Feed aggregator

Group says England spends much more cleaning up floods than preventing them

Wind energy in Denmark generating enough electricity to meet the country's demand over the course of Saturday.

This is a guide for calculating some of the common Scope 3 emission sources. It is aimed to assist participants of the Carbon Neutral Program in developing their carbon inventory.

This is a guide for calculating some of the common Scope 3 emission sources. It is aimed to assist participants of the Carbon Neutral Program in developing their carbon inventory.

Melbourne-based Impact Investment Group’s (IIG) Giant Leap Fund has made its first two investments.

The Australian and Queensland Governments will next month update the World Heritage Centre on the significant progress being made through joint measures to protect and improve the Great Barrier Reef.

NSW renewables minister says solar households should be allowed to share and trade solar and be pinged only a minimal network "freight" fee.

Originally published in the Manchester Guardian on 2 December 1916

Surrey, November 30
A night frost made everything appear in the early morning as though it had been covered with a light fall of very fine snow. But when this melted with a slight shift of wind a touch of green came across one of the lower plough-fields. It is not a large stretch of land ­– the farmer calls it “a patch of corn,” – harrowed and sown, broadcast by hand while the surface was rather soft for a drill. There is always pleasure in the sight of these first shoots: you note their coming from one side just where the faint light of the sun strikes about noon, then cross to the other side and wait to see birds fly over from the meadow, where the tops of the grass here and there have withered to a dull brown. A farm hand is lifting swedes in the turnip field and trimming off the green tops with a bill, packing them in sacks for market. When this old labourer pauses for a rest he chops a root asunder, tosses half to a heifer that has come inquisitively across from the barnyard, cuts off a slice for himself, nibbles, pulls up his sheepskin gloves, and sets to work again. The afternoon turns grey and raw, and the wind is mournful in the bare elms. While a few small flakes are tossed in various directions a missel thrush starts his first song from the extreme branch of a pear tree by the orchard. It is but a few notes at a time with long pauses between, but it enlivens us all just here about the farm.

Continue reading...

We keep seeing more evidence that Direct Action is not working, and that our greenhouse pollution is going up.

New player in retail energy market aims to supply affordable 100 percent renewable- sourced electricity and generous feed in tariffs to Australians rooftop solar homeowners.

China's latest energy plan would see coal power increase by 200 gigawatts. Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

China recently announced a 20% increase in coal power capacity by 2020. Does the new target contradict its pledge to peak carbon emissions well before 2030 under the Paris Agreement?

China ratified the Paris Agreement in September 2016 and has put in place policies to achieve its climate target, or Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). China’s goal is to peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and reduce its carbon intensity (the amount of carbon produced per unit of GDP) by 60-65% below 2005 levels. To do so, it must therefore decouple emissions from economic growth.

These policies include new renewable energy targets and a nationwide emissions trading scheme, coupled with a domestic carbon offsetting scheme.

China’s NDC is expected to scale up clean energy development in China and displace coal-fired power generation.

One goal is to reduce the proportion of coal-fired power to 300 grams of coal equivalent per kilowatt-hour. The 20% increase in coal power seems to be offsetting these efforts, given that more than half of the country’s electricity is generated by burning coal.

But this may not contradict the country’s climate pledge if we look into the details.

A climate U-turn?

The National Energy Administration and the National Development Reform Commission announced China’s coal plan on November 7. It is specified in the country’s 13th Five-Year Plan of Electricity Development, which covers the period 2016-20.

The plan has raised a few eyebrows, in both its timing — the last five-year plan for the electricity sector was released more than 15 years ago — and its content.

The most controversial issue in the plan is the target for coal-fired power generation, which is to limit the total installed capacity to 1,100 gigawatts by 2020. Given that the current installed capacity is about 900GW, this allows for a massive 200GW increase in the next four years.

To put this number in context, Australia’s installed capacity for coal-fired electricity generation was 29GW in 2013-14. The worldwide installed capacity of solar photovoltaics at the end of 2015 was 227GW.

China’s proposed massive increase in coal power has raised questions about the environmental and economic rationales of the plan as well as the consistency between China’s energy and climate policies.

A mini coal boom

To understand the coal target, it is necessary to understand the way energy is governed in China.

Despite being an authoritarian state, China has always had a highly fragmented and complicated system when it comes to governing the country’s electricity systems.

Big power companies are owned by the state but remain relatively autonomous, and they are powerful and profit-driven. Large-scale energy projects such as coal-fired power plants are largely driven by these state-owned enterprises.

The recent decline in coal prices means that the business of owning and operating coal-fired power plants has become highly lucrative. These state-owned enterprises therefore have a strong motivation to build more coal-fired stations.

Moreover, the authority to approve coal plant construction has been delegated to the provincial level since 2014. This has further reduced the ability of national bodies to co-ordinate investment in coal power.

With the exception of a small number of highly developed regions that have enacted coal control policies, most provincial governments remain very receptive towards new investments in coal-fired power plants, because these investments attract jobs and tax incomes. These political and economic factors have resulted in a rapid rise in investment in coal power, a trend that will likely continue into the near future.

Still displacing coal power

The central government of China is trying to control this investment. According to Huang Xuenong, the head of the National Energy Administration’s electricity department, without any policy intervention, China’s coal-fired capacity would be about 1,250GW by the year 2020.

The 1,100GW target in the plan therefore means that the administration intends to restrict the rapid rise of coal power by at least 150GW. While representing a substantial increase from the current level, the main outcome would still be below business-as-usual.

This objective will be achieved primarily through four administrative interventions:

• retire a number of old and inefficient coal units

• halt projects that are under construction but have not received official approval

• suspend projects in provinces that do not have electricity shortages

• suspend the construction of coal stations that have already been approved in provinces that do not have shortage problems.

China remains committed to displacing coal-fired power generation. Perhaps the coal plan is not “green” enough, but behind the scenes are various efforts to shut down coal-fired power plants and suspend new coal projects.

The 20% increase in coal power alone hardly represents a U-turn in climate policy direction. The big picture is largely consistent with China’s policy objective of peaking its carbon emissions by 2030. The question is whether it can finish much earlier or not.

Alex Lo receives funding from the National Science Foundation of China, the Regional Studies Association (UK), and the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.

Kevin Lo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Countries have a lot of work to do to achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. But development projects don’t always go the way you expect.

A resettlement project in Laos recently provided taps and toilets as a way to improve hygiene and health outcomes for communities.

But on revisiting the resettled village, the project team was dismayed to find that the new brick toilet facilities were being used to store rice. The practice of “open defecation” was continuing in nearby farmland.

The community members explained that keeping rice dry and safe from animals was their highest priority. They also thought it was more hygienic for faeces to be washed away, rather than concentrated in one place such as a toilet.

How did this mismatch occur? There had been limited community participation, no awareness-raising and no sense of community ownership generated during the project planning. Getting these things right will be fundamental to achieving any of the development goals.

Toilets aren’t enough

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognise the importance of community participation in local development projects.

Involving communities — the people who will use or benefit from the new technology — can enhance both short-term and long-term impacts of a project.

As a signatory to the SDGs, Australia has committed to achieving these goals internationally and at home. This week, Australia and the Asia-Pacific are holding an SDG Week to continue work on the goals.

Our work focuses particularly on Goal 6: improving access to water, sanitation and hygiene. Community participation is an explicit target set out in this goal.

Despite major progress since the earlier UN Millennium Development Goals (which finished in 2015), contaminated drinking water leads to 340,000 child deaths each year from diarrhoea. Worldwide, more than 900 million people still lack access to toilet facilities.

Funding water and toilets alone will not improve these statistics. We need to provide water and toilets in ways that that meet the needs of the people who will use them. That calls for far more careful participation strategies.

Bottom up

In a discussion paper released today by The University of Queensland, we reveal that many organisations managing water, sanitation and hygiene projects only engage communities late in the process when options are constrained.

This “top-down” approach can result in a lack of community ownership, a mismatch between project outcomes and community needs, and a failure to improve water and sanitation outcomes.

Instead, we recommend a “bottom-up”, community-driven approach. This engages communities earlier in the project timeline, as you can see in the figure below.

Stages of water development project planning. GCI/UQ

With this approach, communities can participate in more significant decisions, such as setting policy targets and prioritising technologies, as well as local implementation and maintenance. That, in turn, can contribute to more effectively achieving the UN’s sustainable development agenda towards 2030.

Getting it right

There are excellent examples of getting community participation right in these ways.

For instance, a project in the Solomon Islands understood the importance of gender diversity in development. The training schedule and venue were adjusted to increase participation by local women.

Communities in Vanuatu with DIY wells and latrines in close proximity. Helen Ross, 2008

In Vanuatu, informal settlement residents had built their own water wells and pit toilets close together on floodplains. This caused sewage to contaminate the drinking water.

A community participation process increased local community members’ awareness of the water cycle and water resources management, and empowered them to develop policies requesting adequate water and sanitation infrastructure from their government.

Vanuatu community members participate to build understanding and plan water resources. Terry Chan, 2008

Back in Laos, the resettlement organisation reconsidered their approach to toilet-building. They started working with and through school and women’s groups to build awareness of the links between daily behaviour and health. That same village has now been declared “open defecation free”.

During SDG Week, it is crucial to keep in mind that the SDGs are not just for people, they are by people too. Participation can bridge the gap between the hardware of sanitation infrastructure and the software of a good participation and decision-making process.

Angela Dean receives funding the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Commonwealth of Australia.

Tari Bowling has been employed by a sanitation provider in Laos and continues to evaluate the project as part of her Phd research

Helen Ross and Nina Lansbury Hall do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

Wefood in Copenhagen has proved a huge success as food waste becomes hot topic worldwide

It may be past its sell-by date, but for many Danes it’s a tasty proposition: surplus food being sold in a Copenhagen supermarket has proved so popular that a second store has been opened.

After launching in the district of Amager earlier this year, the Wefood project attracted a long queue as it opened a second branch in the trendy neighbourhood of Nørrebro, this month.

Continue reading...

Does the Nordic nation deserve its reputation for sustainability?

It’s impossible not to feel a bit envious of Nordic nations. Norway, Denmark and Sweden were so accomplished at recycling that by 2014 they had no need for landfill. Just like Nordic prisons, the landfills are empty. Now Denmark even has hygge, a system for living that combines cosiness and chunky knits with sustainability, and an enviable design aesthetic. What’s not to like?

But Sweden normally gets the gold star. One of the first countries to implement a heavy tax on fossil fuels in 1991, it now sources almost half its electricity from renewable resources. The ruling coalition (Green and Social Democrat) has just announced plans to slash VAT on repairs to bicycles, clothes and shoes from 25% to 12%, in a big effort to drive sustainability.

Continue reading...

Scientists say they have discovered 30 new species of animal in subterranean caves, following a two-year search.

From treadmill desks and foam flushing toilets to solar powered offices and apps allowing employees to control temperature and light – a selection of the world’s most sustainable workplaces

Continue reading...

UK’s biggest coffee chain will take paper cups from any brand at recycling points in all of its stores

The UK’s largest coffee chain Costa Coffee is to launch a recycling scheme in all of its stores to ensure that as many as possible of its own takeaway cups – and those from its competitors – are recycled.

In a move designed to reduce the millions of used disposable cups that end up in landfill, the chain’s customers will be encouraged to leave or return them to a Costa store, where they will be stored on a bespoke rack. Costa’s waste partner, Veolia, will transport them to specialist waste processing plants which have the capacity to recycle takeaway coffee cups – potentially as many as 30m a year from Costa alone.

Continue reading...

Poppit Sands, Cardigan Often I encounter him fishing here, with an oystercatcher or redshank for company, watching acutely, spearing for small fish and crustaceans.

On ebbing or flowing tides, the muddy rhine that curves behind the dunes is a fascinating place. This time of year the estuary throngs with geese. Plangent calls tug at your emotions as they pass in V-formations overhead. Occasionally – all too seldom nowadays – a curlew’s bubbling call pitches to crescendo, then cascades down, the massed choirs of thousands a thing of the past.

What memory might the few survivors hold of legions so drastically dwindled away? I harbour a strong belief in the intelligent connection between living creatures, have seen it manifest time and again in the natural world. It gives rise to some odd liaisons and intriguing behaviour.

Continue reading...

The Carmichael coal mine planned for Queensland’s Galilee Basin has cleared another legal hurdle, with the state’s Supreme Court dismissing a legal challenge to the validity of the Queensland government’s decision to approve the project.

The court found in favour of the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, ruling that its approval of Indian firm Adani’s proposal was within the rules.

The decision is another setback for environmentalists’ bid to stop the controversial project. But Adani does not yet have a green light to break ground on the project, and legal questions still remain, both about this project and about climate change litigation more generally.

The Supreme Court ruling

It is important to note that this was a judicial review proceeding – a narrow type of review in which the court is not permitted to consider whether or not the decision to approve the mine was “correct”. The court could only rule on whether correct procedures were followed, while accepting that the decision was at the government’s discretion.

Within this already narrow context, the argument on which the legal challenge hinged was even more constrained. It was brought by an environmental campaign group called Land Services of Coast and Country (LSCC), and was focused on a particular point of Queensland environmental law.

Queensland’s Environmental Protection Act 1994 requires that decisions are made in accordance with the Act’s objective, which is to deliver “ecologically sustainable developent”. LSCC argued that the government failed to do this in approving the coalmine.

The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the government had considered all matters that it were obliged to consider. So in this respect, the Supreme Court’s decision is an endorsement of the process, but not necessarily the ultimate decision.

Is this the final hurdle overcome for Adani?

In short, no. The decision can be referred to Queensland’s Court of Appeal. There is also ongoing litigation against Adani in the Federal Court of Australia under federal environmental and native title laws. There are also some approvals yet to be obtained by Adani, including a groundwater licence.

Is this ruling a rejection of climate change arguments against the coal mine?

No. This case dealt specifically with the question of whether the Queensland government had complied with a particular aspect of the law. The Supreme Court did not (and was not able to) address the potential climate change impacts of the proposed mine.

These climate issues were addressed more fully by Queensland’s Land Court in the case of Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Land Services of Coast and Country Inc & Ors (2015) QLC 48.

Importantly, the Land Court in this case accepted the scientific basis for climate change, and agreed that “scope 3 emissions” (that is, the emissions produced when the coal is burned overseas) are indeed a relevant consideration in whether or not to approve the mine.

However, Adani successfully used a “market substitution” defence, arguing that if the mine is refused, coal would simply be mined elsewhere and burned regardless.

What does this case say about climate change litigation more generally?

The latest judgement was handed down amid a series of fresh attacks on the rights of environmental groups to use Australia’s environmental laws to hold companies and governments to account. Federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg has raised concerns about “activists … seeking to frustrate” projects with “vexatious litigation”, while Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has revived plans to amend federal environmental legislation so as to restrict standing to apply for judicial review – the so-called “lawfare” amendments.

In the wake of the new ruling, the head of the Queensland Resources Council has criticised the delays caused by litigation against mining projects.

This begs the question: is climate change litigation “vexatious”? A close analysis of Queensland court decisions would suggest the opposite. Climate change issues have been considered in a series of three key Queensland Land Court cases: Wandoan Mine in 2012, Alpha Coal Project in 2014, and the Carmichael Mine (Adani) in 2015.

The Alpha Coal matter has proceeded to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and leave has been sought to appeal to the High Court of Australia. Importantly, none of these cases has been dismissed as vexatious; each resulted in a lengthy judgement analysing the complex legal issues raised by the objector.

Furthermore, although objectors have not yet succeeded in stopping a mining project on the basis of climate concerns, they have nevertheless made modest strides. Most recently, President McMurdo of Queensland’s Court of Appeal found that the Land Court must consider scope 3 emissions in deciding whether a mine should be granted environmental approval. This represents significant progress, given that climate science was questioned by Queensland Courts less than ten years ago.

The only significant barrier remaining to a successful climate change case is the market substitution defence, which will be considered by the High Court if special leave is granted in the Alpha Coal matter.

Climate change litigation has also clarified other environmental and economic impacts. In the Carmichael Mine case, it was discovered that the mine site was a critical habitat for the endangered black-throated finch – evidence that was not previously available. The Land Court ordered strict conditions aimed at protecting this species. The litigation also served to clarify the significantly overstated economic benefits of the mine – particularly Adani’s estimate that it would generate more than 10,000 jobs. It was revealed in court that this figure was more likely to be 1,206 jobs in Queensland, as part of a total of 1,464 jobs in Australia.

Where to for climate change litigation?

Although the latest judgement is another setback for environmental groups, it is part of a bigger body of case law that is making real and discernible progress in ensuring that climate change is considered by decision-makers and courts.

Given that several courts have agreed on the validity of climate litigants’ arguments, it seems perverse for the federal government to try and restrict environmental groups’ right to continue raising these concerns.

Justine Bell-James has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council. She has previously assisted EDO Qld with policy advice.

It's become a buzzword, but what is NDD?