaigner Richard Heinberg has also written extensively about the false promise of oil substitutes. In his books, The Party's Over and Powerdown, he examines the proposed "hydrogen economy" and other alternative energy sources. He shows how natural gas extraction would peak only a few years after oil and that within a few decades uranium would also be exhausted as such fuels were intensively relied on to replace coal or peaking oil.
George Monbiot, investigative journalist and author of the book Heat, 2007, says that wind farms are a classic example of what are known as "end-of-the-pipe" solutions : "Instead of tackling the problem - our massive demand for energy - at source, they provide less damaging means of accomodating it. Or Part of it."
He calculates that one daily flight between the UK and Florida in the US requires the equivalent energy output of three giant wind farms. He has also estimated that for the US to run its vehicles on hydrogen power produced by electricity from wind would require a doubling of the national grid.
Monbiot is not antagonistic to the use of wind power, but is pointing out its limitations and the futility of "responding to one form of overdevelopment with another (whereby) we believe (we can) continue to expand our total energy demands without destroying the planetary systems required to sustain human life. This might be true for a while. But it would soon require the use of the entire land surface of the U.K."
Closer to home, S.A.'s Premier Mike Rann likes to parade his green credentials and frequently reminds us of the numerous wind farms operating, or under construction, in the state. However, he fails to point out that the energy of one mine (BHP Billiton's uranium mine at Roxby Downs) requires such vast amounts of energy that it negates any attempts to reduce our carbon emissions. And Rann is hoping the mine will grow and grow.
Ted Trainer, Australian academic and author of Abandon Affluence, Developed to Death, and recently, Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society, has examined Nicholas Stern's review - upon which Ross Garnaut and governments around the world have developed their responses - and found its proposals for alternative energy supplies to be seriously misleading and optimistic.
For example, he questions where it would be possible to find suitable sites for the 150 times present installed wind farms, adding that some European regions might already be approaching limits.
Trainer calculates that running transport on electrical energy supplied from wind power would require twenty-five times the wind capacity that Stern assumes. And, that to electrify the Australian transport sector and meet normal electricity demands, he says, would require generating 4.5 times as much electricity as now produced by the grid.
Trainer asserts that "the greenhouse problem cannot be solved at any cost in a society that is committed to high material 'living standards' and economic growth".
From approximately the mid 1960's to the mid 1980's an environmental awareness developed in response to increasingly glaring problems of pollution, habitat destruction, resource depletion, etc. Stimulated by a growing body of literature on these important issues books such as Rachel Carson's, Silent Spring, 1962; Paul and Anne Ehrlich's, The Population Bomb, 1968, and Population, Resources, Environmental Issues in Human Ecology, 1970; A Report from the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind, 1972; Edward Goldsmith's, Blueprint for Survival, 1972; and E.F. Schumache's, Small is Beautiful, 1973.
Environmental concerns were also being brought more sharply into focus by the oil price shock of the early 1970's, and the peaking of oil in the U.S.
This environmental movement was more far-reaching in its analysis and demands, than in the period following the mid-1980's.
There was, for example, a greater willingness to criticise our civilisation's reliance on finite and/or environmentally damaging energy sources. The destructiveness of economic growth (socially and environmentally) and the vast military-industrial complex it relied on were also under attack.
It was not unusual for environmentalists to call for radical change as in such books as David Dicksen's Alternative Technology and The Politics of Technical Change (1974) which did not hesitate to reject modern industrialisation and the technological system which drives it. The alternative technology movement, which Dicksen spoke for, encompassed the principles of : minimum use of non-renewable resources, minimal environmental interference, regional and sub-regional self-sufficiency and the elimination of alienation and exploitation of individuals.
In Australia, organisations such as Melbourne's Conservation of Urban Energy Group, made important contributions to the development of alternative policies based on renewable energy strategies encompassing shifts to public transport, passive-solar building design, spatial design of cities, etc. In 1978, they published their book, Seeds for Change : Creatively Confronting the Energy Crisis. In the mid-1980's, Adelaide's Friends of the Earth published an alternative energy strategy for the state, South Australia's Energy Future : The Sustainable Option. This document built on the work of Chas Martin, whose booklet, Jobs, Energy and Environmental Harmony Towards a Sustainable Economy for S.A., was published in 1981 for the organisation Environmentalists for Full Employment.
Had the proposals being made at that time been adopted, there can be little doubt that we would not now be in such a serious predicament. We would have brought ourselves some much needed time to rein in our insatiable appetite.
However, by the late 1990's oil prices dropped back as off-shore oil came on stream and OPEC production rose, and the belief in its limitlessness returned with a vengeance. In the U.S., President Carter's programmes to develop alternative energy sources and the vast sums of money he had committed to developing new energy technologies began to dry up; the promise of new technologies to replace oil failed to materialise.
The intellectual vigor of the environment movement also waned. Today, the Green Party and most environmental organisations, far from tackling the viatally important issues of economic growth, overpopulation, overdevelopment and consumerism, contribute to the false belief that not only could alternative energy technologies, if adopted on a large enough scale, allow our civilisation to continue pretty much as usual, but that social equity on a global scale could also be accomodated!
Ted Trainer sums it up this way, "... few green people seem to realise that the environment problem cannot be solved without dramatic reduction in the level of producing and consuming going on, and therefore without radical social change to frugal living standards and a zero-growth economy, yet our peak environmental agencies do not focus on the absurdity of the quest for economic growth".
There are, additionally, other shortcomings with most alternative energy technologies, especially when scaled up in an attempt to meet the gargantuan energy demands of wealthy and developing nations. Alternative energy is not necessarily the panacea that so many people and, in particular, environmentalists, are counting on.
Over the past few decades, critical thinkers both in Australia and overseas have written about the fallacy of relying on the expectation that technology will come to the rescue :
In the US, Howard Odums, and Eugene and Elizabeth Odums pioneered the field of energy evaluation, writing and teaching about the importance of taking into account the full energy equation of a particular technology. For example, Eugene Odums in his recent book, A Prosperous Way Down, 2001, considers that,
"Although there are enormous outflows of energy in the sun, the energy spreads out when it flows to Earth and has to be reconcentrated to be used for high-quality purposes. Wherever accumulated, the sun's rays do many valuable services, but the most of the services do not yield net emergy"
(Emergy spelt with an 'm' is the available energy of one kind that has been used up directly or indirectly to make a product or service. Odums defined this new word so as to more accurately compare the amounts of energy of various kinds - expressed in solar equivalents that have gone into making products and services).
"The solar technological hardware devices directly and indirectly use more emergy in resources and services in their manufacture, operation, maintenance, cleaning, and orientating to sunlight, than they produce in electricity. Just to make a magnifying glass to concentrate the sun's rays takes more work of high-temperature heat than the glass can concentrate. Advocates who quote net energy (instead of net emergy) calculations to claim the opposite, use emergy without multiplying by the transformities necessary to properly evaluate materials and human services on a common basis. The technological devices that convert solar energy directly to mechanical or electrical energy analyzed so far have no net energy yield."
Odums' assessment of wind power is a little more optimistic, but not much !
In the U.K. Peter Bunyard, science editor for The Ecologist journal wrote persuasively in the 1970's and 80's about the inability of renewables to substitute for fossil fuels due to their dispersed and intermittent nature.
Peak oil athor and campaigner Richard Heinberg has also written extensively about the false promise of oil substitutes. In his books, The Party's Over and Powerdown, he examines the proposed "hydrogen economy" and other alternative energy sources. He shows how natural gas extraction would peak only a few years after oil and that within a few decades uranium would also be exhausted as such fuels were intensively relied on to replace coal or peaking oil.
George Monbiot, investigative journalist and author of the book Heat, 2007, says that wind farms are a classic example of what are known as "end-of-the-pipe" solutions : "Instead of tackling the problem - our massive demand for energy - at source, they provide less damaging means of accomodating it. Or Part of it."
He calculates that one daily flight between the UK and Florida in the US requires the equivalent energy output of three giant wind farms. He has also estimated that for the US to run its vehicles on hydrogen power produced by electricity from wind would require a doubling of the national grid.
Monbiot is not antagonistic to the use of wind power, but is pointing out its limitations and the futility of "responding to one form of overdevelopment with another (whereby) we believe (we can) continue to expand our total energy demands without destroying the planetary systems required to sustain human life. This might be true for a while. But it would soon require the use of the entire land surface of the U.K."
Closer to home, S.A.'s Premier Mike Rann likes to parade his green credentials and frequently reminds us of the numerous wind farms operating, or under construction, in the state. However, he fails to point out that the energy of one mine (BHP Billiton's uranium mine at Roxby Downs) requires such vast amounts of energy that it negates any attempts to reduce our carbon emissions. And Rann is hoping the mine will grow and grow.
Ted Trainer, Australian academic and author of Abandon Affluence, Developed to Death, and recently, Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society, has examined Nicholas Stern's review - upon which Ross Garnaut and governments around the world have developed their responses - and found its proposals for alternative energy supplies to be seriously misleading and optimistic.
For example, he questions where it would be possible to find suitable sites for the 150 times present installed wind farms, adding that some European regions might already be approaching limits.
Trainer calculates that running transport on electrical energy supplied from wind power would require twenty-five times the wind capacity that Stern assumes. And, that to electrify the Australian transport sector and meet normal electricity demands, he says, would require generating 4.5 times as much electricity as now produced by the grid.
Trainer asserts that "the greenhouse problem cannot be solved at any cost in a society that is committed to high material 'living standards' and economic growth".
From approximately the mid 1960's to the mid 1980's an environmental awareness developed in response to increasingly glaring problems of pollution, habitat destruction, resource depletion, etc. Stimulated by a growing body of literature on these important issues books such as Rachel Carson's, Silent Spring, 1962; Paul and Anne Ehrlich's, The Population Bomb, 1968, and Population, Resources, Environmental Issues in Human Ecology, 1970; A Report from the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind, 1972; Edward Goldsmith's, Blueprint for Survival, 1972; and E.F. Schumache's, Small is Beautiful, 1973.
Environmental concerns were also being brought more sharply into focus by the oil price shock of the early 1970's, and the peaking of oil in the U.S.
This environmental movement was more far-reaching in its analysis and demands, than in the period following the mid-1980's.
There was, for example, a greater willingness to criticise our civilisation's reliance on finite and/or environmentally damaging energy sources. The destructiveness of economic growth (socially and environmentally) and the vast military-industrial complex it relied on were also under attack.
It was not unusual for environmentalists to call for radical change as in such books as David Dicksen's Alternative Technology and The Politics of Technical Change (1974) which did not hesitate to reject modern industrialisation and the technological system which drives it. The alternative technology movement, which Dicksen spoke for, encompassed the principles of : minimum use of non-renewable resources, minimal environmental interference, regional and sub-regional self-sufficiency and the elimination of alienation and exploitation of individuals.
In Australia, organisations such as Melbourne's Conservation of Urban Energy Group, made important contributions to the development of alternative policies based on renewable energy strategies encompassing shifts to public transport, passive-solar building design, spatial design of cities, etc. In 1978, they published their book, Seeds for Change : Creatively Confronting the Energy Crisis. In the mid-1980's, Adelaide's Friends of the Earth published an alternative energy strategy for the state, South Australia's Energy Future : The Sustainable Option. This document built on the work of Chas Martin, whose booklet, Jobs, Energy and Environmental Harmony Towards a Sustainable Economy for S.A., was published in 1981 for the organisation Environmentalists for Full Employment.
Had the proposals being made at that time been adopted, there can be little doubt that we would not now be in such a serious predicament. We would have brought ourselves some much needed time to rein in our insatiable appetite.
However, by the late 1990's oil prices dropped back as off-shore oil came on stream and OPEC production rose, and the belief in its limitlessness returned with a vengeance. In the U.S., President Carter's programmes to develop alternative energy sources and the vast sums of money he had committed to developing new energy technologies began to dry up; the promise of new technologies to replace oil failed to materialise.
The intellectual vigor of the environment movement also waned. Today, the Green Party and most environmental organisations, far from tackling the viatally important issues of economic growth, overpopulation, overdevelopment and consumerism, contribute to the false belief that not only could alternative energy technologies, if adopted on a large enough scale, allow our civilisation to continue pretty much as usual, but that social equity on a global scale could also be accomodated!
Ted Trainer sums it up this way, "... few green people seem to realise that the environment problem cannot be solved without dramatic reduction in the level of producing and consuming going on, and therefore without radical social change to frugal living standards and a zero-growth economy, yet our peak environmental agencies do not focus on the absurdity of the quest for economic growth".
Ally Fricker 2008-2010
This is produced by the group PRECIPICE
(People Representing Ecological Consciousness and Integrity of the Planet Instead of Committing Ecocide)
Phone (O8) 8581 8255.
International Phone (61) 8 8581 8255.
Write:
Ally Fricker
RSD 3
ROBERTSTOWN SA
5381
AUSTRALIA
Ally Fricker
RSD 3
ROBERTSTOWN SA
5381
AUSTRALIA
or Email kbarrett@adam.com.au.
What is Climate Change ?
Most people know that certain gases (now called greenhouse gases and which include C02, methane and nitrous oxides) in the earth's atmosphere trap the incoming rays of the sun, thereby keeping the planet habitable for humans and many other species.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution these gases have risen rapidly from pre-industrial levels of 288 ppm (parts per million) to today's level of 387 ppm; a rise of about 40%, and growing at a staggering level of 4% per year.
These levels have not been exceeded in the past 400,000 - 500,000 years and possibly not during the past 2 million years.
The overwhelming number of climatologists attribute the rise in greenhouse gases, and the weather extremes being experienced around the globe, to the burning of fossil fuels by industrialised peoples (or what is known as anthropogenic climate change). Occasionally, deforestation and other land use changes are also included in the causes but rarely do they receive the same attention as fossil fuels.
The most prestigious group of scientists working on climate change is the I.P.C.C. (International Panel on Climate Change). It has produced four major reports. Each successive report, and the most recent one in 2007, has produced more alarming scenarios.
The first warnings about damage to the earth's climatic system from increasing levels of greenhouse gases was made approximately 100 years ago by the Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius, and the first report to the US Congress was made in 1965 when President Johnson was in power.
In Australia, the CSIRO, independent scientists, various think-tanks and conservationists have repeatedly requested that climate change be given top priority by governments, businesses and individuals. Australia's Industry Commission conducted its first inquiry into climate change in 1991 in the lead up to the Rio summit on the environment.
By the late 1980's extreme weather around the world, such as the break up of the Antarctic ice shelf and increasing and prolonged droughts in sub Sahara Africa, was becoming harder to ignore. Insurance companies were raising premiums for storm damage and refusing to cover businesses in hurricane prone areas such as the Caribbean.
The media were having a field day, "the environment" was on the agenda, and climate change, at last, was making it into the mainstream debate - well, that was, for a while.
By the late 1980's and early 90's, cuts of 60% - 80% in greenhouse emissions were being called for at international conferences by conservationists and, notably, by the, then, Dutch government.
Since then little, if anything, has changed. Warnings went unheeded and emissions in the developed and developing nations (in an attempt to "catch up") have increased along with their expanding economies.
So, when politicians, captains of industry and public commentators say we should not "rush into any precipitous action to reduce emissions", it is, in fact, already very late - some would say it's already too late.
Recently, as evidence of global warning becomes harder to ignore, climate change has again taken centre-stage and now over-shadows a multitude of other equally serious threats to the earth's biosphere : threats such as human over-population; species extinction; deforestation; chemical, heavy metal and radiological pollution; degradation of soils, river systems and oceans, and ozone depletion and other damage to the stratosphere.
These threats are not separate from greenhouse gas pollution. They are intimately connected to it.
After ignoring (or completely denying) the problem for decades, government and big business now largely dominate the greenhouse debate as presented in the mainstream media and in high-profile forums. As such, the discussion is very narrow, revolving almost entirely around how we produce energy and how to maintain economic growth.
The climate change problem is debated in isolation from the other intersecting and interrelated problems; even deforestation and agriculture - both massive drivers of climate change - are not addressed.
However, climate change is not simply a matter of how we produce energy. To focus only on the type of energy is to completely miss the point : it is what we use the energy for that really matters. Because, a cheap and ready supply of energy - such as fossil fuels - greatly expands the rate at which we use up the natural world - or what economists call resources.
For a long time, we have been using up nature's bounty far quicker than nature can replenish its systems : In other words, we have been living beyond our means.
Take for example the changes in the rate of deforestation that have occurred as more concentrated sources of energy were exploited : The development of agriculture, and harnessing of draught animals, spurred deforestation and other detrimental practices such as irrigation, and the expansion of civilisations, fuelled by slavery and military power, resulted in the destruction of vast forests. The advent of steam power required more forests for fuel until replaced by coal. Coal and other fossil fuels, especially oil, now allow forests to be razed at phenomenal rates.
Imagine that, if by some miracle (and the technological optimists believe in just such a miracle), a non-polluting substitute for fossil fuels were to rapidly materialise and all the necessary infrastructure were to be installed overnight. Next, imagine that we continued to live in the same old way : driving cars, flying in jets, expanding large cities, sending rockets into space, supporting large armies and "defence" systems, relying on high-tech medicine, consuming all the latest gadgets etc. etc. would the natural world be saved ? No, of course not. Ecological crashes, such as the death of the Murray's Lower Lakes, would still be occurring. We would still be living beyond our means and exploiting natural "resources" (in this instance by taking too much water) faster than nature could replenish them. In the case of fossil fuels or the Great Artesian Basin (fossil water), the replacement rate is many millions of years.
Simply substituting less polluting fuels for fossil fuels is not going to solve much at all.
To demonstrate this point a little further, consider the way in which industrial agriculture contributes to greenhouse gas pollution while simultaneously reducing the ability of climate to recover from atmospheric disruption we are causing.
Broad acre farming in Australia and other developed countries is considered to be a very efficient food-producing system. However, this "efficiency" is achieved by the application of massive quantities of fossil fuels to drive the machinery, and in the form of inputs such as chemical sprays and fertilisers. Then, there is the fuel required to transport produce to highly centralised locations for processing and distribution to wholesalers, retailers and to ports for further transportation overseas.
O.K., now substitute the fossil fuels with the new non-polluting energy source and see what has changed - very little. Farmers would still be planting mono-crops (consisting of narrow-range of varieties) from horizon to horizon. They would continue to use a vast array of toxic chemicals, and to deplete their soil of micro-organisms and organic matter, and hence the ability of the soil to maintain carbon and moisture. Creeks, rivers and underground water would continue to be over-exploited and degraded, erosion of soils would continue unabated as would dust storms. Farmers would still maintain large flocks of stock and they would still not countenance the necessary revegetation of significant areas of agricultural land.
It is not hard to see that regardless of the source of energy used to drive industrial-scale systems, such as in agriculture, the end-result is the same : degradation of biological systems.
When land is cleared of forests and other vegetation for our various activities, it causes subtle changes in the absorption of energy and in wind currents which, in turn, can lead to substantial decreases in rainfall. The movement of moisture and convection currents which enhance rainfall are affected by the surface of the earth. Tree cover accelerates the movement of water from the soil to the atmosphere and back again and thus keeps the cycle replenished.
To only consider the type of energy we exploit ignores the significance of living organisms on their surrounding environment and their interaction with climate.
Living organisms are critical in affecting the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and are also important in affecting the earth's albedo : the reflectability of the earth's surface.
Living organisms in the form of algae, bacteria, fungi and plant roots play a role, for example, by greatly accelerating the weathering of rocks one-hundred or even one-thousand fold, thereby taking carbon dioxide (CO2) as well as acid rain components, such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides, out of the atmosphere.
In 1996, the science writer Peter Bunyard said that based on the work of people such as James Lovelods and Lee Klinger of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, "Life is not an innocent bystander to climate. On the contrary, living organisms are intimately involved in determining the processes that make the earth's climate what it is by generating and absorbing greenhouse gases; mediating the interchange of gases between rocks and soil, so enhancing the weathering; dramatically changing the albedo of the earth's surface, and, not least, playing a key role in the hydrological cycles that shift energy around the globe through rainfall. If climate is indeed life-driven, the future climate of the earth will be determined as much by what happens to the earth's ecosystems as by future and past emissions of greenhouse gases. For it is the integrity of the earth's ecosystems that will largely determine the extent to which these greenhouse gases accumulate."
Perhaps because they can't do so accurately, computer modelling by the IPCC does not fully take into account the intricacies of the interaction between the earth's climate and ecosystems. This may, in part, explain why the speed at which climate change is now occurring is much greater than forecast by the IPCC.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution these gases have risen rapidly from pre-industrial levels of 288 ppm (parts per million) to today's level of 387 ppm; a rise of about 40%, and growing at a staggering level of 4% per year.
These levels have not been exceeded in the past 400,000 - 500,000 years and possibly not during the past 2 million years.
The overwhelming number of climatologists attribute the rise in greenhouse gases, and the weather extremes being experienced around the globe, to the burning of fossil fuels by industrialised peoples (or what is known as anthropogenic climate change). Occasionally, deforestation and other land use changes are also included in the causes but rarely do they receive the same attention as fossil fuels.
The most prestigious group of scientists working on climate change is the I.P.C.C. (International Panel on Climate Change). It has produced four major reports. Each successive report, and the most recent one in 2007, has produced more alarming scenarios.
The first warnings about damage to the earth's climatic system from increasing levels of greenhouse gases was made approximately 100 years ago by the Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius, and the first report to the US Congress was made in 1965 when President Johnson was in power.
In Australia, the CSIRO, independent scientists, various think-tanks and conservationists have repeatedly requested that climate change be given top priority by governments, businesses and individuals. Australia's Industry Commission conducted its first inquiry into climate change in 1991 in the lead up to the Rio summit on the environment.
By the late 1980's extreme weather around the world, such as the break up of the Antarctic ice shelf and increasing and prolonged droughts in sub Sahara Africa, was becoming harder to ignore. Insurance companies were raising premiums for storm damage and refusing to cover businesses in hurricane prone areas such as the Caribbean.
The media were having a field day, "the environment" was on the agenda, and climate change, at last, was making it into the mainstream debate - well, that was, for a while.
By the late 1980's and early 90's, cuts of 60% - 80% in greenhouse emissions were being called for at international conferences by conservationists and, notably, by the, then, Dutch government.
Since then little, if anything, has changed. Warnings went unheeded and emissions in the developed and developing nations (in an attempt to "catch up") have increased along with their expanding economies.
So, when politicians, captains of industry and public commentators say we should not "rush into any precipitous action to reduce emissions", it is, in fact, already very late - some would say it's already too late.
Recently, as evidence of global warning becomes harder to ignore, climate change has again taken centre-stage and now over-shadows a multitude of other equally serious threats to the earth's biosphere : threats such as human over-population; species extinction; deforestation; chemical, heavy metal and radiological pollution; degradation of soils, river systems and oceans, and ozone depletion and other damage to the stratosphere.
These threats are not separate from greenhouse gas pollution. They are intimately connected to it.
After ignoring (or completely denying) the problem for decades, government and big business now largely dominate the greenhouse debate as presented in the mainstream media and in high-profile forums. As such, the discussion is very narrow, revolving almost entirely around how we produce energy and how to maintain economic growth.
The climate change problem is debated in isolation from the other intersecting and interrelated problems; even deforestation and agriculture - both massive drivers of climate change - are not addressed.
However, climate change is not simply a matter of how we produce energy. To focus only on the type of energy is to completely miss the point : it is what we use the energy for that really matters. Because, a cheap and ready supply of energy - such as fossil fuels - greatly expands the rate at which we use up the natural world - or what economists call resources.
For a long time, we have been using up nature's bounty far quicker than nature can replenish its systems : In other words, we have been living beyond our means.
Take for example the changes in the rate of deforestation that have occurred as more concentrated sources of energy were exploited : The development of agriculture, and harnessing of draught animals, spurred deforestation and other detrimental practices such as irrigation, and the expansion of civilisations, fuelled by slavery and military power, resulted in the destruction of vast forests. The advent of steam power required more forests for fuel until replaced by coal. Coal and other fossil fuels, especially oil, now allow forests to be razed at phenomenal rates.
Imagine that, if by some miracle (and the technological optimists believe in just such a miracle), a non-polluting substitute for fossil fuels were to rapidly materialise and all the necessary infrastructure were to be installed overnight. Next, imagine that we continued to live in the same old way : driving cars, flying in jets, expanding large cities, sending rockets into space, supporting large armies and "defence" systems, relying on high-tech medicine, consuming all the latest gadgets etc. etc. would the natural world be saved ? No, of course not. Ecological crashes, such as the death of the Murray's Lower Lakes, would still be occurring. We would still be living beyond our means and exploiting natural "resources" (in this instance by taking too much water) faster than nature could replenish them. In the case of fossil fuels or the Great Artesian Basin (fossil water), the replacement rate is many millions of years.
Simply substituting less polluting fuels for fossil fuels is not going to solve much at all.
To demonstrate this point a little further, consider the way in which industrial agriculture contributes to greenhouse gas pollution while simultaneously reducing the ability of climate to recover from atmospheric disruption we are causing.
Broad acre farming in Australia and other developed countries is considered to be a very efficient food-producing system. However, this "efficiency" is achieved by the application of massive quantities of fossil fuels to drive the machinery, and in the form of inputs such as chemical sprays and fertilisers. Then, there is the fuel required to transport produce to highly centralised locations for processing and distribution to wholesalers, retailers and to ports for further transportation overseas.
O.K., now substitute the fossil fuels with the new non-polluting energy source and see what has changed - very little. Farmers would still be planting mono-crops (consisting of narrow-range of varieties) from horizon to horizon. They would continue to use a vast array of toxic chemicals, and to deplete their soil of micro-organisms and organic matter, and hence the ability of the soil to maintain carbon and moisture. Creeks, rivers and underground water would continue to be over-exploited and degraded, erosion of soils would continue unabated as would dust storms. Farmers would still maintain large flocks of stock and they would still not countenance the necessary revegetation of significant areas of agricultural land.
It is not hard to see that regardless of the source of energy used to drive industrial-scale systems, such as in agriculture, the end-result is the same : degradation of biological systems.
When land is cleared of forests and other vegetation for our various activities, it causes subtle changes in the absorption of energy and in wind currents which, in turn, can lead to substantial decreases in rainfall. The movement of moisture and convection currents which enhance rainfall are affected by the surface of the earth. Tree cover accelerates the movement of water from the soil to the atmosphere and back again and thus keeps the cycle replenished.
To only consider the type of energy we exploit ignores the significance of living organisms on their surrounding environment and their interaction with climate.
Living organisms are critical in affecting the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and are also important in affecting the earth's albedo : the reflectability of the earth's surface.
Living organisms in the form of algae, bacteria, fungi and plant roots play a role, for example, by greatly accelerating the weathering of rocks one-hundred or even one-thousand fold, thereby taking carbon dioxide (CO2) as well as acid rain components, such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides, out of the atmosphere.
In 1996, the science writer Peter Bunyard said that based on the work of people such as James Lovelods and Lee Klinger of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, "Life is not an innocent bystander to climate. On the contrary, living organisms are intimately involved in determining the processes that make the earth's climate what it is by generating and absorbing greenhouse gases; mediating the interchange of gases between rocks and soil, so enhancing the weathering; dramatically changing the albedo of the earth's surface, and, not least, playing a key role in the hydrological cycles that shift energy around the globe through rainfall. If climate is indeed life-driven, the future climate of the earth will be determined as much by what happens to the earth's ecosystems as by future and past emissions of greenhouse gases. For it is the integrity of the earth's ecosystems that will largely determine the extent to which these greenhouse gases accumulate."
Perhaps because they can't do so accurately, computer modelling by the IPCC does not fully take into account the intricacies of the interaction between the earth's climate and ecosystems. This may, in part, explain why the speed at which climate change is now occurring is much greater than forecast by the IPCC.
Ally Fricker 2008-2010
This is produced by the group PRECIPICE
(People Representing Ecological Consciousness and Integrity of the Planet Instead of Committing Ecocide)
Phone (O8) 8581 8255.
International Phone (61) 8 8581 8255.
Write:
Ally Fricker
RSD 3
ROBERTSTOWN SA
5381
AUSTRALIA
Ally Fricker
RSD 3
ROBERTSTOWN SA
5381
AUSTRALIA
or Email kbarrett@adam.com.au.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)