Feed aggregator

Hydrogen fuel cell cars will take to the streets of Adelaide today in a South Australian first.

Humans may in part owe their big brains to a DNA "typo" in their genetic code, research suggests.

After 250 years, the world finally has an updated, illustrated compendium of the more than 630 known species of rays—stingrays, skates, sawfish, and devil rays—found from the tropics to Antarctic waters.

After 250 years, the world finally has an updated, illustrated compendium of the more than 630 known species of rays—stingrays, skates, sawfish, and devil rays—found from the tropics to Antarctic waters.

Five zoo-born numbats have been released into the Dryandra Woodland in WA.

Two-thirds of those polled in the state seat of Dalrymple think the government should not lend to the Indian mining giant

Two-thirds of voters in the Queensland region that would host Adani’s Carmichael mine think the miner should not be eligible for commonwealth funding, according a new poll.

The ReachTel poll of 544 voters in the state seat of Dalrymple found 66% were against the idea of “an Indian mining company worth over $12bn being eligible for this taxpayer funding towards their Galilee Basin project”.

Continue reading...

Different foods have different amounts of greenhouse gases embedded in their production. Food image from www.shutterstock.com

The food we eat is responsible for almost a third of our global carbon footprint. In research recently published in the Journal of Cleaner Production we ranked fresh foods based on how much greenhouse gas is produced from farm to fork.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that red meat is the most emissions-intensive food we consume. But we also found that field-grown vegetables produce the least greenhouse gas. For instance, it takes about 50 onions to produce a kilogram of greenhouse gas, but only 44 grams of beef to produce the same amount.

We hope that chefs, caterers and everyday foodies will use this information to cook meals without cooking the planet.

From farm to fork

To produce our ranking, we compiled 369 published life-cycle assessment studies of 168 varieties of fresh produce, including fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, grains and nuts, dairy and livestock.

To find out how much greenhouse gas is produced in food production, we need to look at all the activities that produce emissions on the way from paddock to the regional distribution centre.

This includes: farm inputs from chemicals and fertilisers; fuel and energy inputs from irrigation and machinery for cultivation, harvesting and processing; and transport and refrigeration to the regional distribution centre.

It also includes emissions released from fertilised soils, plants and animals in fields, but doesn’t include activities such as retail, cooking in the home and human consumption.

CC BY-ND

In the case of non-ruminant (chicken and pork) and ruminant (lamb and beef) livestock, processes covered include breeding, feed production, fertiliser use, farm/broiler energy use including heating, as well as transport, processing at the slaughterhouse and refrigeration to the regional distribution centre.

For lamb and beef the main source of emissions is methane. This is due to the fermentation process in which bacteria convert feed into energy in the animals’ stomachs. Methane can contribute anything above 50% of the total for ruminant livestock.

In the case of fish, species caught offshore by longline fishing fleets and trawlers have higher values because of the significantly higher fuel consumption than coastal fishing fleets.

It is difficult to compare different life-cycle analyses as these are unique to a particular growing region, farming practice, or methodological calculation. We agree there is danger in comparing one analysis with another to make direct comparisons and concrete conclusions.

However, after comparing 1,800 life-cycle analysis results, we feel far more comfortable in generalising the findings.

There is a large variation (median values) in results between food categories and also within categories, as illustrated below:

CC BY-ND Cooking with less gas

Due to different culinary and dietary requirements, it is hard to argue that you can replace beef with onions. However, it is possible to substitute red meat with other meats, or plant-based protein sources, such as lentils and nuts, that have a lower impact.

Our study can help everyday citizens gain a better appreciation of the life-cycle impacts associated with the growing, harvesting and processing of food. With this knowledge, they can better plan, shop, prepare and cook food while reducing their carbon footprint.

CC BY-ND

As the world grapples with the estimated US$940 billion per year in economic losses globally as a result of food loss and waste, these data illustrate the embedded carbon impacts when food is wasted in the supply chain.

Our results could be used to plan menus for individuals and catering companies who want to reduce their carbon footprint, by selecting foods from different categories.

Limited studies are available, however, for many popular foods. This includes tree nuts such as almonds and cashews, and quinoa, duck, rabbit, turkey and kangaroo.

We need to know more about the emissions intensity of these foods as they are often presented as alternative protein sources with low emissions. The lack of published data makes emissions intensity of these foods harder to validate, and such information is critical if attempts are made to inform dietary choice for environmental purposes.

Karli Verghese undertakes research projects on a variety of food related, packaging, waste and life cycle assessment studies that have been and are funded by the commercial sector, government grants and competitive grants.

Stephen Clune previously worked for the Centre for Design at RMIT on a variety of food related research projects. Which were funded by the commercial sector, and competitive grants.

Prime Minister Turnbull and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg hold a press conference after ratifying the Paris Agreement in November 2016. AAP Image/Lukas Coch, CC BY-SA

Ten years ago on Saturday (December 10) Prime Minister John Howard announced the Coalition government would investigate an emissions trading scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It was a remarkable backflip after a decade of rejecting such a policy. But fast-forward ten years and we have seen a dizzying array of U-turns on climate, most of them bad news for the atmosphere.

In the latest turn of events, the Coalition government has ruled out an emissions intensity scheme (a form of carbon trading) ahead of a national review of climate policy.

So as Australia gears up to review both its electricity market, with an initial report to be released on Friday, and climate policies, what might the future hold?

Howard’s slow warming

Emissions trading and carbon taxes were considered as far back as the very early 1990s.

In August 2000 an emissions trading proposal from the Australian Greenhouse Office fell in Cabinet, a result ascribed by journalists to then-Senator Nick Minchin. A second proposal, in July 2003 from at least five ministers, was personally vetoed by John Howard.

However, the pressure became overwhelming as the Millennium Drought wore on and states proposed to knit together a national scheme from below. Federal bureaucrats forced Howard’s hand. In Triumph and Demise, journalist Paul Kelly describes the moment Howard realised he would need to consider emissions trading:

[Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Peter] Shergold reached the bullet point advocating an ETS [Emissions Trading Scheme], Howard asked: “What’s that doing there?” It was the decisive moment; the next exchange was a classic in the advisory art.

[Treasury secretary Ken] Henry said: “Prime Minister, I’m taking as my starting point that during your prime ministership you will want to commit us to a cap on national emissions. If my view on that is wrong, there is really nothing more I can say.” It was a threshold moment.

“Yes, that’s right,” Howard said cautiously. Henry continued: “If you want a cap on emissions then it stands to reason that you want the most cost-effective way of doing that. That brings us to emissions trading, unless you want a tax on carbon.”

Howard did not want a tax on carbon.

Howard after a speech outlining his ETS policy on the third day of the Liberal Party’s Federal Council in June 2007. AAP Image/Paul Miller, CC BY

Kelly goes on to describe the shift in the business community as a “tipping point”.

So, on December 10 2006, John Howard put out a press release declaring that Peter Shergold and a panel would investigate an ETS. Shergold delivered his report in May 2007, and both the Coalition and Labor went to the 2007 election with an ETS policy.

Rudd’s great backflip

Kevin Rudd began auspiciously, receiving a standing ovation for ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, and famously declaring that:

climate change represents one of the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenges of our age.

But then Rudd and his inner circle began the tortuous process of formulating their own Carbon Pricing Reduction Scheme.

Rudd formally hands over the official document ratifying the Kyoto Protocol to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. AAP Image/Ardiles Rante, CC BY

It quickly became bogged down in concessions to the mining and electricity sectors. The first attempt at legislation, in May 2009, had a higher emissions reduction target of up to 25% if international action materialised, but failed.

The second effort created an even more generous cushion for the miners (doubled to A$1.5 billion) , but also failed after the Liberals replaced Turnbull with Tony Abbott on December 1, and the Greens in the Senate refused to vote for the plan.

Fresh from the horror of the Copenhagen climate conference, Rudd could have triggered a double-dissolution election over the scheme, but didn’t. A Greens proposal for an interim carbon tax was ignored. Rudd toyed with a behaviour change package, but was overruled.

On April 27 2010, Lenore Taylor broke the story that Rudd was kicking an ETS into the long grass for at least three years. Rudd’s approval ratings plummeted.

The toxic tax

After Julia Gillard replaced Rudd in 2010, she negotiated a three-year fixed carbon price as part of an emissions trading scheme. It was quickly politicised as a “great big tax on everything”, and lasted two years after coming into effect.

Abbott proposed a different way of reaching the same emissions reduction target – a Direct Action scheme, which critics said simply subsidised polluters. Turnbull famously called it “bullshit” in 2009.

A pro-carbon tax protest for climate action in Sydney in June 2011. AAP Image/Dean Lewins, CC BY

Turnbull didn’t change Abbott’s policy when he became prime minister in September 2015. It has been recently reported that the Direct Action scheme’s Emissions Reductions Fund is “running out of steam”.

What next?

Only the brave or ignorant would make any specific predictions about the absurd(ist) rollercoaster that is Australian climate change policy.

In the last few months we’ve seen the Climate Change Authority issue a majority and minority report.

On Tuesday, transmission companies called for a trading scheme at least for the electricity sector, but the right wing of Turnbull’s own party seems implacably opposed, as do commentators such as Andrew Bolt. Now the Turnbull government appears to have capitulated.

Business, industry and green groups have been crying out for policy consistency and an orderly transition away from coal.

Now we wait for the results of the two reviews into Australia’s electricity and climate policy.

There’s the Finkel Review into the reliability and stability of the National Electricity Market, which was commissioned in response to the South Australian blackout of September 28. That will presumably create new terrain in the debate on renewable energy for which there is currently no additional target beyond 2020.

Then there’s the review of Direct Action itself, and its safeguard mechanism. In 2015, under pressure from Nick Xenophon, the government promised it would begin the review on “30 June 2017, and complete it within five months”.

Meanwhile, the Labor Party will have to come up with its own specifics for how it would hit the Paris targets. It’s hard to see the Liberal and National parties changing their minds on this issue, having somewhat painted themselves into a corner (it was not always so).

Ten years ago, after successfully fending off action, John Howard finally had to do a U-turn, but it was too little too late. The pressures are now building again. It will be interesting to see if Labor is capable of capitalising on them, and if social movements are more able than they were to keep Labor to its rhetoric this time around.

Ten years from now, will we be charting another ten tempestuous and wasted years?

Marc Hudson 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.

EU president abandons plan to overhaul flagship birds and habitats directives following a huge public campaign

The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has been forced to abandon an overhaul of flagship nature laws after an unprecedented campaign that mobilised over half a million people in protest.

The popular birds and habitats directives protect almost a fifth of Europe’s landmass, about 200 wetlands, meadows and marine habitats, and more than a thousand animal and plant species.

Continue reading...

People in west Siberia have captured footage of what is believed to be a small meteorite.

Scientists in the US have unveiled an athletic robot which takes its inspiration from bush babies.

Supermarkets say they are pulling out all the stops to ensure there are no empty shelves in the run-up to Christmas

Love them or loathe them, they are a staple part of the Christmas dinner. However, consumers shopping for sprouts this year could have less choice than usual after some British-grown crops were ravaged by “super-pest” moths during the summer.

Supermarkets said they were pulling out all the stops to ensure there were no empty shelves in the run-up to the crucial festive season, although some may be unable to supply some lines such as popular “sprout stalks” or loose sprouts and may relax their usual specifications to allow smaller or imperfect items.

Continue reading...

For a second day, Paris is cutting car numbers according to odd or even licence plates. Do such schemes work?

The Cassini spacecraft has sent back the first views from its new orbit around Saturn.

Cuts made to workforce at home and overseas despite ministers saying climate diplomacy should be a top priority

The UK has cut the number of Foreign Office staff working on climate change, despite ministers arguing the issue should be a top foreign policy priority.

The Liberal Democrats said it was “appalling” and sent “the wrong signals” to the world, after a minister revealed the figures in a recent parliamentary answer.

Continue reading...

Poultry keepers have been told to keep their birds inside to protect them from avian flu in Europe.

Campaigners hail announcement that funding for air quality measures will rise to £875m over the next five years

Campaigners, health charities and and neighbourhood groups have welcomed plans by the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, to more than double funding to clean up the capital’s dirty air.

London is one of the most polluted of dozens of cities in the UK that breach EU standards on nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a toxic gas caused by diesel vehicles. Air pollution has been linked to nearly 9,500 premature deaths in the city each year.

Continue reading...

Scientists formerly thought associative memory was the domain of humans and other animals

Extreme weather is driving up uninsured losses and insurers must use investments to fund global warming resilience, says study

The ability of the global insurance industry to manage society’s risks is being threatened by climate change, according to a new report.

The report finds that more frequent extreme weather events are driving up uninsured losses and making some assets uninsurable.

Continue reading...

It’s a rare week when natural resource management policy penetrates the national news cycle not once, but twice.

Nonetheless, last Thursday the federal government struck a deal with the Greens to increase funding to Landcare programs by A$100 million in exchange for their support on other matters. No one quite seems to know yet how this money will be spent – presumably in ways that support the thousands of volunteer community Landcare groups dotted around Australia.

Then on Sunday, the Australian Financial Review reported that the government will abolish the Green Army program as part of its mid-year budget update later this month.

Introduced in 2014 as a signature policy under the then prime minister, Tony Abbott, the Green Army aimed to mobilise 15,000 young and unemployed people to work on conservation projects and receive complementary training. Axing the program would deliver budget savings of around A$350 million.

Abbott took to Facebook on Monday to criticise the move. His main concern seems to be the implication that the Greens’ policy priorities are more important than the Coalition’s. That’s a bad look, he argues, for a “centre-right government”.

Yet the move would arguably be very much in keeping with centre-right values. By reinvigorating Landcare’s model of personal responsibility and self-regulation, the government could reduce pressure to regulate land use or to pay landholders financial incentives to improve their environmental management.

But consistency with any particular political philosophy is not the issue here. The hyper-polarised political landscape of recent years, particularly on environmental policies, encourages parties to differentiate on any grounds they can. Thus, the cross-party support long enjoyed by Landcare can perversely work against it. Incoming governments believe they need new programs to claim as their own, diverting attention and resources from those already in place.

The A$484 million cut to Landcare in the 2014 budget needs to be remembered in this context. Both Coalition and Labor governments have made changes over the years that either reduced the financial support available to community Landcare groups, or imposed more top-down modes of decision-making.

The 2015 Senate inquiry into the National Landcare Program revealed considerable community concern about the impacts of budget cuts on Landcare’s activities and on private commitment to natural resource management. Every dollar of public money invested in Landcare is believed to leverage between A$2.60 and A$12.00 of community and landholder investment.

When the Green Army was launched, many people questioned whether it would deliver this kind of value for money. With a three-year review of the Green Army due for release early next year (subject to ministerial approval), we might have expected to see some answers.

So why is the Green Army is being cut before the review? Perhaps the government is sparing itself the embarrassment of defending a program that is failing to meet its objectives. Perhaps, despite the critics, the findings would have been positive and the government is avoiding having to explain why the Green Army is being killed off anyway. Perhaps it’s just looking for easy budget savings.

Strategic plan?

Whatever the motivation, the biggest concern is the absence of a strategic and coherent approach to natural resource management policy in Australia. Major program changes are being made with limited consultation and transparency, and precious little evidence of planning.

At the same time, some policies and programs appear to be working at cross purposes. For example, tree clearing is increasing in much of Australia at the same time that some landholders are being paid through the Emissions Reduction Fund to conserve native vegetation.

Questions need to be asked about the genuine impacts of existing policy, about the way in which regulations intersect with voluntary programs, and about coordination between Commonwealth and state governments, among other issues.

The recent Senate inquiry into Landcare called for long-term investment and stability in natural resource management programs. Achieving this will require a return to genuine cross-party support coupled with broader community and industry support. The key to achieving this, I suspect, is less wheeling and dealing among political parties and more consultation and planning with all interested stakeholders.

It might be time to consider a white paper process to inform the next phase of natural resource management policy. At least that would give us some confidence policy is not being decided on the run.

Stewart Lockie receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Mission Australia.