Feed aggregator

Since 2010, Dr Thomas Krumpen from Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research has been flying above northern Greenland towards North Pole to measure ice thickness. By lowering a small torpedo from the aircraft towards the sea ice scientists are able to to obtain data from inaccessible areas helping to build a clearer picture ice health

Continue reading...

The Paris agreement on climate change has come into force, with efforts due to continue next week on the way ahead.

Inventor Sir James Dyson is setting up his own technology institute to tackle the shortage of engineers.

Environment groups hail ‘momentous occasion’ but warn governments need to cut carbon emissions more steeply to avoid dangerous global warming

The significance of the Paris agreement coming into force today is easy to miss: it may seem like an anti-climax, given the travails that led up to its signing last December.

But the moment is of huge importance. This is the first time that a legally-binding agreement, signed by all of the world’s functioning governments, has laid down a commitment to limit the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with the goal of preventing global warming exceeding 2C above pre-industrial levels.

Continue reading...

Dyfi estuary, Wales A single egret, starkly white against the muted greys and browns of the saltings, flapped slowly up from the bed of a creek

From my vantage point on the southern side of the Dyfi estuary it was clear that my plan for the day had been compromised. The salt marsh, with its almost fractally complex pattern of creeks, pools and drains, is often host in late autumn to large groups of geese grazing contentedly within easy reach of the seawall.

On this visit those few geese visible through the pervasive anticyclonic murk were strung out along the seaward edge of the marsh, distant and difficult to approach. As if by compensation a single egret, starkly white against the muted greys and browns of the saltings, flapped slowly up from the bed of a creek just in front of me.

Continue reading...

Another of Australia's dirtiest coal-fired generators has closed due to the confluence of incompatible energy market conditions. So how does that match with what the conservative types are telling us?

Australia’s chief scientist says battery and energy storage a "tremendous" innovation opportunity – and a primary focus for Commonwealth Science Council.

Deutsche Bank predict the state of South Australia could easily beat its aspirational target of 50 per cent renewables by 2025.

Environment groups hail ‘momentous occasion’ but warn governments need to cut carbon emissions more steeply to avoid dangerous global warming

The Paris agreement on climate change enters into force on Friday, marking the first time that governments have agreed legally binding limits to global temperature rises.

The passage of the accord – the fruit of more than two decades of often tortuous international negotiations on combating climate change – was hailed by nations and observers around the world.

Continue reading...

Given the complexity of antibiotics resistance, what should we do to tackle the problem?

New pricing for Tesla Powerwall suggests solar and battery storage now competitive with grid power. For about $16,000, consumers can slash their grid bill to almost nothing and not worry about blackouts. The strategic and commercial implications are marvellous or frightening, depending on your vested interest.

Windlab's 30MW Victorian wind farm, which is part owned by 24 of its neighbours, will be built in 2017 after reaching financial close.

The greenhouse gas emissions reductions countries have pledged aren’t nearly enough to meet the Paris goal.

White House announces designation of 48 electric vehicle charging corridors along 25,000 miles of major U.S. highways as a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The bias of the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission is finally being exposed in mainstream media.

A rare species of frog is discovered which startles predators by revealing its bright orange groin.

All federal government buildings will source their electricity from renewable energy sources within the next eight years.

Despite millions of dollars invested, the Australian geothermal energy industry remains in its infancy. Will Arena’s cautious optimism be rewarded?

In July 2010, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) took a $32m gamble on geothermal energy, investing in Australia’s first demonstration of geothermal electricity generation.

Six years later, the wells in South Australia’s Cooper Basin have been filled with concrete and abandoned, and the geothermal exploration company involved – Geodynamics Limited – has announced it is rebranding and pivoting to biogas, solar photovoltaic, battery storage and hybrid solutions.

Continue reading...

The Paris climate agreement comes into legal force today, just 11 months after it was concluded and 30 days after it met its ratification threshold of 55 parties accounting for at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

By contrast, the Kyoto Protocol, which this treaty now replaces, took more than 8 years to come into force, slowed by the United States’ persistent and erosive opposition.

At the time of writing, the Agreement has been ratified by 94 parties, including the world’s four largest emitters: China, the United States, the European Union and India. As Climate Analytics reports, these nations account for 66% of greenhouse emissions. Even if the United States were to withdraw its support under a Trump presidency, the Paris Agreement will remain in force.

The unprecedented speed with which this has been achieved reflects the acute realisation in the international community – following the debacle of the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009 – that a failure to land this treaty quickly would probably have led to the collapse of the United Nations climate regime.

It also reflects the flexibility of the Agreement itself. Its curious mixture of binding and voluntary elements was designed to be attractive and accommodating, to include both developed and developing states and, specifically, to enable President Barack Obama to sidestep an obstructive US Congress in providing his support.

The result is a legal hybrid that obliges parties to abide by processes, mechanisms and timetables for setting and reviewing their national climate targets, and providing climate finance to developing countries.

But the treaty doesn’t compel those national efforts collectively to meet its core aims: to keep global warming well below 2℃ and as close as possible to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels; to peak global emissions as soon as possible; and to reach zero net global emissions in the second half of this century. Worse still, the currently pledged targets would deliver some 3℃ of overall warming by the end of this century.

Because the treaty relies on “intended” national climate targets rather than binding ones, much hinges on the success of the requirement for nations to review and toughen them every five years. The theory is that these global stocktakes of collective progress (beginning with a facilitative dialogue among parties in 2018) will generate enough pressure for individual nations to be encouraged to ratchet up their efforts as they go.

For these reasons – because of its emphasis on process and its lack of compliance mechanisms – the Agreement has been described as a promissory note, or prematurely criticised as inadequate.

A work in progress

Euphoria greeted the successful conclusion of the Paris summit last year, and 175 countries rushed to sign the Agreement when it opened for signatures in April this year (in all, 192 states have now done so). Nevertheless, given the Kyoto experience, few anticipated that this enthusiasm would carry the treaty across the ratification threshold so soon.

So while there will be more celebrations at this year’s UN climate summit, which begins in Marrakech on Monday, negotiators and UN bureaucrats have been caught out. In some senses, the Paris Agreement is a framework agreement within a Framework Agreement (the UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change, of which this is a subsidiary part). It’s a work in progress with lots of details yet to be filled in.

The newly formed Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement will be scrambling to define key elements governing the new treaty’s implementation. Many of these elements are critical to the treaty’s long-term effectiveness. They include measures to ensure transparent and effective accounting of countries’ emissions reductions; to work out exactly how the ambition of “zero net emissions” will be met; and to transfer crucial economic measures used under the Kyoto Protocol over to the new framework.

The Agreement requests that this be done by the first session of the Conference of the Parties to the new treaty. As this now will occur in Marrakech, time is too short and such labour is likely to continue through 2017 and perhaps beyond.

From Paris to Australia

Australia is expected to ratify the Agreement later this year. When it does so, it will be committing itself to regularly increasing its efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, improve climate adaptation, and provide climate finance.

Like other nations, Australia will have to review and toughen its climate targets every five years, starting no later than 2020, and report back regularly on its efforts.

While Australia’s 2020 and 2030 emissions targets are seen as weak by international standards, doubts have still been expressed about the federal government’s ability to reach them.

Modelling suggests Australia’s emissions are projected to rise to 21% above 2005 levels by 2030 – rather than fall by the 26-28% proclaimed in its official target.

Australia’s Emissions Reduction Fund has been criticised as being underfunded and focused on the wrong projects. Recent analysis of the contracts awarded through the scheme’s “reverse auctions” confirms that little real additional abatement has been achieved.

Moreover, likely future changes in land use and forestry (mainly reductions in land clearing) will be insufficient to achieve these goals in isolation or to contribute significantly to future ones. The current policy mix means that tougher – and perhaps even existing - national targets could only be met by buying international carbon credits.

In addition, Australia’s reports to the UN will have to reflect “environmental integrity, transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency in accordance to rules to be adopted by parties to the Agreement”. The transparency and accountability of Australia’s emissions reporting was recently questioned by the United Nations and by other parties to the Climate Convention. This too will have to improve.

Like other parties, by 2020 Australia will also be invited to provide the UN Climate Secretariat with a long-term low-carbon strategy to run until 2050. Designing an effective transition strategy will require extensive consultation with state and territory governments, industries, and other stakeholders. Such attention to detail, although essential for building wide and deep support for a future low-carbon economy, has so far been well beyond the ability of politicians stuck in Canberra’s toxic climate policy culture.

In all, the Paris Agreement, although voluntary, can be thought of as a global climate safety net held by all nations. This inclusiveness means that Australia will no longer be unable to point to the absence of other states as an excuse for its recalcitrance. It will increasingly be held to account by other nations, and the need for meaningful action will become ever more irresistible, as the net gradually tightens.

Peter Christoff 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.

Water use for transport is significant. Edited from Wikimedia commons, CC BY-NC-SA

Melbourne’s transport uses 311 billion litres of water each year - equivalent to flooding the city’s centre 8 metres deep. That’s just one of the findings of our study looking at how much water different modes of transport use.

We found that cars are the most water-intensive mode of transport, using on average 6.4 litres of water per passenger, per kilometre. Diesel trains use 5.2L per passenger-kilometre (pkm) and electric trains use the least, at 3.4L per pkm.

This means that a typical commuter can use between 140L and 350L of water per day to travel to work and back. This is at least as much as a Melbourne resident’s daily household water use of 160L.

Water use is thus a significant part of transport sustainability, but it is often ignored in favour of focusing on energy use and greenhouse emissions. So what can we do to stop transport draining our water resources?

How is water used in transport?

Water is needed in nearly all aspects of transport. It’s needed to make cars, to produce fuels, to replace tyres, and to build roads, among other processes.

Similarly, trains require water for the administration of the public transport network, manufacturing engines and rolling stock, constructing railways and stations, and providing customer services.

So the entire supply chain supporting the delivery of passenger transport needs to be considered in evaluating total water use.

To estimate the total water intensities of different transport modes, we used input-output analysis. This statistical technique models the entire economy of a nation or region, capturing the economic transactions between each sector of the economy and another.

The resulting input-output tables are then extended with environmental data that allow us to estimate the environmental intensity of each sector - in this case the amount of water per dollar. Using detailed financial expenditure data for each transport mode, we can figure out how much water is being used.

How much water is Melbourne’s transport using?

Transport in Melbourne is dominated by cars, as in all Australian cities and many others around the world. This is in contrast to urban centres such as Copenhagen, which relies heavily on bikes.

Melbourne does offer a range of public transport systems, including regional and metropolitan trains. These represent the large majority of public transport trips. For these reasons we focused on petrol cars and trains as the main passenger transport modes. The infographic below summarises our findings.

Water requirements of passenger transport modes in Melbourne, Australia.

A 50km round trip to work by car requires 320L of water – more than two months of drinking water for a single person. Travelling alone by car is the most water-intensive way to travel.

For train travel, the water use associated with transporting 175 people for 20km in an electric train would be equivalent to having 6cm of water on the floor of the train at arrival. This is equivalent to more than three years worth of drinking water for one person.

You can imagine trains filling up with water relatively quickly throughout the day.

Beyond Melbourne

While our study focused on Melbourne, the water intensity of transport modes is also likely to be significant in other cities of Australia and globally. This is because we need a significant amount of water for many manufacturing processes, water supply, electricity generation, fuel production and for other products and services. A study on the water requirements of road vehicles in Finland found similar water intensities for cars and supports this argument.

But it is important to highlight that there is uncertainty in the data. One of the most influential factors is the number of people per vehicle. This is typically very low for cars (around 1.2 people in Melbourne ) and relatively high for trains (around 55-66% full).

This could be improved by car-pooling. We found that if five people travelled together in a car, cars become the most efficient mode of transport. Car-pooling is far from being used at its full potential, but the recent advent of ride-sharing companies can help change this.

However, cars are probably not the best solution as they lead to other negative impacts on the built environment. These include favouring low-density suburban sprawl, air pollution, threatening street life and requiring large costs for infrastructure and land-use.

If this is the case, how can we reduce the water requirements associated with our travel?

Moving forward

Reducing the water requirements associated with passenger transport is a shared responsibility for travellers and transport providers.

There are two main things you can do as a commuter.

First, ditch cars in favour of public transport, which uses less water and resources per person. If public transport isn’t available, make sure your car contains as many passengers as possible.

Second, walk or cycle more often. Both significantly reduce indirect requirements for water, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

It could be argued that with more physical activity comes greater need for water and food, which in turn requires huge amounts of water to produce. However, the health benefits of active transport and the resulting savings in public health schemes probably outweigh this additional demand. Some further research is needed to determine whether this is truly the case.

For public transport providers, it is critical to ensure that the entire supply chain is managed better. While water efficiency in administrative buildings is praiseworthy, the majority of the demand occurs further upstream in the supply chain. This can be accomplished through supply chain management. For example, providing incentives for subcontractors and partners to implement integrated water saving strategies.

It is clear that further research is needed to better understand and assess water use associated with transport. More cities and modes of transport need to be assessed to provide a more comprehensive understanding of water use. This will ultimately contribute to reducing our total use of water and help preserve the natural systems on which we depend.

André Stephan receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Robert Crawford receives funding from The Australian Research Council.