Australia: The Politics of Environment – A Brief Round-Up

Kudos to Warren McLaren, Sydney for writing this great article for treehugger.com

They say “a week is a long time in politics.” And this was my first thought when Matthew asked me, a month ago, to consider a round-up of business and politics events from Australia.

It may be a large sunburnt land blessed with many natural assets, but the so called Lucky Country might be using up some of its nine lives, if recent events are anything to go by. Some of the worst weather since records began suggest the climate is a changing. And not just atmospherically, politically as well. Not only are international icons like the Great Barrier Reef at risk via climate change, so are one of the oldestindigenous peoples on the planet. So what should a country, which can claim the dubious distinction of being the world’s highest emitters of carbon dioxide per capita, do to improve it’s environmental footprint? We peek at a smattering of the issues below.

Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs

Photo: Peak Energy

Australia has a bit of reputation for being world class innovators, but lousy entrepreneurs. We can problem solve with great flair, but we’re not particular brilliant at bringing products to market, oftentimes selling the new technology to someone else to commercialise. This has been our experience with solar. As a staffer at one of our leading photovoltaic research universities recently told me, “We make engineers, we don’t make solar panels.”

So Australia has the technology. In many cases we invented it. We certainly have the sun. But we have just lacked the political and commercial will to forge this country into the solar dynamo it should be. One of Australia’s leading suppliers of renewable energy, Energy Matters, put its bluntly. Germany, “ … while having half the sunshine of Australia, have 200 times the solar production capacity of our country …” And they put this down to Germany having a generous feed-in tariff program.

A feed-in tariff is where the owner of a a grid connected renewable energy system, like solar, is paid a premium (usually greater than the retail price of electricity) for the energy they feed into the grid (that their electricity utility can on-sell to other users.) There are two basic types of tariffs, net and gross. Net is only paid for any energy supplied to the grid that is greater than what was used. For example, if the system generated 12 units of power, but also drew down on the grid for 10 units, then the tariff would only be paid for the 2 units that were in surplus. With a Gross Feed-In Tariff (FIT) the premium is paid for the full 12 units.

Australia has no national feed-in tariff, with some of the states only just implementing their own disparate versions in the past couple of years. At the time of writing, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) had the most generous solar program. In this our tiniest self governing region, they offer, to those of their 340,000 residents who have grid-connected photovoltaic systems, just over 50 cents AUD (38c USD) per kilowatt hour, for up to 10kw of solar capacity. This is roughly four times the retail price of electricity, depending on the plan an ACT customer is on. The program went live for residential solar systems in March 2009.

However, according to the recently announced Western Australian budget, the ACT has been trumped by a more generous feed-in tariff of 60 cents AUD (45c USD) per kilowatt hour. This high premium will only be open to those customers who also sign up for 100% GreenPower for the energy they purchase. With these rates it has been calculated by the WA Sustainable Energy Association that a solar system could be paid off in nine years. (Most solar panels are designed to function for 20-25 years.) The most populous Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) is currently deliberating on what form of feed-in tariff it will legislate. A result is expected by June 2009. The rest of country has a mish mash of tariff, but there remains a push for a national gross feed-in tariff of 80c /kWh.

Solar Power Adoption

Photo: PV-Tech

The feed-in tariff argument has recently reached prominence, due the success that Germany and Spain have had in rolling out photovoltaic systems. But it has not been the only influencing factoring in the slow adoption of solar technologies in Australia. Being a long way from anywhere has meant panels have been expensive to import. And with a relatively small population, (only 57% that of California!) sparsely spread around the country, they have tricky to produce locally, given high wages and small economies of scale. BP Solar, the only on-shore producer of PV panels announced in December 2008 they would close their Sydney plant to concentrate on production out of Asia.

In the face of such pricing pressures, various Australian federal and state governments have, over the years, rolled out different rebates for solar panel purchases. Initially these were to assist people in remote areas, but more recently with utilities embracing grid-connect systems, rebates for photovoltaics became more pervasive. In general the federal government will pay $8,000 towards the cost of 1 kW residential solar installations. In the 2008 budget the government announced the $8,000 rebate would ‘means tested’ and only available to those households with a combined income of less than $100,000. This sent a tremor of fear through the Australian solar industry. However, they need not have worried as, inexplicably, installation applications increased in such demand that rebate processing times about doubled.

It may have been that the political debate over the changes alerted more people to the fact that rebates were available, or maybe the announcement raised concerns that the rebate was being reviewed and interested parties needed to get in quick while it was still on offer. If the latter, then their instincts were spot on, for change was coming. For as of 30 June 2009 the $8,000 is gone, replaced by a new Solar Credits scheme.

Under this new process, there is no direct cash rebate, but tradable renewable energy credits (RECs) will allocated on a sliding scale of points, depending of the carbon reduction efficiency of the installed system. RECs are already in place for the likes of solar hot water rebates, but with the new Solar Credits program their value will beartificially increased five fold.

This process has drawn flak from many quarters. Some believe it means polluters, like coal-fired power stations, buying the exchangable credits on the market, will be purchasing much cheaper credits to allow them to continue their carbon dioxide emissions,negating the efforts of the homeowner to reduce CO2 output . In pure economic terms, the RECs will not, in many instances, reward the residential householder as much as the current lump sum $8,000 rebate.

Couple these rebate changes, with the aforementioned move to gross feed-in tariffs and with the newly emerging business model of communities, co-ops and businesses bulk buying panels and inverters to bring the price down even further, and you have a mad rush of residential solar installations.

Renewable Energy Targets

Photo: Wind in the Bush

All of which goes to help the government inch closer (sounds better than ‘centimetre closer’) to their stated aim of 20% renewable energy by 2020. Back in April of this year the federal and state governments under the umbrella of the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) agreed to expand the existing Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) to this goal. In reality this means that nationally Australia will strive for a legislated target of 45,000 gigawatt-hours by 2020. More than four times larger than the present MRET.

This won’t just come from solar, but also the likes of wind, biomass and geothermal (aka “hot rocks”). But on the solar side of things, the government of Kevin Rudd, just this weekend past detailed one the ways the federal government will be contributing to this target.

It plans under its Clean Energy Initiative to build four solar plants, which in aggregate will amount to “largest solar energy project in the world.” As the Australian newspaper understands the Solar Flagships proposal, there will be almost $1.4 billion AUD invested in two solar thermal, and two solar photovoltaic stations with a combined output of 1000MW coming on stream by 2015.

Other government initiatives like Solar Schools and Solar Cities will also contribute towards the national MRET. As will wind power, although rolling out wind farms tends to more problematic when the NIMBY (not in my back yard) element comes into play.

Geothermal energy holds great promise as water is flushed into deep holes in the earth’s crust, to be heated by hot rocks and returning to the surface as steam, to drive turbines. Although feasible to the point it is said it could provide for all of Australia’s energy needs, it is currently experiencing some technical teething issues. But not everyone will need to make a contribution, like the big polluters, known as ”emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industry”, who’ll be largely exempt.
In the federal Budget just announced last week the government said they would invest $465 million to establish Renewables Australia to support this sort of leading edge research and make it commercial.

Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

Photo: AAP / Dean Lewins from the ABC

However Australian governments aren’t having the good news stories all flow their way.

The federal Rudd Government have come under concentrated attack from green groups, and particularly the national Greens poltical party, for their 2009 budget announcement, that they’ll be funding so called ‘clean coal’ to the turn of $2.4 billion AUD, most of which will be directed a Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program. That’s $0.4 billion more than the Solar Flagships program.

And the Victorian government has been chastised for its feed-in tariff, which will be a net system, not gross and be eligible for only up to 3.2 kW energy systems (the ACT’s is 10 kW) and will be a credit on their electricity bill, not a payment.

On the much bigger picture is the federal government’s emission trading scheme, or as they prefer to call it, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Many believe that the Labor party was successful at the 2007 election, in part because they promised to sign the Kyoto Protocol and actually do something about climate change, unlike the previous government.

Professor Ross Garnaut, was employed to inform the Australian government on the economic impact of global warming to the country. Part of his recommendations included the establishment of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). (The US has been talking around a similar idea, but using the terminology ‘cap and trade.’ In short, enterprises who want increase their emissions beyond an allowance (or cap), set by the government need to buy (trade) credits from businesses who emit less greenhouse gases.

Anyhow. acting on the Garnaut report, the government developed their version of an ETS. But up until recently they have had no joy getting anyone to like it. Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the federal opposition party, the Liberal/National Coalition was right when he said, “It’s literally completely friendless.” Environmentalists and The Greens felt it was wishy washy, because it only strove to reduce emissions by 5% and gave a heap of ‘get out of jail’ free cards to the big emitters. The influential mining industry (Australia is the world’s largest exporter or coal) obviously are not keen on any legislation that impedes business opportunities. It was so universally disliked that it did not pass through the parliament. It didn’t look like anything was going to be place by the election promised date of 2010.

Then at the start of May 2009 the government reneged, coming out with a revised plan. They were now moving it back to 2011 and implementing a raft of compromises, like a new low price for carbon — $10 a tonne — and yet more free permits for large polluting industries. Yet these changes enabled them to drop their bombshell (the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had repeatedly stated that “It would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and for our environment,” to delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme), supported on the day, by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and mainstream enviro groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Climate Institute and the World Wildlife Fund.

One of the concessions was that Australia would move to a 25% Greenhouse Gas reduction by by 2020. Which on the surface sounded great. But devil is always in the detail. This cut would only occur if a comprehensive global agreement on emissions reduction can be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. Of course, the Greens are incensed at what they see as ‘smoke and mirrors.’ But the government wants some sort of scheme passed by parliament, so it can attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen with at least something in its pocket, as a bargaining chip.

And There’s More?

Photo: Warren McLaren / INOV8

With all this talk of emissions trading and solar programs one could be forgiven in thinking there weren’t other environment issues stalking the corridors of Australian political office. Let’s briefly touch on just a few.

As previously noted here the state governments couldn’t agree on national campaign to rid shops and waterways of the dreaded plastic shopping bag, so South Australia went it alone. (As they many years ago, being the only state to have Container Deposit Legislation, placing a redeemable deposit on all beverage containers.)

The food bowl of Australia is the catchment of two major river, the so-called Murray-Darling basin; it is, as Reuters points out, “as large as France and Germany combined, accounts for 41 percent of Australia’s agriculture and provides A$21 billion ($13.54 billion) worth of farm exports to Asia and the Middle East. Around 70 percent of irrigated agriculture comes from the basin. And whether due to the worst drought in over a century, or the early onset of climate change the region is under some pretty severe stress.

“The drought has already wiped more than A$20 billion from the $1 trillion economy since 2002. It is the worst in 117 years of record-keeping, with 80 percent of eucalyptus trees already dead or stressed in the Murray-Darling region.”

It’s not just ecosystems at imminent risk of devastation. If the current dry conditions continue, as they are forecast to, then the South Australian capital of Adelaide may run out of water within two years. Other states have offered to sent drinking water for the city of over 1 million people, but they too draw upon the Murray river, which only has 18% of its capacity at the moment. The federal government has given the The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) $50 million to buy back some of the seven billion litres of water from water licence holders along the catchment, who are willing to sell.

The devastating bushfires in the state of Victoria, which claimed around 170 lives and 2,000 homes, are another aspect of Australia’s dry climate. There are claims that not enough fuel reduction burns were undertaken preceding the fires, though the bush and forest is the reason many of the people live in those locations in the first place. Others believe that with the ongoing drought, there are not enough safe days in the year to undertake the scale of reduction burns needed. A Royal Commission is presently underway to determine the factors that contributed to the most deadly natural disaster in Australian history.

Before the Commission convened and on behalf of more than 13,000 firefighters and support staff, the National Secretary of United Firefighters Union of Australia sent an open letter to the Australian Prime Minister and Victorian Premie. It said, in part:

“Something is going on. As we battle blazes here in Victoria, firefighters are busy rescuing people from floods in Queensland. Without a massive turnaround in policies, aside from the tragic loss of life and property, we will be asking firefighters to put themselves at an unacceptable risk. Firefighters know that it is better to prevent an emergency than to have to rescue people from it, and we urge state and federal governments to follow scientific advice and keep firefighters and the community safe by halving the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.”

And how about this one: The ABC reports that “Tasmania’s Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts will be shut down to help cover a looming budget black hole.”

But there is some good news. A massive amount of environmental rebates available from state and national government to help householders, landlords, schools and community groups. These cover ceiling insulation; rainwater tanks (with added incentives if these are connected up to washing machines and flushing toilets); solar hot water systems; energy and water efficient washing machines; compost bins; drip water gardening systems; grey water systems, green loans, and more.

And we have to stop there. For next week there’ll be a whole new set of challenges and opportunities confronting our elected representatives.

EU Environment Ministers Hash Out Post-2012 Climate Plan

Image via: Green Roof Offsets

EU Environment Ministers met this week for the first time under new Czech leadership. The goal – to formalize more of the post-2012 climate change actions, which are due to be finalized in December at Copenhagen. On the agenda, emissions goals, a carbon market and getting developing countries on-board. Environment Minister Martin Bursik gives the meeting two thumbs up, saying “we have reached 99% of what we wanted to.”

As for carbon emissions targets (mitigation), the group agrees to reduce emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. Developed countries must also make mid-term commitments and goals for emission reductions, and “developed” non-Annex I countries are encouraged to make goals that they are capable of meeting given their capacity. Developing countries are encouraged to make development plans that include low-carbon communities and lifestyles.

The group next proposes to build a “robust” cap and trade carbon market by, preferably, 2015. More-advanced developing countries will be encouraged to participate by 2020. To further encourage developing countries to participate, sector specific markets will be created so that developing nations can get involved where they can. On another note, the Council encouraged the members to look into the recycled and reused goods market, particularly the fall in demand, and see if there is a way to support this market.

The EU is the only community in the world with a binding 20% reduction target, and they plan to increase that to 30% once more groups get on board. The costs of implementing these reductions, especially among developing countries were considered. Ultimately the group felt that the current, weakened economy is actually a good “opportunity to modernize and shift our economy towards a more efficient and low-carbon one, bringing millions of new green jobs” said Bursik. :EU Environment Post-2012 Climate Change Agreement

More on Post-Kyoto Climate Change Agreements
TH Forums: Thoughts on Post-Kyoto Accord Agreements
$215 Billion Could be Raised by Rich Nations to Help Poor Combat Climate Change
Turkey Finally Gets on Board with Kyoto
Al Gore Tells Senate Committe That We Have Arrived at a Moment of Decision Regarding Climate Change

Obama Nominates 2 Leading Global Warming Specialists for Key Science Posts in his Administration

 

Harvard physicist John Holdren will be Mr Obama’s scientific adviser while marine biologist Jane Lubchenco will head the US oceanic research body.

Both have advocated greater government action on climate change.

Their appointments have been seen as a sign of Mr Obama’s commitment to tackling environmental issues.

In his weekly address, Mr Obama said that “today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation”.

He said it was “time we once again put science at the top of our agenda” and that he was confident that the US could “lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity”.

‘Respectful’

Mr Holdren was described by Mr Obama as “one of the most passionate and persistent voices of our time about the growing threat of climate change”.

 

Ms Lubchenco has criticised the Bush administration’s scientific policies

Mr Holdren will become director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the co-chair of the Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.

He will share the latter post with Nobel Prize-winning scientist Harold Varmus and Eric Lander, a specialist in human genome research.

Mr Lander’s appointment has been seen as an indication of the importance of genetic research to the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, Ms Lubchenco will direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which monitors global weather patterns and ocean currents.

She had criticised the Bush administration earlier this year for not being “respectful” of science.

“I am very much looking forward to a new administration that does respect scientific information and that considers it very seriously in making environmental policies,” she said.

Mr Obama, who takes office on 20 January, has now filled all the posts in the cabinet. However all nominees must still be vetted and approved by the Senate.

Scotland Crafts Own World-Beating Climate Bill

Source:”Scotland Crafts Own World-Beating Climate Bill“, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 6th Dec 2008

 

Image from amandabhslater

If you liked Obama’s proposed climate agenda, then you’ll love Scotland’s. Not only would it require an 80 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by mid-century, it would also require equivalent reductions from the five other major greenhouse gases. Emission levels would have to be reduced 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Unlike most other international variants, it would target shipping and aviation emissions as well, reports the BBC.

Image from robertpogorzelski  

Other goodies the bill includes are measures on recycling and packaging, waste reduction, energy efficiency and renewable energy for the forestry sector. In case retailers are unwilling to charge customers for the use of plastic bags, the bill also authorizes government ministers to make them do so as a “last resort”. (Several retailers have already begun charging for their use.)

A Committee on Climate Change, or other advisory body, would be established by the government to provide recommendations and guidance on its implementation. If passed by the Parliament, the bill would give the country one of the most forward-looking climate change portfolios in the world. Stewart Stevenson, the Climate Change Minister (don’t you love the sound of that?), hopes that developing a range of short, medium and long-term measures will help guarantee the bill’s success.

Scotland has been on a roll of late in the climate change/renewable energy arena, committing to building one of Europe’s largest onshore wind farms (Romania took the cake in that category) and one of its largest biomass plants while also launching theworld’s largest prize for marine renewable energy. Oh, and it doesn’t hurt that Edinburgh remains one of Northern Europe’s most sustainable cities (though it’s a shame the government caved on Donald Trump’s proposed golf course project).

President-elect Obama could certainly do worse than consult with the Scottish government before crafting what many hope will be his own world-beating climate bill.

More about Scotland
Europe’s Largest Single Onshore Windfarm to be Built in Scotland
U.K. Set to Build Largest Biomass Plant in Scotland

EPA Ignores Own Scientists’ Advice, Makes a Gift to Coal Mining Interests

Source: “EPA Ignores Own Scientists’ Advice, Makes a Gift to Coal Mining Interests”, treehugger.com, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 5th December 2008

Image from Jen SFO-CBN

In what’s become a depressingly predictable trend, the EPA’s higher-ups have once again chosen to consciously ignore the better advice of their scientists and reverse a long-standing rule banning the dumping of coal mining debris into mountain streams.ProPublica‘s Joaquin Sapien writes that the reversal will clear the new for a new measure that environmental groups are rightly calling a “gift to mining interests”: the ability to dispose of leftover rocks and dirt from mountaintop mining (a practice Bush officials have allowed to expand in recent years) by flagrantly violating the landmark Clean Water Act.

Image from Wikimedia Commons

Even top EPA officials were at a loss to justify their deeply flawed decision, with Administrator Stephen Johnson simply telling Interior Department Secretary Dirk Kempthorne that “nothing in the regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Clean Water Act.” (The Interior Department needed the EPA’s approval before finalizing the rule.) Big Coal and its allies in the Bush administration had spent years fighting a rule that required mining companies to obtain permits before dumping waste into rivers.

A few months ago, a number of environmentalists had met with the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Interior Department officials to strongly urge them not to enact the new rules without considering their scientists’ recommendations. Just five days later, said OMB officials met with representatives of the National Mining Association. Need I say more?

As Sapien points out, the EPA had twice before found that dropping mining debris — or as it’s commonly referred to, “valley fill” — into rivers degraded water quality and killed the local aquatic wildlife. One of the studies in question determined that the water tested downstream from a dumping ground had excessively high levels of dangerous chemicals. A coalition of environmental lawyers cited this study and a related brief in submitting their comments to the EPA — comments that, of course, went unheeded.

The best part of this?

Johnson’s letter went on to suggest that the rule will help meet President Bush’s goal of promoting “the increased use of clean coal technology in order to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.”

Assuming the Obama administration decides to quickly reverse this and other Bush “midnight regulations,” it will have a tough road ahead. (As of now, the transition team has “no comment”.) For one thing, the process of repealing these rules can grind on for years because of all the legal theatrics (you can bet the coal companies will be fighting tooth-and-nail to ensure the Obama team does not succeed). The other problem is that the worst damage may well have already been done by the time Obama officials reverse these measures.

More EPA shenanigans
US Environmental Destruction Agency: Making National Parks Coal-Friendly
EPA Reforms Rule on Hazardous Waste, Boosts Recycling

Introducing Japan’s Environment Minister Tetsuo Saito

 

Having a Commissioner for the Environment or an Environment Minister in charge of all the issues we care about here at Treehugger seems like a good idea. During his hearing with the European Parliament, Stavros Dimas announced four main priorities for his term in office: climate change, biodiversity, public health and sustainability. Here in Japan, Tetsuo Saito from the small New Komeito party has come up with a number of interesting proposals. Just last week, he told NHK he will propose the introduction of fossil fuel taxes from next year to help curb greenhouse gas emissions. He added he hopes to give tax reductions to people who contribute to energy savings, while imposing higher taxes on those who do not.

Tetsuo Saito has called for stringent mid-term greenhouse gas reductions, and wants Japan to set a medium-term target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 per cent by 2020 or 2025 from the 1990 level. He also proposed replacing all official cars for cabinet ministers with next-generation automobiles, such as hybrids, by the time the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 as part of efforts to cut green house emissions.

Oh, and by the way, isn’t this a very good time for the United States to upgrade the EPA to a proper federal government status – or will it just remain as an agency – to catch up with the European Union and Japan?

Environment Minister Tetsuo Saito has quitely introduced some very far-reaching plans for Japan’s over-the-counter cap-and-trade CO2 market. It is aimed at accelerating further cuts in the private sector via new technologies to save energy and reduce or remove emissions from the atmosphere, Tetsuo Saito told Reuters last month.

“It’s based on a voluntary (cap) because we’d like to see as many companies as possible joining in as we start. But we’re aiming to make it a cap-and-trade scheme eventually,” he said. “We’re hoping to accept applications from thousands or even tens of thousands of companies, ranging from big companies to medium to small ones as well as mainstay companies in each region.”

Japan also wants more forest conservation at home while investing in clean energy projects abroad, giving it credits to offset emissions.

Who is Tetuo Saito? He was a visiting researcher at Princeton University for three years beginning in 1986. He was elected to the Diet for the first time in 1993. He is known here for his ties with NASA and is seen as an expert on lunar bases and clean energy technology. Due to his knowledge in these areas, he was appointed parliamentary secretary of science and technology in 1999. I look forward to more radical proposals from Mr. Saito, as environmental politics continue to move to the forefront.

More reading:
Japan’s CO2 Emissions Up 8 Percent Since 1990
16 Kyoto Protocol Nations On Track to Meet Emissions Reductions, Through No Fault of Their Own
Will You Reduce Your CO2 Emissions By 50%?
Japan To Subsidize Solar Panels For Your House

Written by Martin Frid at greenz.jp

Bush Administration to Open Public Lands Near Utah’s National Parks for Natural Gas and Oil Drilling

Source:”Bush Administration to Open Public Lands Near Utah’s National Parks for Natural Gas and Oil Drilling“, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 9th Nov 2008

Image from jderuna

There is no doubt that the Bushies will go down in history as the administration with the least environmentally-friendly record (among other dubious distinctions). Having already gutted the Endangered Species Act, denied the existence of climate change and vehemently resisted efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, it is not as if the president has been trying especially hard to rehabilitate his dismal reputation. Last Friday, we learned of the Bush administration’s latest environmental hit job, courtesy ofThe New York Times‘ Felicity Barringer: a plan by the Bureau of Land Management to open tens of thousands of acres on or near the borders of three national parks in eastern Utah, including Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park, to drilling.

Image from Wolfgang Staudt

Decision taken without consulting National Park Service
In light of the administration’s ongoing (and recently accelerated) efforts to ease regulations on its industry allies, this does not exactly come as a shock (see Greg Haegele’s list of top 10 “eco-horrors” for more recent coverage). What was perhaps a little surprising was that the BLM did not even bother to notify officials in the National Park Service (some of whom presumably adhere to the administration’s anti-environment philosophy); instead, the agency quietly released an updated lease proposal (the first one was also heavily criticized for giving the green light to further industrial activity) that included 40 – 45 new areas. It evidently hoped to attract as little attention as possible, releasing it on November 4.

Late auction date will hurt next administration’s efforts to reverse sales
The new tracts will be sold at auction on December 19. (Incidentally, this is the last lease sale before the president leaves office.) As a result, instead of having the customary 1 – 3 months to comment on the new proposal, top managers at the NPS will have precious little time to voice their concerns about the drilling’s impact on the parks’ water, air and wildlife. When asked if she would reconsider offering the tracts in December, Selma Sierra, BLM’s state director, pointedly refused, Barringer notes.

Those who believe an Obama administration would be able to easily reverse the sales are mistaken: Any effort by the new government to do so would likely result in the energy companies filing suit or taking other retaliatory action — moves that would likely drag out the process for several months or years.

Earlier this year I wrote about the NPS selling our parks short by inhibiting its own ability to purchase the estimated 1.8 million acres of land listed for acquisition (it only requested $100 million from Congress for fiscal year 2009 to buy $1.9 billion worth of land). The fact that this administration has even managed to take its own officials by surprise speaks volumes.

More about the Bush administration’s shenanigans
In this Week’s Bargain Bin: Our National Parks
10 Eco-Horrors That Should Have You Scared
A Return To Colorado Oil Shale?

Clinton Global Initiative Highlights: Old World Is Oil, New World Is Renewables

photo: Alex de Carvalho

The Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting is in full swing in New York City. In Thursday morning’s plenary session, Integrated Solutions: Water, Food & Energy, Tom Brokaw moderated a discussion about the entwined issues of water, food and energy. He directed questions towards San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, Shimon Peres former president of Israel, oil mogul turned wind power evangelist T. Boone Pickens, leader of the Danish Social Democratic Party Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and World Bank President Robert Zoellick. Helle Thorning-Schmidt’s had some interesting comments on achieving energy independence, looking beyond the short-term, and just how far the market can go… 

Renewable Energy a Political Commitment…
Speaking about Denmark’s transition from importing 99% of its energy needs not too long ago to generating 30% of its power from renewable sources, Ms Thorning-Schmidt said that ultimately this sort of transition is not about the size of a nation, it is primarily about political commitment. She said that any country can take bold action and move forward.

…And a Long-Term Investment
In describing obstacles that Denmark faced in making a transition away from imported energy sources, she said that the big thing to be aware of is that renewable energy is a long term solution; the full benefits may not be realized for ten or twenty years. In concluding her remarks on energy she said that, in her view, the old world is oil and the new world is renewable energy.

Two Lessons for the World
She went on to offer two lessons for the world regarding implementing renewable energy:

1) Markets cannot do it alone. If a proper incentive structure is in place, the market can be a good vehicle, but it cannot do it alone.

2) You cannot solve global problems individually. She used the current US financial crisis as example, saying that if you simply cannot address that issue, you must also address related problems as well.

:: Clinton Global Initiative

Renewable Energy, Denmark
On Danish Island of Samsø Wind Power is the Heart of Carbon Neutral Energy Independence
Danish Climate Goal 2009: World’s Biggest Fleet of Electric Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars

Clinton Global Initiative
Highlights from the 1st Day of the Clinton Global Initiative
Bill Clinton Chats With Bloggers About Pickens Plan, Offshore Drilling, Clean Energy–and Gives TreeHugger a Thumbs Up

Source:

“Clinton Global Initiative Highlights: Old World Is Oil, New World Is Renewables“, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, Matthew McDermott, 25th Sept 2008

Obama Versus McCain on Offshore Drilling & ANWR

photo: Tim Thomson

As the House of Representatives just approved a new energy package which contains provisions to allow some offshore oil drilling, it may seem to be a moot point to go into a discussion of where John McCain and Barack Obama stand on the issue, but as there are still legislative hurdles to be cleared before any law is actually passed on the matter, it’s worthwhile to go over their positions. So here there are, Obama and McCain on oil drilling, both offshore and in ANWR:

Again, many TreeHugger readers have probably already formed opinions about which of these candidates they back. (Or a third-party candidate, but since realistically it will be one these two men who is the next US president I’m consciously confining the discussion to Obama and McCain; please don’t take this as advocating that two political parties is the best way to run a country.) For those people who haven’t yet made up their minds, I hope this proves useful.  

---

photo: McCain-Palin 2008   

John McCain on Offshore Oil Drilling & ANWR

As the screams of “drill, baby, drill” during John McCain’s nomination acceptance speech were met with grins from the man of the moment there’s little mistaking where he stands on the issue. One look as the McCain-Palin campaign literature confirms that expanding domestic oil and natural gas production will head up his energy policy, at least in the short-term. This is increasingly presented as the best route towards energy independence in the United States.On Domestic Oil Drilling

The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. (McCain-Palin 2008)

 

In a Republican primary debate at the end of 2007, McCain even went so far as to say that the United States could be oil independent within the next decade: 

We have got to achieve energy independence, oil independence in this nation. I will make it a Manhattan Project, and we will in five years become oil independent.

 

Viewed in a conciliatory light this would be an overly optimistic position to take. According to the a Pentagon report published in 2004, the earliest the US could realistically be free from imported oil would be 2040. (On the Issues)

Offshore Drilling Viewed More Favorably Than Before
It’s useful to note that McCain’s position on offshore oil drilling underwent a sea change between May and June of this year.

On May 29th he said of offshore oil drilling, “… I also have to tell you that with those resources, which would take years to develop, it would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels.”

However, by June 16th he had moved to this position, “Providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.”

ANWR: McCain & Palin Differ
Though John McCain has expressed opposition to opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, Sarah Palin has on numerous occasions expressed vociferous support for oil drilling in ANWR:

Pres. Bush is right. Across the nation, communities are feeling the pinch of high energy costs. It is absurd that we are borrowing from one foreign country to buy oil from another. It is a threat to our national security and economic well-being. It is well past time for America to develop our own supplies. (Alaska Governor’s Office press release, April 29, 2008)

 

It remains to be seen whether Palin will be able to influence McCain’s position or whether her’s will have to be subdued.

---

photo: David Katz/Obama for America  

Barack Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling & ANWR

The official Obama-Biden position on domestic oil drilling is terse in comparison to the McCain position. Obama states clearly that he believes that there is no way the United States can drill its way towards energy independence, but he does add that,

U.S. oil and gas production plays an important role in our domestic economy and remains critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher. There are several key opportunities to support increased U.S. production of oil and gas that do not require opening up currently protected areas. (New Energy for America)

Offshore Drilling Will Not Lower Oil Prices Today…Or Five Years From Now
At a speech in Jacksonville, Florida on June 20th of this year, Obama stated his position a bit more definitively. 

What wouldn’t do a thing to lower gas prices is [...] to open up Florida’s coastline to offshore drilling [...] It would have long term consequences for our coastlines but no short term benefits since it would take at least 10 years to get any oil. [...] Offshore oil drilling would not lower gas prices today. It would not lower gas prices tomorrow. It would not lower gas prices next year. It would not lower gas prices five years from now. In fact, President Bush’s own energy department says that we won’t see a drop of oil…until 2017. And, in fact, you won’t see any full production from any oil drilling off the coasts until 2030. It will take a generation to reach full production and even then the effect on gas prices will be minimal at best.

 

Compromise Would Be Considered
However, he went on to say that if offshore oil drilling could be shown to have a beneficial effect on reducing oil prices in the short term, he would not be opposed to it. And in future statements he expressed that he is willing to compromise on offshore drilling if it is part of a larger package which supports renewable energy,

If we have a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set, and there are some things in there that I don’t like … I would consider it because that’s the nature of how we govern in a democracy. 

I remain skeptical of some of the drilling provisions [in the so-called “Gang of Ten” bill], but I will give them [the bill's drafters] credit that the way they crafted the drilling provisions are about as careful and responsible as you might expect for a drilling agenda.

 

At the time this opened up Obama to accusations of doing pretty much the same thing that McCain did in changing his position on offshore drilling (and I’m sure there people who currently believe this).

ANWR is Out
In stark contrast to the Palin position on ANWR is Obama’s. It may be brief but here it is:

I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernible impact on U.S. energy security. (ANWR)

 

---

ANWR photo: Madhav Pai  

Oil Drilling Head to Head

Both myself and a number of other TreeHugger writers have taken on the issue of offshore oil drilling a number of times, and at the level of utility alone (leaving aside environmental concerns about pollution or otherwise disturbing ecosystems, which are genuine concerns) Obama’s position is solidly borne out. He correctly states the best estimates for how long it would take to bring new offshore oil online and correctly quotes the assessments as to what sort of impact on prices it will have.Take It From the Feds
The US Geological Survey estimates that there are 17.8 billion of barrels offshore in areas under moratorium; the EIA says this wouldn’t have an impact on prices until 2030; and then the “impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant” (same EIA citation).

Perhaps a Chart is Better
In terms of what percentage of oil is actually in protected areas offshore compared to how much oil the United States uses, I’ll simply repost the chart that TreeHugger posted a few days ago:

image: Architecture 2030

Offshore Oil Drilling a Distraction From More Important Issues
As I said in commenting on John McCain’s acceptance speech two weeks ago, this constant focus on opening up new areas in the United States to oil drilling is simply a distraction from the greater issues of reducing fossil fuel consumption, developing clean energy sources, and moving the economy away from polluting and increasingly scarce energy sources.

While the psychological effect of opening up new areas to drilling may reduce prices slightly, they could just as easily be increased based on fears of another hurricane smashing into Louisiana and Texas, of Hugo Chavez cutting off oil supplies to the US, or an RPG attack on a tanker in the Persian Gulf.

The prime beneficiaries of any offshore oil drilling will ultimately be the companies doing the drilling, not the citizens of the United States.

---

Want to know where McCain and Obama stand on renewable energy? Check out My Bottom Line is Green: McCain v. Obama on Renewable Energy. 

---

2008 US Presidential Elections
John McCain on Amtrak
John McCain’s Bear Problem
“Drill Baby Drill” Screams Punctuate McCain’s Energy Policy in Acceptance Speech
Economic Advantages of Green Energy Take Precedence Over Environmental Benefits in Obama Acceptance Speech
What Green Words Are Obama and McCain Really Saying? Ask SpeechWars
Offshore Oil Drilling Will Still Not Lower Gasoline Prices: Barack Obama and Legislative Compromise  

Source:

“Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel: McCain v. Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling & ANWR“, treehugger.com, Politics & Business, Matthew McDermott, 19th Sept 2008

UN Conference fails life on Earth

Photo Credit:  Nick Lawes on flickr

Panthera pardus orientalis (A census in 2000 revealed that there were 22 – 27 amur leopards in total in the wild)

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) fails to address the urgency of biodiversity loss by 2010. Although 191 countries agreed in Bonn that the diversity of life on Earth is essential for human survival, and despite scientific proof that species are rapidly declining, they were unable to agree on many of the concrete steps forward that would have been necessary.

The global Partnership of BirdLife International today expressed its deep disappointment at the lack of progress, especially on financing biodiversity, protected areas and tackling the increasing threat to biodiversity from climate change.

“Despite good leadership shown from Germany, most other rich countries have failed to match their words with financial commitments” —Dr Mike Rands, Director and Chief Executive of BirdLife International

Dr Mike Rands, Director and Chief Executive of BirdLife International stressed “Despite good leadership shown from Germany, most other rich countries have failed to match their words with financial commitments. BirdLife urges governments to recognise the urgency and importance of biodiversity conservation, by immediately making money available to save life on Earth.”

At the conference an economic study was presented showing that if investments are made now, the costs will be far lower than if we delay.

Governments were also unable to agree on concrete steps to establish a global network of protected areas. Without a comprehensive network of protected areas it is highly unlikely that the global community will meet its 2010 commitments.

Climate change presents an unprecedented threat to humans and nature. At the same time, biodiversity plays a crucial role in enabling us to overcome the challenges of climate change. Despite this, with final conclusions pending, the Bonn conference risks failing to establish the urgently needed cooperation between the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The conference also missed the opportunity to take immediate action to prevent damage to biodiversity from biofuels.

With only 18 months to go until 2010, BirdLife urges the global community to face reality, cooperate and take responsibility for future generations.

Source:

UN Conference Fails Life on Earth, BirdLife International, 30th May 2008

Links:

Don’t miss the previous article by Channel News Asia on what came out of the Convention for Biological Diversity

UN biodiversity conference ends with package to protect wildlife