Feed aggregator

Isle of Gigha, Argyll The young otters were having a good time, splashing and paddling and roughhousing; we were enchanted

Having abandoned our bikes by the gate, we follow a cattle trodden path between walls of bracken down to where field meets sand. The silver slip of a beach is postcard perfect, a flawless bleached-bone white. But close up it is busy with the telltale trails of recent visitors: speechmark hoofprints of cattle and the flatfoot waddle of whooper swans, each webbed imprint as large as my palm.

No people, though, which was our aim. We set up camp upon a grassy flat, and wander along the foreshore, picking through tidewrack and pocketing curios: a mermaid’s purse, torn and discarded, scraps of net, pebbled glass.

Continue reading...

Australian network pricing policy is increasingly dysfunctional. At minimum, it's a barrier to innovation and progress. At its worst it means inefficient, high cost electricity. So can we fix it?

Sperm whales, like many other species, use echolocation which can be hampered by noise. Gabriel Barathieu/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Ask most people about pollution, and they will think of rubbish, plastic, oil, smog, and chemicals. After some thought, most folks might also suggest noise pollution.

We’re all familiar with noise around us, and we know it can become a problem – especially if you live near an airport, train station, highway, construction site, or DIY-enthusiast neighbour.

But most people don’t think that noise is a problem under water. If you’ve read Jules Verne’s Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea you might imagine that, maelstroms excepted, life is pretty quiet in the ocean. Far from it.

When we put a hydrophone (essentially a waterproof microphone) into the water, no matter where in the world’s oceans, it’s never quiet. We hear wind blowing overhead and rain dropping onto the ocean surface – even from hundreds of metres deep. In Australian waters we can also detect the far-off rumbles of earthquakes and the creaking of Antarctic ice thousands of kilometres away.

Wet and noisy

Water is much denser than air, so its molecules are packed tighter together. This means that sound (which relies on molecules vibrating and pushing against one another) propagates much further and faster under water than in air.

This also applies to human-produced sound. Under water we can hear boats and ships and even aeroplanes. Large vessels in deep water can be detected tens of kilometres away. We can be far offshore doing fieldwork, the only people around, with nothing in sight but water in any direction. Yet when we switch the engines off and put a hydrophone into the water, we hear ship noise. Sometimes, whole minutes later, the vessel we heard might appear on the horizon.

Seafarers have known about another source of sound for thousands of years: marine life. Many animals produce sound, from the tiniest shrimp to the biggest whales. Many fish even communicate acoustically under water – during the mating season, the boys start calling. Whales do it, too.

Light doesn’t reach far under water. Near the surface, in clear water, you might be able to peer a few metres, but in the inky depths you can’t see at all. So many marine animals have evolved to “see with sound”, using acoustics for navigation, for detecting predators and prey, and for communicating with other members of their species.

The thing is that man-made sound can interfere with these behaviours.

The effects of noise on marine animals are similar to those on us. If you’ve ever been left with ringing ears after a rock concert, you’ll know that loud noise can temporarily affect your hearing or even damage it permanently.

Noise interferes with communication, often masking it. Can you talk above the background noise in a busy pub? Long-term exposure to noise can cause stress and health issues — in humans and animals alike.

Excessive noise can change marine creatures' habits, too. Like a person who decides to move house rather than live next door to a new airport, animals might choose to desert their habitat if things get too noisy. The question is whether they can find an equally acceptable habitat elsewhere.

There is a lot more research still to be done in this field. Can we predict what noises and vibrations might be released into the marine environment by new machinery or ships? How does sound propagate through different ocean environments? What are the long-term effects on marine animal populations?

One positive is that even though noise pollution travels very fast and very far through the ocean, the moment you switch off the source, the noise is gone. This is very much unlike plastic or chemical pollution, and gives us hope that noise pollution can be successfully managed.

We all need energy, some of which comes from oil and gas; most of our consumer goods are shipped across the seas on container vessels; and many of us enjoy eating seafood caught by noisy fishing boats, some of which even use dynamite to catch fish. We want to protect our borders, making naval operations a necessity. Then there’s the ever growing industry of marine tourism, much of it aboard ever-bigger cruise ships which need large ports in which to berth.

There are a lot of stakeholders in the marine environment, and all speak a different language, all make different claims, and all make noise. Knowing precisely how much noise they make, and how it affects marine life, will help to ensure our oceans and their resources last well into the future.

September 3-11 is SeaWeek 2016, the Australian Association for Environmental Education Marine Educators’ national public awareness campaign.

Christine Erbe receives funding from offshore petroleum companies, defence departments, environmental groups.

Alinta looking at installing one of world's largest battery storage arrays to displace cost of gas it uses for back-up in the Pilbara.

Years of controversy over carbon pricing has both major parties scared of any policy seen to raise electricity prices. The CCA seems to have taken this political situation as a starting point.

The ACCC is taking VW to court. VW image from www.shutterstock.com

Yesterday the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced that it has instituted proceedings against Volkswagen (VW). The ACCC is pursuing VW for allegedly misleading consumers (in contravention of Australian Consumer Law) around emissions from its diesel cars.

In 2015, VW admitted it had installed software in certain diesel-engine cars that ensured the cars met US standards for nitrogen oxide emissions in testing, but turned off in real road driving conditions. This meant that the diesel engines were dirtier than consumers realised. The affected cars were sold globally, including in Australia.

It has been reported that in the United States, VW has agreed to buy back cars affected by the emissions scandal.

In Australia, affected consumers have been offered corrective software, although just what that software will achieve and how well it will do that is disputed.

The ABC reports VW as saying that “the ACCC’s action did not provide any practical benefit to consumers". VW says this is because “the best outcome for customers whose vehicle is affected is to have the voluntary recall service updates installed.”

What’s in it for VW owners?

The ACCC proceedings may appear to offer little direct benefit for disgruntled VW owners who have purchased cars without the features that were represented to them. However, contrary to VW’s suggestion, those consumers might want more by way of redress than the installation of new software to correct the original problem.

The attractions of low-emission diesel engines that were kinder to the environment may well have been central to affected consumers' decision to purchase the VW car models in question. Without those benefits consumers might have purchased a different car.

Such consumers may be disgruntled by finding their VW is not what they had expected and they may also be facing a reduced resale value of their affected car. They may therefore want compensation for loss of value, lost opportunities and even disappointment and distress.

The ACCC is seeking “declarations, pecuniary penalties, corrective advertising, findings of fact and costs” against VW.

Penalties awarded for breaches of the Australian Consumer Law may be considerable, amounting to A$1.1 million for each contravention. However, any penalties that the court determines VW will have to pay for its alleged misleading conduct will be imposed as a punishment for contraventions of the law, not to compensate affected consumers.

It is interesting that the ACCC does not appear to be relying on its powers itself to seek compensation for disgruntled consumers, or to seek a refund and damages on behalf of consumers for possible failures by VW to comply with the consumer guarantee regime in the Australian Consumer Law.

This may be for the practical reason that it would be difficult for the ACCC in this kind of action to show the required levels of causation and loss on the part of individual consumers that would be required in seeking redress on their behalf.

Nonetheless, the ACCC action is not entirely without benefit to consumers, albeit in a more indirect manner. The action sends a strong reminder to businesses operating in Australia about the need for “fair play” in the Australian market.

Moreover, any findings of fact or declarations may be made by a court in response to the ACCC action may be useful in establishing the alleged baseline wrong in private litigation by VW-owning consumers, including under the class action filed in the Federal Court by law firm Maurice Blackburn seeking financial redress for a group of affected consumers.

Jeannie Marie Paterson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Scientists working on the largest study of ticks in dogs have found that almost one third of dogs checked at random across the UK were found to be carrying a tick.

Boulder, Colorado the latest in a series of cities making the pledge to go totally green. There are now 17 in total.

Thousands of people have watched the Moon pass in front of the Sun, to make a so-called "ring of fire".

My spectacles are not rose-tinted when I remember several dozen late-summer butterflies supping on buddleia to gain energy for their winter hibernation

The fact that I was delighted this week to find a trio of small tortoiseshells and three red admirals on one of a dozen buddleia I’ve planted in my garden shows how low our expectations have sunk.

My spectacles are not rose-tinted when I remember several dozen late-summer butterflies supping on buddleia to gain energy for their winter hibernation in very similar garden habitat when I was a boy three decades ago.

Continue reading...

The Climate Change Authority’s latest report outlining a recommended climate policy “toolkit” is a reflection of what is seen by many as politically feasible in Australia now. But it is piecemeal and lacks a vision for the longer-term policy framework needed to get Australia on track to a low-carbon economy.

After years of political fighting over carbon pricing, a conventional emissions trading scheme - the instrument of choice in many other countries - is widely seen as politically impossible in Australia. And both major parties are scared of any policy that is seen as raising electricity prices.

The CCA seems to take this political situation as a starting point, and makes a series of judgements about specific policy options. The intent clearly is to help policy progress in the medium term. But it risks locking in a policy suite that will not deliver much, or may cost too much.

If the CCA’s recommendations are misconstrued as being ambitious, we could end up with policy that falls far short of these recommendations. And if its political judgements are off the mark, the CCA’s specific recommendations could become an obstacle for the government’s 2017 policy review.

Electricity intensity scheme

The CCA’s “toolkit” suggests a mix of different policy instruments for different sectors of the economy, with quite specific suggestions in some areas and less detail in others.

For the power sector, the recommendation is for an “emissions intensity scheme”, designed to create a carbon price signal in electricity production while limiting the effect on power prices. This is its main selling-point: it would result in less price uplift than a standard emissions trading scheme or carbon tax.

The flipside is that this does not encourage households and businesses to save energy, and so without other interventions it will be less efficient.

Another serious downside is that the government earns no money from the scheme because all permits are given out for free to industry. So there is no source of income to cut other taxes and help low-income households, as there was under the Gillard government’s carbon price.

Such a power sector scheme is in line with what Labor took to July’s election, so there may be hope for bipartisanship. It is a scheme you choose if you are afraid of political backlash over power prices, and if you are prepared to forego fiscal revenue.

Its effectiveness will depend on its credibility and ambition. The CCA envisages it as a stand-alone scheme without trading links (except possibly sales of “white certificates” from energy efficiency schemes). The CCA recommends baselines going linearly to zero before 2050, which could drive significant change in power generation. But whatever trajectory is mandated is certain to be economically less efficient than a standard emissions trading scheme with flexibility between sectors and over time.

Renewables, innovation and coal exit

The report notes that uncertainty over the future of an emissions intensity scheme “could affect investor confidence” and cause cost increases and delays, and that this is an argument for continued support for renewable energy deployment policies. However it recommends that the Renewable Energy Target not be continued beyond the present commitment to new investments until 2020 and support for existing plants until 2030.

On innovation for low-emissions technologies, the CCA calls for government support both through debt and equity funding, as well as public funding for research, development and demonstration. The former is currently done through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the latter by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). This recommendation runs counter the government’s present plan – possibly supported by Labor – to withdraw A$1.3 billion in funding from ARENA.

Mechanisms to facilitate closure of high emissions power stations have received much support in the debate over the last year. The idea of a regulated closure scheme is rejected by the CCA, on the basis of modelling of a version of the proposal that would not allow any flexibility. The proposal for a market-based scheme to help shut down the highest-emitting power stations is mentioned only in the CCA’s accompanying electricity report, where it is dismissed without analysis.

Emissions Reduction Fund and more complexity

Outside the power sector the CCA proposes evolving the existing Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), a patchy scheme of subsidies paid to businesses for projects presumed to cut emissions.

It suggests that industries that burn fossil fuels or otherwise release greenhouse gases should be covered by an ERF with “enhanced safeguards”. Companies that exceed a specific benchmark emissions intensity (falling over time) would have to buy emissions credits, while companies can earn credits for projects that meet the ERF’s criteria. But companies that remain below the benchmark and do not engage in projects would not be involved at all and have no incentive to cut emissions.

The government would continue to buy credits from land sector projects. This means continued payments of taxpayer dollars to businesses, and continued doubts over whether the emissions reductions are real.

For energy efficiency, yet another approach is recommended, by harmonising existing state-based “white certificate” schemes that award credits for energy savings, and then feeding those credits back into the electricity supply scheme. Selective efficiency standards are also supported, along with emissions standards for cars and perhaps trucks.

Setting our sights higher

The CCA’s report focuses heavily on Australia’s existing emissions target, of a 26-28% reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. But in reality, Australia will have to do more as part of the Paris Agreement ratcheting process. The existing target is too weak to meet the Paris deal’s global warming limit of below 2℃. The goal must be a net zero-emission economy around mid-century.

The more hodge-podge our climate policy regime, the weaker the signals to promote investment in modern, clean technologies. The incrementalism of the CCA’s proposed approach contrasts starkly with the need to drive a fundamental transformation to a low-carbon economy, and is at odds with the Authority’s own recommended carbon budget.

An apt comparison is with Australia’s economic reforms of the 1980s. The road to success was fundamental change such as floating the dollar and dismantling tariffs, not timid tinkering. Today, neither side of politics shows such vision or determination. So it is all the more important that independent bodies raise everyone’s sights to the larger possibilities.

The CCA’s judgements

The “policy toolkit” report is not supported by two of the CCA’s board members, Clive Hamilton and David Karoly, who have made it known that they will issue a dissenting minority report.

Under its previous board the CCA provided strongly principled advice for ambitious climate policy, such as its recommendations for emissions targets and a carbon budget. A report on climate policy instruments that put principle over political circumstance would almost inevitably recommend a comprehensive carbon pricing scheme as its core.

The hope for this week’s report is that it might help achieve some convergence on climate policy, albeit at a lower denominator, and encourage the government to embark on reform.

The initial signals from the government are not positive. Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg was quick to distance the government from the report. He said that there are no plans to change baselines for the “safeguards”, which would be required for the main aspects of the CCA plan.

Meanwhile the CCA has ruled out a number of options, making it harder for the government to pick up these options if it wanted to.

The pragmatic gamble could backfire.

Frank Jotzo has received grant funding from various organisation including the Australian government. He has been a member of various advisory bodies. None of the funding or affiliations impinges on the subject of this article.

“For thrill seekers and chill seekers” – that’s the phrase the Today Tonight television program used to show areas in Bali as a freshly rebranded holiday destination, in its recent Brand New Bali series.

But beneath the glamorous surface of cocktails, swimming pools and beach holidays lies an environmental threat that may cause the island to face a water crisis in less than four years.

One segment of Brand New Bali focused on the area of Canggu, hailed as the new “place to be”, after Kuta, Legian and Seminyak.

Showcasing one newly opened Australian-owned beach club at Berawa beach, the segment shows Australian visitors, the Australian beach club manager and a local businessman named Ketut talk about the splendours of Canggu and its rise from a small fishing village to a trendy international surf destination.

The beach club sits on an aquifer, underground layers of rock that contain water that can surface through natural springs or be extracted using pumps. Like most tourism businesses and households in the area, the beach club relies on groundwater for daily water consumption.

Lack of management and overconsumption of water can cause aquifers to face groundwater depletion and land subsidence. Although Bali is a lush, tropical island with rich volcanic soil and a more than 1,000-year heritage of rice production, researchers estimate the island will run dry by 2020.

Stress on waterways is more than just a local issue to Bali. It is of global concern, as UNICEF’s current campaign World Water Week seeks to highlight.

Balinese opposition to outside investors

Bali’s struggle against cashed-up outside investors is most prominent in the “Tolak Reklamasi” movement. Thousands of supporters have joined the movement to reject land reclamation in Benoa Bay, where investors from Jakarta are planning to build hotels and casinos on artificially-built islands.

Protesters claim this will have negative environmental consequences such as flooding, place stress on water and waste management, and destroy dozens of Hindu sacred sites.

While there are many - local residents included - who welcome the booming tourist scene in Canggu and the economic opportunities this offers, researchers warn about rapid and uncontrolled development. Balinese tourism researcher I Nyoman Darma Putra has addressed the shift from cultural tourism to marine tourism and notes the increasing demand for marine leisure activities by tourists. He cautions against the rapid development of coastal spaces and urges developers to consider Balinese people’s religious relationship with the sea, as well as the sustainable management of environmental resources.

Tourism and water

An estimated 60% of Bali’s water is consumed by the tourism industry. This not only affects water sources but can disadvantage neighbouring users too.

Stroma Cole’s research shows how wealthy tourism operators can afford better technology to access deeper groundwater resources. While most households have wells up to 40 metres deep (some only 12m), resorts are reported to drill deeper wells - 60m and more - literally sucking up their neighbours’ water. The neighbours are then forced to dig deeper or look elsewhere for freshwater.

Although there are laws that regulate water consumption, they are rarely enforced. Most users are unaware of these regulations. As a result, those with financial resources can buy themselves an advantage in accessing resources.

Water tables across Bali have dropped up to 50m in the past 10 years in parts of Bali and 60% of its watersheds are declared dry. The damage could become irreversible once aquifers suffer saltwater intrusion, rendering the groundwater useless for domestic purposes.

Bali tourism: who really benefits?

So what benefit may this beach club have to the area? Surely, large developments can bring economic prosperity to semi-urban areas?

The prospects seem bleak. Beach vendors, who have been selling cold drinks and snacks on this stretch of sand in Berawa for years, were forced to move to make way for the new mega-club, and are left fearing for their business. Many of those beach vendors have families to feed. The assumption that more tourism business means more wealth for Balinese residents is also misleading: an estimated 85% of tourism businesses are owned by non-Balinese..

The Today Tonight segment does well in highlighting the popularity of places like Canggu and touches on the special place Bali holds towards its Australian audience. Australians in particular have a close connection to Bali through decades of mass tourism and the market seems to be changing from a budget, all-inclusive version, to a glossy, exotic marine tourism destination.

While an exclusive cocktail in the newest popular beach bar will look good on any traveller’s social media feed, consumers, developers and residents alike must consider seriously measures of environmental sustainability, so that generations to come can enjoy the beauty of this wonderful island.

The author makes no claim of representing or speaking on behalf of a Balinese community. Some of the information is based on ethnographic field research the author undertook in the Canggu area between 2015 - 2016 as part of his PhD project.

Thomas Wright does 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.

Europe's biggest biomedical laboratory, the Francis Crick Institute, has opened in London.

SpaceX was fuelling the unmanned Falcon 9 rocket for a test engine firing when the blast happened.

Scientists in China find that a dog vaccine can also protect large livestock against rabies infection.

No email campaigns have been sent

No email campaigns have been sent

No email campaigns have been sent

An annular eclipse delivered a memorable spectacle across several African countries, as the moon's movement creates a "ring of fire" in the sky.

An explosion takes place on the launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where the aerospace company SpaceX was readying a rocket for launch.