Feed aggregator

I’ve maintained a wall between my job and my emotional response to it, but this month I’ve felt dread rising about looming disaster, and it’s an awakening

Until recently, like a sociopath might have little feelings when witnessing violence, I’ve managed to have relatively mild emotional responses to climate change.

For five years I’ve been covering climate change – the science that underpins it, the things that are driving it, the devastation it is wreaking, and the desperate measures we need to urgently put in place to mitigate it. (Not to mention the reporting I’ve done on the pathetic politics surrounding it.)

Continue reading...

Spot electricity prices have gone through the stratosphere this summer, particularly in Queensland where average prices have been more than double of renewable energy leader South Australia.

It feels like every other day there’s at least one new article touting blockchain as “the next big thing in energy.” But the blockchain is a bit of an esoteric concept to most of us. So, what is it?

APX and CBL Markets plan to explore additional environmental market registry connections in 2017.

Kutubdia, an island of fishing villages and salt farms, has halved in size in 20 years, with family homes destroyed by ever-encroaching tides. In nearby Cox’s Bazar, more frequent storms have had a severe impact on fishermen’s catches

All photographs by Noor Alam/Majority World

Continue reading...

Only 17.7% of respondents in polling commissioned by GetUp believe renewable energy is the primary culprit

Australian voters have not been swayed by a campaign attempting to blame rising power prices on renewable energy, according to new polling commissioned by GetUp.

Conservative media, as well as the federal government, have been attacking renewable energy, blaming it for rising power bills as well as blackouts that were caused by extreme weather.

Continue reading...

The Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market, chaired by Australia’s Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel, is commencing a wide-ranging open public consultation process.

A 47-year-old man was taken after trying to wade across the East Alligator river, Northern Territory police say

A man has been killed by a crocodile at Cahill’s Crossing in Kakadu national park.

Northern Territory police said the 47-year-old man was attempting to wade across the East Alligator river with two women about 4pm on Thursday when he was taken by a 3.5-metre saltwater crocodile. The two women, who made it across the river, did not witness the attack but raised the alarm when they saw he was gone.

Continue reading...

You rather spoiled your commendable editorial (19 January) on making America great again by going green, when you dismissed the idea of protectionist carbon tariffs on those US exports made artificially cheap by being produced using subsidised fossil fuels. This could be an important transitional step to shifting a world economy already falling out of love with globalisation towards one shaped by green “progressive protectionism”. At its heart would be an emphasis on protecting and rebuilding sustainable local economies. This would offer a far more secure future for the majority than the socially and environmentally destructive form of global economic warfare inherent in international competitiveness and export-led growth.

Prioritising the domestic would allow massive funding for a long-term, climate-healing “jobs in every community” approach of making all buildings and transport systems energy efficient and powered by decentralised renewables. It would also see off rightwing populists by providing long-term employment for those parts of the “left behind” that can’t be reached by any other form of economic activity. The threat of carbon tariffs on relevant US exports could well be a useful tool towards pushing Trump to shift his promised increase in infrastructure investment into one that would be a nationwide, decentralised job generator that also helped tackle climate change.
Colin Hines
(Author, Progressive Protectionism) London

Continue reading...

Can coal be part of Australia's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Coal image from www.shutterstock.com

Replacing old coal power stations with new “ultra-supercritical” stations could help meet Australia’s greenhouse gas targets, according to research commissioned by Resources Minister Matt Canavan. Other analysts have reacted with scepticism.

Echoing recent prime ministers, Canavan retorted that these criticisms were part of an “ideological” attack on coal:

Coal has an important role to play as Australia and the rest of the world reduce carbon dioxide emissions… Australia has the resources to be a low-cost and efficient energy superpower. Access to affordable and reliable power underpins our economy and is the key to long-term jobs in the manufacturing sector.

This is not the first time Canavan has put his weight behind increasing Australia’s coal production to “help the environment”.

But technological promises and government support for coal’s bright future stretch back almost 40 years, long before the election of Tony “coal is good for humanity” Abbott, and have been entirely bipartisan, as have claims that Australian coal is especially clean.

Early days

The NSW was funding “supercoal” research for air-pollution reasons from the early 1980s. Climate change entered the fray in 1988, when delegates at the Australian Coal Association conference were told:

Coal’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is small… Means of controlling C0₂ emissions from coal-fired plant are considered best achieved by improved overall operating efficiency using new technology, rather than by endeavouring to capture C0₂ emissions.

The early Labor advocate of climate action, Graham Richardson, told a reporter in July 1989:

Fortunately we use mostly – but not entirely – the cleanest coal in the world. But that doesn’t mean we can’t improve the technology and so limit how much carbon dioxide is blown up the spout.

(Times change; Richardson recently called on Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to recant on his “silly” green goals.)

The same year the visiting president of the US National Coal Association told a government committee that, while much of the low-emissions technology was still in the laboratory stage, he was confident it could be applied soon to plants using coal to produce energy.

In 1991 Australian government funds supported an international conference on clean coal in Sydney.

After Australia’s first climate policy, the National Greenhouse Response Strategy, was agreed in December 1992, it quickly became clear that the Commonwealth was not going to stand in the way of state-level support for new coal-power stations.

On March 21 1994, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change became international law. Coincidentally, Singleton Council in New South Wales approved a new coal-fired power station. Greenpeace launched a legal challenge, but this failed in November 1994. The State Electricity Commission of Victoria’s greenhouse reduction plans died with privatisation.

Peak (clean) coal

It is debatable, but Labor perhaps had more concern – for both climate change and coalminers’ jobs – than the incoming Howard government. The Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council in 1999 suggested Australia ratify the Kyoto Protocol and see it as an opportunity and spur to new technologies.

This fell on John Howard’s deaf ears, but a December 2002 report, chaired by Rio Tinto’s chief technologist and government chief scientist Robin Batterham, was taken up, and the enthusiasm for carbon capture and storage (CCS) was born. A COAL21 plan followed in 2004, and the Australian Coal Association Low Emissions Technologies group was formed.

Howard’s enthusiasm for coal over renewables was such that he even called a “secret” meeting of fossil fuel producers to advise on lower emissions technologies.

The 2004 Energy White Paper continued the trend in support for CCS over renewables.

Labor’s innovation in 2007 was to say yes to both. As opposition leader, Kevin Rudd announced he would bring in a National Clean Coal Centre.

Had the Coalition won the 2007 election, it would have removed the Renewable Energy Target and replaced it with a scheme that would have allowed coal-with-CCS to be considered “low carbon”.

In 2008 the coal association spruiked “NewGenCoal” in television adverts.

It all started to go wrong in 2009, shortly after the launch of the expensive and controversial Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, Rudd’s brainchild.

Former Liberal minister Ian MacFarlane, who had previously urged the coal industry to sell its message, told ABC’s Four Corners:

The reality is, you are not going to see another coal-fired power station built in Australia. That’s, that’s a simple fact. You can talk about all the stuff you like about carbon capture storage, that concept will not materialise for 20 years, and probably never.

Geology intervened as the Queensland ZeroGen project ended in late 2010, when the state government decided to stop throwing taxpayers’ money at it.

And in 2013 it emerged that the coal association’s funding for low-emissions technologies had been broadened to include “promoting the use of coal”.

While there is now a functioning CCS plant in Canada, in Australia CCS limps on and the sums involved now are pitifully small.

Dark days ahead

Three concepts from the study of technological innovation may help us understand what is going on.

The first is the “hype cycle” – the observation that initial unrealistic enthusiasm for a shiny new technology goes up like a rocket and down like a stick, followed by a more gradual, tempered enthusiasm over time (for a recent appraisal see here).

The second is the sailing ship effect. When challenged by steamships, the incumbent technology added more sails, automated sailors and so on, trying to keep up. But ultimately it was in vain – a new technology won out.

Thirdly, supporters of incumbent technologies highlight teething problems in the challenger technologies, in what academics call “discursive battles”.

It’s fair to guess three things. Promises of clean coal, high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) coal power and bio-energy carbon capture and storage(BECCS) will escalate, but perhaps learning from the public mockery of the last two efforts – Australians for Coal and Little Black Rock.

Protests, by people who agree with James Hansen’s 2009 assessment that coal-fired power stations are death factories, will continue. Legal challenges will escalate.

Governments – state and federal – will keep wrestling with the greased pig that is the “energy trilemma”. 2017 will be bloody, and noisy.

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.

Scientists say ants can plot a route home even when travelling backwards.

Archaeological research at a site in Galloway suggests it may have been at the heart of a "lost kingdom" from the Dark Ages.

Holyrood ministers aim higher after hitting target of 42% cut by 2020 six years early, but say Brexit poses challenge

Scotland is seeking to dramatically cut its reliance on fossil fuels for cars, energy and homes after setting a radical target to cut total climate emissions by 66% within 15 years.

In one of the world’s most ambitious climate strategies, ministers in Edinburgh have unveiled far tougher targets to increase the use of ultra-low-carbon cars, green electricity and green home heating by 2032.

Continue reading...

Though recreation on federal lands creates $646bn in economic stimulus and 6.1m jobs, Republicans are setting in motion a giveaway of Americans’ birthright

In the midst of highly publicized steps to dismantle insurance coverage for 32 million people and defund women’s healthcare facilities, Republican lawmakers have quietly laid the foundation to give away Americans’ birthright: 640m acres of national land. In a single line of changes to the rules for the House of Representatives, Republicans have overwritten the value of federal lands, easing the path to disposing of federal property even if doing so loses money for the government and provides no demonstrable compensation to American citizens.

At stake are areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Forests and Federal Wildlife Refuges, which contribute to an estimated $646bn in economic stimulus from recreation on federal lands and 6.1m jobs. Transferring these lands to the states, critics fear, could decimate those numbers by eliminating mixed-use requirements, limiting public access and turning over large portions for energy or property development.

Continue reading...

Hollywood – loyal to its eco-sceptic audiences in middle America – has always been frosty towards environmental movies. Here are the most prescient exceptions to the rule

“We know that it was us that scorched the sky.”

And with that curt footnote, The Matrix sidesteps any further elaboration on the climate conditions that reign in the future outside the virtual world. Which seems to be Hollywood’s approach to climate change all over. It’s great for a bit of post-apocalyptic window-dressing, but any serious consideration of the topic is almost taboo. Perhaps the eco-scepticism of middle America – still Hollywood’s main market – is one reason; the lack of room for real-world settings and concerns amid the superhero-heavy cinematic universes that now dominate the franchise landscape is another. Not everyone has shied away from inconvenient truths, though: here are our top five climate-change feature films.

Continue reading...

With climate sceptics moving to the White House, it’s crucial the US right recognises free markets are uncomfortable for incumbents but essential

Conservatives cannot properly be climate deniers. At the heart of their political stance is a desire to hand on something better to the future than they have received from the past. Now that climate science is so clear, a recognition of the duty to act to protect the next generation follows naturally. Of course, Conservatives have been somewhat cautious. Constitutionally, they don’t chase after novelty and it’s in their character to question fashionable theories.

So we shouldn’t be surprised at the genesis of Margaret Thatcher’s commitment to fighting climate change. As a Conservative she wasn’t a pushover, but as a scientist, she rigorously tested the science and was convinced. Once convinced she saw the imperative to act, and that made her the first leader of a major economy to commit to the Rio Earth Summit. In turn, it was her influence that brought George Bush to the table.

Continue reading...

Vast plant in Qinghai province is part of China’s determination to transform itself from climate change villain to a green energy colossus

High on the Tibetan plateau, a giant poster of the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, guards the entrance to one of the greatest monuments to Beijing’s quest to become a clean energy colossus.

To Xi’s right, on the road leading to what is reputedly the biggest solar farm on earth, a billboard greets visitors with the slogan: “Promote green development! Develop clean energy!”

Continue reading...

EPA staff are ‘nervous’ after the president-elect promised to reduce the environment agency to ‘tidbits’ and named climate skeptic Scott Pruitt to lead it

There is “nervousness” among Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff that Donald Trump’s incoming administration will sideline science and reverse action on climate change, according to the agency’s outgoing administrator, Gina McCarthy.

McCarthy told the Guardian that the Trump administration would face resistance from multiple fronts if it ran counter to a widespread shift to renewable energy, as well as scientific opinion, by rejecting climate science and attempting to bolster the fossil fuel industry.

Continue reading...

From cutting down on meat, to contacting your local representatives and investing in clean energy, here are 15 ways to help reduce global carbon emissions

1 Air travel is usually the largest component of the carbon footprint of frequent flyers. A single return flight from London to New York – including the complicated effects on the high atmosphere – contributes to almost a quarter of the average person’s annual emissions. The easiest way to make a big difference is to go by train or not take as many flights.

2 The second most important lifestyle change is to eat less meat, with particular emphasis on meals containing beef and lamb. Cow and sheep emit large quantities of methane, a powerful global warming gas. A vegan diet might make as much as a 20% difference to your overall carbon impact but simply cutting out beef will deliver a significant benefit on its own.

Continue reading...

The science of climate change is settled. So now the story is all about politics and economics. Here, Guardian journalists and prominent authors, economists and campaigners including Larry Elliott and Naomi Klein explore the finance of keeping fossil fuels in the ground; some options; and a possible solution

• This is a re-edit of a video the Guardian published in 2015
  

Continue reading...