Feed aggregator

The blame for SA blackout is focused on wind, but most gas capacity was unused, off-line or unusable during the blackout. And why the secrecy over which generators failed to deliver critical re-start procedures?

New CEFC-funded $100m Commonwealth Bank loan scheme to offer business cheap finance for EVs, LED lights, efficient farm machinery rooftop solar.

In September 2015, after two decades of treatment, Christine Arnott became the first Australian to undergo an experimental procedure to replace the valve in her heart that would save her life. From her diagnosis to recovery, explore the key moments that have changed her life and the technology that enabled this to happen

Continue reading...

The Paris climate agreement is set to enter into force next month after the European Union and Canada ratified the agreement overnight. The agreement, reached last December, required ratification by at least 55 countries accounting for 55% of global emissions to become operational.

US President Barack Obama hailed the news as perhaps “a turning point for our planet”, but also noted that it “will not solve the climate crisis” alone.

So far, 73 countries accounting for 56% of emissions have ratified the agreement. This includes the world’s two largest emitters: China and the US.

This week the European Parliament approved ratification of the agreement for the EU. The European Council has formally adopted this decision and finalised ratification.

This has put the agreement over the 55% threshold and triggered entry into force. However, by the rules of the agreement, 30 days must now elapse before the agreement becomes operational. The agreement will enter into force on November 4.

This will mean that, from that date, the agreement will be active and legally binding on those who have ratified it.

A sign of ambition?

The Paris Agreement has entered into force unexpectedly quickly. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol had identical entry-into-force conditions. Yet it took eight years for the protocol to move from adoption to entry into force. By comparison Paris looks like a ratification landslide: it will take less than one year.

Why has ratification been so quick?

The optimists would point to this as evidence of mounting international momentum. A truly global agreement and joint ratification by China and the US have reinvigorated international efforts.

India, Canada and the EU have followed shortly after the US and China. Canada also recently announced a domestic carbon tax of C$10.

Ratification is not action per se, though, and it’s difficult to directly link the domestic actions of Canada and others to Paris. The more realistic explanation for the ratification landslide is less inspiring. The Paris Agreement is so weak in terms of legal obligations that countries have little reason not to ratify it.

The legal obligations of the Paris Agreement are sparse and procedural. Countries are bound to submit increasingly stringent pledges every five years. Yet they are not obliged to achieve them.

Countries are bound to provide information about their domestic efforts and keep domestic greenhouse gas accounts. Yet most countries, including Australia, already do so.

Ratifying Paris imposes few additional actions on countries, aside from making a pledge every few years. Not ratifying would make the dissenting country a climate pariah internationally. There is little for parliaments and leaders to debate.

The speed of entry into force may simply betray how little is expected of parties to the pact. It could be a sign of weakness, rather than strength and momentum.

What about Australian ratification?

Australia has yet to ratify the Paris Agreement, but will likely do so soon.

Australian ratification of international treaties is done through the executive, not the parliament. Prime Minister Turnbull makes the final decision as to whether Australia will ratify the Paris Agreement.

Turnbull will not act alone; his decision will be advised by cabinet and the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT). This is a cross-party committee made up of members from the Senate and the House of Representatives.

JSCOT is considering the Paris Agreement and will hold its final public briefing in Melbourne today. Shortly thereafter it will report back to parliament.

Given that Paris implies few obligations, Australia will likely ratify the agreement before the end of the year. Not doing so would unnecessarily risk Australia’s already tattered reputation on climate change.

Yet there are also fears that Australia risks embarrassment by ratifying and then missing its first pledge.

Target troubles

Currently, Australia has made an intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) to reduce emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030. If Australia joins the Paris Agreement this would likely become our first pledge under the deal.

But existing modelling suggests we will significantly overshoot this target.

Climate Action Tracker estimates that Australia is instead on track to increase emissions above 27% on 2005 levels by 2030 (this equates to 61% above 1990 levels). They note: “Australia stands out as having the largest relative gap between current policy projections for 2030 and the INDC target.”

Modelling done by Reputex this year supports this. Reputex concludes that existing policy settings will be inadequate for meeting the 2030 targets. More aggressive measures, such as tripling the funding of the Emissions Reduction Fund, would be needed.

There is also evidence that the centrepiece of Australian climate policy – the Direct Action abatement scheme – is not effective. Recent research from Paul Burke of the Australian National University suggests that many of the projects funded by Direct Action are “anyway projects”. These are reductions that would have occurred anyway without government assistance.

Advice provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade suggested that Australia already has the necessary “legislation, policies and measures” in place to meet its 2030 target. But during a public briefing on the Paris Agreement last week department officials conceded that there was no government modelling to show that Australia will meet its 2030 target.

If Australia were to ratify the Paris Agreement and miss its first target then there would be few ramifications. Technically, parties to Paris are not required to meet their pledges. They only need to pursue domestic measures that aim to achieve submitted pledges.

Even Australia would clear such a low bar.

However, missing the first target would provide ammunition for both domestic and international critics. Mounting pressure from citizens and other world leaders could force the Australian government to change its climate policies. This is the logic of the pledge and review system of the Paris Agreement.

We cannot be certain of how effective this approach would be given recent Australian history. Criticism and public pressure did little to dissuade the federal government under Tony Abbott from abolishing the carbon-pricing system in 2014.

The Paris Agreement entering into force is historic, but how it will be viewed historically is unclear. Does it mark a new era of multilateral action and hope? Or will it mark the finalisation of a diplomatic smokescreen, a legal ribbon around business-as-usual climate policy?

Luke Kemp has received funding from the Australian and German governments.

The 2.3MW Mt Majura solar farm – the first asset of the Ross Garnaut-chaired $100m IIG Solar Income Fund – has been launched in ACT.

The common toad is in decline across much of the UK, and needs better protection, say conservationists.

We think battery storage with renewables is economic in states such as Queensland now. So we thought we should tell Josh Frydenberg's advisors.

What might reasonably be made of the AEMO report, at this stage, in understanding what happened?

Continuing to prop up go-nowhere coal projects distracts from efforts to invest in real solutions for the Latrobe Valley.

The media continue to blame renewable energy for South Australia's high wholesale electricity prices, but they would do well to look at how the gas generators exploit the market. And so would the regulators.

The digital revolution is great, until it's time to upgrade. E-waste image from www.shutterstock.com

A ringing phone on the peak hour train ride home may be an annoyance to be ignored, and hopefully turned to silent, but these familiar chimes are signs of a digital revolution all around us. These are the personal electronic products we engage with to help organise, connect, entertain, and inform us in an ever faster cycle.

Now they’re ubiquitous. But where do they come from, who makes them, and where do they end up when discarded? Death by Design, a documentary directed by Sue Williams screening at Environmental Film Festival Australia in Melbourne, confronts these questions.

The human cost of the digital revolution

The film begins with the development of the semiconductor industry in California, exploring the human and ecological impacts in those formative Silicon Valley years. The film shows the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and its successful activism to drive remediation of contamination; and the personal stories of material toxicity, and associated devastation.

Throughout the film toxicity is revisited, and the film paints a fairly bleak picture of labour rights in China. We turn to Ma Jun, the 2015 Skoll Award winner (an award for social entrepreneurship) for creating a national picture of water pollution with data that is now publicly available.

Jun laments the potential human costs across China’s water infrastructure, which begs the question: why haven’t organisations expanding to these new manufacturing regions learnt the lesson from the US industry , or applied Europe’s hazardous waste standards?

What is equally troubling are issues with even stringent auditing processes. Linda Greer, a toxicologist from the Natural Resources Defence Council put it simply: “it’s all about the questions you ask”. A firm’s audit checklist may be thorough in some respects, yet miss key points in others. As such, manufacturing may be considered adequate, yet not address the pertinent problems. Jun’s work has already resulted in supply chain actions in this regard.

Who’s to blame? All of us

The film directs us to the main driver of the large industrial expansions Jun monitors, our daily consumption habits in the west. As Lancaster University professor Elizabeth Shove has portrayed so vividly, the devices of convenience and the rituals they connect to drive consumption, both conspicuous (such as a phone) and inconspicuous (such as the energy it uses).

Consumption implicates us all, and the figures the film lists are breathtaking: from 376,000 Apple Ipod sales in 2002 to 51.6 million in 2007, and 10 million Apple Iphone 5s made in a week.

Purchases are only exacerbated by constant upgrading, and consumer inability to repair or refurbish their devices as the US firm recycling firm Ifixit explains. They’ve built a business that enables consumers to circumvent “prescribed obsolescence”, to fix their own electronic products by using their own parts, tools and how-to guides.

Irish firm iameco take this even further, challenging the notion of updatable, upgradable, and reusable computers. Both business models require the breaking down of secrecy shrouding internal access to such products.

Batteries are harder to replace now and screens harder to repair, as repairs become part of manufacturer’s business models.

As Ifixit look to disrupt that disposable model for consumers, the film follows the company to China as they source their own electronic parts, and come full circle.

With such throughput of electronics, e-waste is accepted as a major and growing issue. Darrin Magee, Environment Geographer from Hobart and Williams Smith Colleges estimates that the US generates 3 million tonnes of e-waste alone, with a much smaller amount actually repurposed and recycled. Chinese volumes of e-waste and the human cost of handling are also major problems to address.

Where to from here?

Death by Design suggests that the digital revolution has rewarded us with so many benefits, something that is reasonably clear.

Certainly with all of that success, manufacturers of electronic goods must take responsibility for how products are designed for longevity by extending life cycles, and in managing the toxic issues throughout the entire supply chain.

Part of the solution could include models that build recycling into the design such as the circular economy and cradle-to-cradle models, coupled with an increase in stewardship schemes, some of which are emerging at present.

The final sequence in the film suggests that we, the people, could use our buying power or behaviour to change the system in demands for labour safety, human health and ecological preservation. This is an interesting perspective, and could be linked to new patterns of “enlightened” consumer purchasing.

I wonder though, could it be a sharing economy opportunity? What about maker culture with new democratised technologies to help build what we need to retrofit upgrades?

Others have gone further in calling for moral outrage and collective action on related issues, such as pollution leading to climate change.

In any case, Death by Design is a thought-provoking look at an industry that we interact with every time we swipe, tap or lol. As innocuous as those actions are, substantial sustainability issues remain that we need to face as a society.

Death by Design is screening at the Environmental Film Festival Australia in Melbourne on October 6.

Simon Lockrey 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.

'Smart solar' systems with battery storage can help stabilise the grid and add to energy security, according to major US solar energy company Enphase. But there's a looming problem with so-called 'dumb solar' systems that have already been installed in Australia, which will increasingly fail or underperform over the coming decade.

Commitments from other countries push accord forward and is set to be activated on 4 November after the EU, Canada and India ratify the agreement

Barack Obama has said the Paris climate deal could prove a “turning point” in the effort to avoid dangerous global warming, after a flurry of commitments by nations pushed the agreement into force.

The climate accord is set to be activated on 4 November after the European Union, Canada, Nepal and India all formally ratified the deal. The latest ratifications mean that 73 nations accounting for nearly 57% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions are fully committed to the process, meaning the two key thresholds to the agreement have now been met.

Continue reading...

Scientists are a step closer to solving the mystery of one of the great animal migrations - the journey of eels to the Sargasso Sea.

The federal government is considering changes to Australia’s marine reserves to implement a national system. This week The Conversation is looking at the science behind marine reserves and how to protect our oceans.

Off Australia’s northeastern coastline, extending eastwards from the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef, is a vast extent of ocean known as the Coral Sea.

Almost a million square kilometres of the Coral Sea is within Australian waters, making up one of six regions used for planning national networks of marine reserves. Unlike the other regions, virtually all of the Coral Sea is within a single reserve.

On the face of it, this should encourage people who are concerned with conservation of marine biodiversity. But, as often happens, the devil is in the detail.

The effectiveness of the reserve hinges on its internal zones – subdivisions that vary in the uses and activities they allow. So “protected” is a slippery concept. Just how protected the Coral Sea is depends on where and how large the different zones are.

The review of Commonwealth marine reserves, released earlier this month, recommended changes to the zoning arrangements put in place when the network was declared in 2012, but not for the better.

A world-class sea

The Coral Sea is almost entirely open ocean, reaching depths of more than 4,000m. Scattered through this expanse of deep blue are important patches of coral and rock: cays and islets, 30 atoll systems with shallow-water and low-light coral reefs, and seamounts and pinnacles supporting deep-sea, cold-water ecosystems.

The global significance of the Coral Sea for marine biodiversity – including corals, fish, turtles, seabirds, and whales - has been reviewed recently, but new discoveries continue.

Recent exploration of the deep slopes of Coral Sea atolls has found unique and previously undocumented biodiversity, such as precious corals and glass sponges. Many of these species are “living fossils”, now restricted to the deep, dark waters of the Coral Sea.

The southern Coral Sea is also a global hotspot for predators. The protection of large predatory species such as sharks and marlin is particularly important, given their key roles in open ocean ecosystems and the massive worldwide decline of these animals at the hands of industrialised fishing.

The Coral Sea’s remoteness does not make it immune from human impacts. Some fishing methods alter the structure and composition of seabed ecosystems. Globally and in eastern Australia, pelagic long-lining takes a large toll in bycatch (non-target fish that are discarded, often dead, including shark species listed as vulnerable).

Many reefs in the Coral Sea are open to line fishing, which is known to deplete target populations and adversely affect corals in the neighbouring Great Barrier Reef.

The 2016 coral bleaching event that affected 93% of the Great Barrier Reef also caused significant death on reefs in the northern and central Coral Sea.

The importance and vulnerability of the Coral Sea call for well-planned protection. That protection should also be precautionary - where impacts are unknown or uncertain we should increase protection, or at least not put marine ecosystems at risk. This is one of the explicit principles of marine planning in Australia.

Commercial and recreational fishing present ecological risks that need to be managed carefully. Precaution is also called for because most parts of the Coral Sea, even those in relatively shallow water, are still largely unexplored, with the discovery of new species likely.

The Coral Sea reserve

In November 2012, the Labor federal government announced massive increases to Australia’s marine reserves, including large additions to existing smaller reserves in the Coral Sea. The zoning of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve that resulted was typical of the larger picture.

Zones that prohibited fishing (“no-take” zones, shown in green in the left-hand map below) were mostly far offshore in very deep waters where little or no fishing occurred.

Zones that protected the marine environment from open ocean long-lining were placed in areas where little or no long-lining occurred. Most reefs, cays and seamounts remained open to fishing. So did the world’s only known black marlin spawning aggregation.

Overall, the no-take zones were strongly “residual” – placed in areas left over from commercial and recreational uses, and least in need of protection – rather than designed to mitigate known threats.

The approach could be described as “business as usual”, with priority given to existing uses and conservation coming a poor second.

The Coral Sea reserve, take two

Following a backlash against the new marine reserves by commercial and recreational fishing interests the then opposition leader Tony Abbott fished for votes by promising to review the reserves.

Just over a year after they were established, the new reserves were “re-proclaimed” by the Coalition government, effectively rendering them empty outlines on the map. The strength of the pushback against the reserves was perplexing, given that they were obviously designed to have minimal effect on fishing and no effect on extraction of oil and gas.

Before the release of the review, a cynic might have predicted, given statements when the review began, that the process was intended to convert a largely residual reserve system into a completely residual one. As it happens, that is close to what has been recommended for the Coral Sea.

A major feature of the recommended zoning is a reduction of no-take by more than 93,000km², or 9.3% of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve (no-take zones, or national park, now cover 40% of the reserve). No-take zoning is now even more strongly concentrated in remote, deep water where it will make even less difference to fishing than before.

The panel recommended new no-take zones in areas next to those in the central and southern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, but large parts of the same region in the Coral Sea are proposed to be reopened to demersal trawling.

Some reefs have less protection than before, and some have more. Notably, two of the most important reefs in the Coral Sea – Osprey and Marion – are partly open to fishing and partly no-take. Split zones are known to pose problems for compliance and are typically avoided in conservation planning. Fishing on Osprey could also compromise its value as a globally significant dive destination, specifically for its sharks and pelagic fish.

There are net increases in areas open to gear types known to pose ecological risks: sea floor longlines (2,400km² of the reserve, including the Fraser Seamount), sea floor trawl (26,300km²), and open sea long-lining (269,000km²). These changes appear inconsistent with advice on ecological risks.

The Bioregional Advisory Panel for the Coral Sea found that seafloor long-lining is incompatible with the conservation values of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve, particularly on seamounts.

Two target species for open sea long-lining are either overfished or at risk of overfishing, and this fishery poses a high risk for whales, sharks, and turtles.

When evidence was limiting, it appears that the Expert Scientific Panel placed the burden of proof on the environment, not on commercial and recreational users.

Protecting the Coral Sea from what?

Protected areas are meant to protect biodiversity from threats to its survival. Why bother saying that?

Because the 2012 marine reserves made almost no difference to activities threatening marine biodiversity. There is a key difference between protection, which stops threats from affecting species and ecosystems, and re-badging large tracts of ocean in ways that make no difference.

At least for the Coral Sea, the proposed new zones involve further re-badging but less overall protection. A similar mentality appears to underlie both the 2012 and recommended zonings: marine protected areas are good things to have, providing they don’t get in the way of socioeconomic interests.

While the new zones largely failed to protect the Coral Sea’s biodiversity, the review’s Expert Scientific Panel favourably assessed the “performance” of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve in ways that are simply uninformative and distracting.

For instance, one of the measures used by the review is the number of conservation features (such as seafloor types) in reserves. This measure is misleading in two ways: many of the represented features don’t need protection, and others are affected to varying, but unstated, degrees by fishing.

At the core of systematic conservation planning, which is widely accepted as the most effective way of designing reserve systems, are quantitative objectives for features, preferably reflecting ecosystem structure and function, scaled to reflect levels of threat. But these objectives were notably absent from the assessment of performance of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve, and from the review process that recommended the new zones.

How to do things better

Better planning for the Coral Sea would move beyond the qualitative goals and principles advocated by the Expert Scientific Panel, which can be readily interpreted to favour economic considerations over conservation.

Because of the global significance of the Coral Sea and uncertainty around the actual risks posed by fishing, effective planning would be truly precautionary, prioritising the persistence of biodiversity where there is doubt. It would also engage with managers and governments in adjacent marine regions to limit cross-boundary threats.

The amount of protection needed for species and other conservation features, including types of open sea and other significant habitats, would be identified quantitatively by experts on marine biodiversity, considering distinctiveness, threats, and reliance on Australian waters for their persistence.

Those conservation objectives would be achieved by a mix of zones that varied levels of protection from place to place and perhaps seasonally to limit the adverse effects of fishing and other extractive activities. The relative contributions of those zones to each objective would be assessed and put into the mix.

Such an explicit approach was a major reason for the lasting, worldwide recognition of the Great Barrier Reef rezoning in 2004, but has been avoided elsewhere in Commonwealth waters to maximise flexibility for extractive interests.

And finally, effective planning would acknowledge that no-take zones in areas with no fishing make no contribution to conservation.

Bob Pressey receives funding from the Australian Research Council and is a member of WWF Australia's Eminent Scientists Group.

tjward@bigpond.net.au is affiliated with Seafood Watch, USA.

Alana Grech 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.

What are the potential uses for molecular machines, which have won the 2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Warming temperatures and uncertain rainfall mean if more isn’t done to slow climate change, droughts lasting 35 years could blight western states, study says

The harsh drought currently gripping California may appear trivial in the future as new research shows that the south-west US faces the looming threat of “megadroughts” that last for decades.

California is in its sixth year of drought, which was barely dented by rains brought by the El Niño climate event and sparked a range of water restrictions in the state. But warming temperatures and uncertain rainfall mean that if more isn’t done to slow climate change, droughts lasting 35 years are likely to blight western states by the end of the century, according to the study, published in Science Advances.

Continue reading...

Emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas from coal, oil and gas are up to 60% greater than previously estimated, meaning current climate prediction models should be revised, research shows

The fossil fuel industry’s emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas are dramatically higher than previously thought.

Researchers who pulled together the biggest database yet of worldwide methane emissions found that, after natural sources were discounted, emissions from gas, oil and coal production were 20-60% greater than existing estimates.

Continue reading...

Our life spans appear to be limited to about 115 years, according to US scientists.

A major meeting on the regulation of trade in endangered species is drawing to a close in Johannesburg - here are seven of its key hits and misses

Pangolin

Sadly for the pangolin, the tough brown scales that so neatly tile its body are in huge demand for medicinal purposes, while the flesh that they protect is also appreciated as a delicacy in Vietnam and some parts of China. Earlier this month, conservationists warned of the devastating decline in pangolin populations. Cites followed up by putting all pangolin species into the highest category of protection.

Continue reading...