From the category archives:

Environment

The climate change challenge

by danu on April 7, 2008

New to my blog? You may want to think about subscribing to be notified of new posts. Thanks for visiting!

This is the simplest, clearest explanation of the practical process of implementing climate change policy that I have read yet, written by Mungo MacCallum in Crikey today:

Kevin Rudd’s big trip can be described as a modest success - at least in its own terms, which, in spite of the media ballyhoo, were not all that ambitious.

Contacts have been made, flesh has been pressed and Australia’s positioning on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan made clear even to the thickest of our allies (George W Bush). Our renewed commitment to the United Nations has been underlined by our somewhat quixotic bid for a seat on the security council, our continued commitment to free trade confirmed and our approach to China and Japan rebalanced.

In the process Rudd himself has been accepted and even applauded by his international peer group (if not by the hysterical fringe who objected to him waving Bush a cheery salute) and Australia’s credentials as an international player greatly strengthened. Mission, as they say, accomplished.

But the big challenges remain, the first being the inflation-busting budget, which will be quite painful enough for starters. And beyond that looms the far greater, on-going pain of dealing with climate change.

There is no doubt that Rudd takes it seriously; shortly after he became leader of the ALP he described it as the great moral challenge of our times, later adding that it was the great economic and political challenge as well. He made it a centrepiece of the election campaign, committed Labor to a 60% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and commissioned Ross Garnaut to report on the way to get there. Garnaut’s preliminary ideas have now emerged, pointing to what appears to be a fairly even distribution of cost between consumers and producers, with the details to come shortly.

So far so good. But there still appears to be a very limited appreciation among the general public of just what the cost will entail. It is not just a matter of changing the light bulbs and turning few things off for earth hour. We are looking at a long term change in life style – indeed, at a permanent lowering of living standards. And the real challenge is whether Rudd and his colleagues will have the courage to inflict it upon us, because there is no way known that we are going to do it voluntarily.

The softening up process has at least begun. The New South Wales government has produced an alarmist report warning that we could be facing a 4% drop in productivity by 2030, with a consequent decline in national wealth. Given the healthy growth rate of the economy overall, this would not be terribly serious. But the report does not spell out just where the pain would be felt.

The first step in any comprehensive attack on emissions will be the setting of a cap, followed by the implementation of a carbon trading scheme, which will have the effect of making energy in all its forms – electricity, gas, petrol, you name it – more expensive. Lobby groups are already arguing that both suppliers and consumers should be compensated for the price rises, but this is to miss the point.

As both Garnaut and the Reserve Bank chairman Glenn Stevens explained last week, the whole idea of pushing the price of energy up is so people will use less of it. This is the only short-term method by which emissions can be reduced. Subsidising people’s bills (as the Howard government effectively did by ending the indexation of petrol excise in 2001) not only sends the wrong signals but is demonstrably the wrong policy. No pain, no gain.

In the long term, of course, when we have made the switch to non-polluting sources of energy, we can all stop worrying. But that will take a long time and a hell of a lot of money. Alternative energy does not come cheap. Given the continuing sensitivity of the voters’ hip pocket nerves, the next few years will require governments which are both very clever and very brave.

To put it at its crudest level: I’m not going to give up using my car until you do too, and neither of us will unless the government makes us. And if any government does, we’ll vote the bastards out of office. Over to you, Mr Rudd.

{ 0 comments }

Earth Hour is coming up again this Saturday, and by all accounts it's looking to be an even bigger farce than last year. I am a strong supporter of environmental issues, but I feel that cheap feelgood stunts like Earth Hour and Cate Blanchett's Who On Earth Cares campaign really do little more than distract people from real issues and confuse the already contentious environmental debate.

Those who care deeply about environmental issues are well aware of the long hard fight it has been to have environmental concerns even considered, let alone acted upon. Now that the reality of climate change has finally turned the environment into an economic issue, environmental awareness has skyrocketed, but already risks being turned into another social fad - "What better way to cool the earth than to wear a really cool Earth Hour T-shirt?"

When I tell people that Earth Hour is a farce and does nothing to help the environment, people stare at me in amazement as if a bunch of mega-corporations, mass media and marketing can't be wrong. For a start, the event itself is flawed. As Michael Pascoe writes in Crikey today:

What better symbol for Earth Hour than its AGL-sponsored WWF-logoed hot air balloon furiously burning gas over state capitals. That’s AGL the energy company – the one incinerating countless tonnes of gas and coal and, presumably, part of the electricity lobby pushing the federal government for discounts on the eventual carbon credits.

The conclusion to the Crikey junior science class’s first term assignment reads: An average one hour balloon flight over Melbourne uses approximately 180-200 litres of propane, which burns to form water and carbon dioxide; in addition to the fuel used by the balloon's ground retrieval crew. We have estimated that the activity to launch and retrieve one hot air balloon uses the equivalent of 378.1 kilograms of greenhouse gas.

Multiply that by the number of sorties the AGL-WWF giant light bulb is making over four state capitals and you get a lot of black balloons – and if you don’t know what a black balloon is, you haven’t seen how Steve Bracks spends his taxpayers’ money on whitegoods greenhouse awareness.

In the process, WWF and its fellow travellers continue to push their misleading claims of recording a drop in electricity production during the Sydney event last year – the electricity generators recorded a statistically negligible 1.7% variation for NSW and there’s no accounting for extra greenhouse gas production before and by the event.

And if you're wondering what it's all supposed to achieve, consider this piece of information posted on the official Earth Hour FAQ page:

Is it correct that most large coal fired power station operate 24/7 and while there maybe less energy used on the night the power stations will still be running at the same capacity?

It is correct, however…when demand changes (i.e. lights and other electrical devices being turned on/off) power generation plants regulate their output accordingly. So in the case of coal fired plants, they will have to consequently increase or reduce their coal usage (in the case of Earth Hour this would be a reduction). Other types generators, such as gas fired plants and hydro plants also have to do the same thing.

In summary, the effect of Earth Hour will be to reduce electricity demand. Output from power plants will reduce (coal fired plant, gas fired plant and hydro plants). Which ones will reduce are dependent on what is operating at the time and what is determined by the electricity market(NEMMCO). Based on the time and day that the Earth Hour event is planned, it is very likely Earth Hour will cause a reduction in fossil energy power generation.

Just to make that clear, turning the lights off for an hour has no direct effect on the amount of electricity produced. It does have the indirect effect of reducing electricity demand, which it did last year by a whopping 1.7%. And what about those candles everyone will be burning instead?

Jennifer Marohasy, progressive environmentalist and proprietor of the Politics and Environment Blog further explains:

Earth Hour was held during a time of peak electrical load, so any electricity generation displaced would be peak load, probably running on natural gas. Such generation produces about 500 grams of CO2 for every kilowatt-hour.

So turning a 100 watt light bulb off for an hour saves 50 grams of CO2, or 13 grams of carbon. A candle is mostly carbon by weight, and candle wax is only moderately less dense than water at room temperature. This means that burning just 5 cm of a typical 2 cm diameter candle will produce more CO2 than running the 100 watt light bulb for an hour. If the light that was turned off is fluorescent, then even less candle can be burned if there's to be a net reduction in CO2.

A lot of this is simply nitpicking, as overall Earth Hour is fairly harmless and does get people thinking about environmental issues. But what worries me is that in a world where fear, uncertainty and doubt are so effectively used as stalling tactics and weapons against change and social justice, tacky stunts like Earth Hour, no matter how innocent, just give further ammunition to those with darker agendas, like Australia's chief environmental fearmonger Andrew Bolt who picked up on it all last year.

By all means switch off the lights on Saturday. But more importantly, switch on your brains.

{ 0 comments }