Petrol prices in Australia have just hit all time record highs or around $1.70 per litre. This is having a big impact on people, particularly those who are dependant on cars for their work and/or commuting. I just filled my car up, a Mitubishi 4WD van with a long range tank, and put over $200.00 in it for about 130 litres. The car gets about 12l/100km which is much better than a "conventional" 4WD but a lot worse than fuel efficient diesels which get 5l/100km.
Unfortunately, the Rudd Government and the federal opposition, led my Brendan Nelson, both share the view that we need to increase supplies of fuel. Neither seem too interested in providing alternatives to using cars such as boosting public transport for bike paths and lanes.
Industry Minister Martin Ferguson is even in Saudi Arabia trying in vain to get OPEC to boost supplies in an effort to reduce the price [link] however:
The Federal Opposition says Energy Minister Martin Ferguson will most likely achieve little at the emergency meeting of energy powers in Saudi Arabia.
The world is running out of oil, so the price will continue to rise.
It is high time our political leaders stopped gazing at their navels and took some real action to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel, with the added benefit that this would lower carbon emissions and help us try to avoid dangerous climate change to.
They should also make diesel cheaper than petrol, as there is a greater supply and diesel motors are much more efficient than petrol motors so they emit less greenhouse gas per km travelled.
Currently the Australian government has a higher excise on diesel as they only seem to car about taxing it to the equivalent dollars travelled per km to petrol, rather than taking into account its environmental benefits.
However, diesels also emit fine particulates which are not good for human health, so they are not a long term sustainable transport option.
PS: Martin Ferguson came back from Saudia Arabia with his tail between his legs, having achieved absolutely nothing to reduce the price of petrol or oil.
With Melbourne's rail network patronage now approaching or exceeding capacity (Age 19/6) and many roads and freeways now suffering from chronic congestion, it is apparent that the Victorian government's chronic under investment in public transport has compromised both Melbourne's liveability and sustainable transport options.
Peak hour at Flinders Street Station. Photo: Paul Harris
The government's obsessive focus on revenue collection, fare evasion and new ticketing systems is clearly inappropriate. Whole new regions of Melbourne now lack convenient access to rail transport as no significant new suburban train lines have been built since 1930.
Building more roads tunnels like the Eddington report recommends will simply encourage more traffic and greenhouse gas emissions, as the huge investment in road and freeways to date has demonstrated.
The previously planned Rowville, Doncaster and South Morang railway lines should be resurrected and completed. A comprehensive planning process for new public transport, with proper community consultation, is urgently required.
In April 2008, I represented Environment East Gippsland (EEG) at a ‘Stakeholder Reference Group’ meeting, as part of the government’s “Wood and Water Sustainability Assessment Project”. Having been to many of these set-ups in the past, we didn’t have high hopes this one would achieve anything, other than legitimising what the DSE plans to do anyway.
The stakeholder group has been formed to look at options to address water loss due to logging in catchments. This links back to commitments in the 2004 Victorian Government report "Securing our Water Future Together". It included studies and investigations that have still not been officially completed.
EEG’s concerns about the process include:
1. Inputs not available
The following three inputs are now well overdue for release:
Timber substitution studies
Hydrological studies
Water quality review
The process cannot continue until all of these are available. We were informed that they were "very close to being released". But this was also the case last year. The process should not continue without them.
2. Inappropriate criteria for options
The following criteria were listed, saying that they were not up for discussion:
Criteria (1): All management regimes in regards to State forest within Melbourne catchments should:
aim to improve water yield;
work within existing government policy; and
ensure that current government log supply commitments are met.
These are at huge odds; increasing water yield while destroying key habitat and over logging is just not possible.
Criteria (2) — Logging in Melbourne’s catchment’s should include assessing:
phasing out of logging;
a reduction of the net area of logging following the expiration of current legal obligations; (ie reduce logging once the best areas have been trashed)
substitution of native forest logs with plantation logs;
substitution of forest logs inside the water catchment with forest logs outside the catchment;
thinning; (ie ‘manage native forests intensively as if they were monoculture plantations’)
various logging rotation lengths (halve the rotation down to 30 years or less?)
The government feels obliged to honour its promise of logs to Maryvale’s woodchip mill for years to come, thereby protecting commercial interests. However, the error in promising those log volumes in the first place should be reassessed so that water catchments are protected.
3. Inappropriate options for Forest Management Regimes
Various logging options were tabled, but none suggested ending logging by 2010. I stated that this option was essential due to growing community concern over loss of water and expectations raised by stated government commitments in their 2002 and 2004 reports on water.
We were told that the 2010 option would be "assessed but not presented to government". I reiterated that it must be.
In addition, a "Key Words" sheet was circulated that redefined "Phasing out logging" to 'phase down of logging'. I objected to this. This were really just weasel words.
4. Carbon storage in forests is under estimated
The consideration of "carbon storage in forests" as an environmental impact only related to tree trunk biomass. Once again I pointed out that carbon storage in forests included understorey, soil and other organic matter such as leaf litter.
Some gems from industry people at the meeting:
‘Let’s consider 30 year rotation options’ (currently 50-80 yrs)
‘Fixing leaky taps in Melbourne would save more water’ (!)
‘Plantations can’t provide enough pulpwood (they can, immediately)
‘50% of timber from catchments is used for furniture’ (in fact it’s about 2%)
Where to from here
A letter has been sent to DSE outlining EEG’s concerns and that we will not participate further if an option for stopping logging in catchments by 2010 is not included. TWS, The Central Highlands Alliance (TCHA) and the ACF are likely to also boycott this seemingly pre-determined process.
Logging in catchments is bad because:
water is lost at about a litre a second but only 15% of the wood is used for timber (2% for high value products) and 85% is woodchipped
it is feeding the ‘need’ for the desalination plant (which will cost $9,000 per ML) as well as the controversial north-south pipeline (diverting from the Murray Darling system to Melbourne)
endangered Leadbeater’s Possum habitat is being destroyed
the government is not honouring its ‘02 and ‘04 commitments
there is a stealthy conversion of forests into plantations
the government is ignoring the public and doing deals with industry.
Protecting forests to increase water yields is essential in all Victorian catchments including East Gippsland, Central Highlands and the Murray Darling basin.
If they don't include the 2010 deadline for logging option and release the long-overdue promised reports, EEG will have ‘input’ from ‘outside’ - via community campaigns. The process really just seems to be focussed on keeping the logging industry happy.
A Victorian logging industry presentation mirrors almost exactly the current government position on why logging in catchments is justified and what might be considered in any review. A coincidence? Have a look for yourself [here] (a 3mb PDF download)
I couldn’t believe my ears when I saw and heard Garrett on the ABC TV news and 7:30 report tonight say in parliament today that he had to bring in the 100K household means test on solar panels because it was too successful.
Yes, that’s right. Too many people were installing too many clean green renewable energy panels. So they brought in the 100k means test to snuff this out.
Garrett’s metamorphosis is complete. He is now just another politician. The best he can offer on World Environment day is a voluntary (read ineffective) energy labelling scheme for TVs. This is totally lame.
If you would like to send an email to Peter Garrett about this you can use this form the ACF has provided on their website.
Rudd can’t stop subsidising the Australian car industry that continues to build petrol guzzling V6 and V8s and throws more money at them to build hybrids. Why not redirect existing subsidies to this? Freiburg in Germany has shown what can be really done to reduce the reliance on cars.
How many more coal fired power stations will be built under the Rudd government, when we need to decommission 1 per year to meet emission reduction targets?
It didn’t take long for Labor’s “green spots” to fall off after the election.
Here is a copy of the email I sent to Garrett on the means test for the solar subsidy:
============
Dear Mr Garrett
I'm very disappointed that the Government has announced new restrictions on the solar panel rebate program - at a time when Australia should be ramping up its efforts to tackle climate change.
The new $100,000 per annum household means test is going to stop thousands of Australian families from going solar, and put a big dent in our growing solar industry.
I'm calling on you to be our solar champion - and increase the means test to $250,000 per annum - the same level as the household energy and water efficiency 'green loans' program.
I also know the biggest decision your Government will make this year will be setting Australia's 2020 target for reducing our greenhouse pollution.
The target will set the scene for Australia's overall effort on climate change - and for our shift to solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy. That's why, in addition to increasing the means test for the solar rebate, I also urge you to commit to a strong greenhouse pollution reduction target of at least 30% by 2020, and ensure a cleaner, safer future for Australia.
Solar panel rebates are not middle income welfare. Solar electricity production is one of the important measures we need to take to address climate change. The $100,000 means test effectively knocks the rebate out for the vast majority of people who would have installed panels and claimed it. I personally know of five people in this situation.
Please increase the means test to $250,000 per annum.
Cycling to work this morning through Camberwell I happened upon these two trucks that were pumping water into a house, presumably to fill a swimming pool.
Melbourne water restrictions disallow filling pools from the mains water, so now people pay to have it trucked in from country Victoria.
The direct consequences of this are:
Depletion of acquifers (underground water) where this water is pumped from
Carbon emissions from pumping from the ground, truck transport, then pumping from the truck to the pool.
I think this practice is really inappropriate for these reasons. Perhaps the time has come to only allow the filling of pools from roof storm water, or to just ban them? Surely this is now a luxury that we cannot really afford, if we are serious about taking all available steps to combat climate change.
The average pool would only get used about 15 days in a year in any case.
Just when I thought things could not get much worse for solar power in Australia after Peter Batchelor succeeded in gutting the Victorian Feed in Tariff (which is yet to go through Parliament, word it is could be introduced around June 9), Peter Garrett and Kevin Rudd announced that the Federal solar rebate scheme would be means tested on $100,000 on household income. This is less than two minimum wages.
This will be the nail in the coffin of the solar panel industry and domestic installation in Australia.
The reasons they gave are simply not valid; the rebate scheme is simply not middle income welfare. While the rebate should not go on indefinitely, it is an important mechanism for shifting us towards emission reductions and a carbon constrained economy.
A means test of 250,000 would be more appropriate, and would encourage many to install panels.
For more information on this, and a link to an email form you can use to contact the Peter Garrett (the Enviroment Minister) go to Acfonline.org.au.
Petrol prices have just hit a record high of $1.62 per litre in Australia, even though petrol is still cheaper in comparison to Europe ($2.25 in Italy, $2.28 in France, $2.33 in UK, $2.45 in Denmark).
As demand (mainly from China) increase and supply dwindles, this trend is set to continue quite rapidly, as I have noted previously.
Kevin Rudd said today that "unfortunately there is no silver bullet for petrol prices" on television tonight. I beg to differ. Fortunately, there are at least two silver bullets.
1.CNG conversions and refuelling infrastructure for cars, trucks and buses
While natural gas supplies are finite, it is a cleaner and cheaper fuel than petrol. We should be using it for transport now.
2. Improved public transport and more cycle paths
The impact of petrol and fuel price rises on household incomes will be reduced if people have practical alternatives to cars. Improved public transport and better cycle paths provide us with options for lower emissions and cheaper transport. Unfortunately, the federal budget provided no funding for either.
We need leadership and funding from federal and state governments for both these opportunities as we shift towards a carbon constrained economy.
I rang Peter Batchelor's office to discuss details and reasons for the structure of the Feed in Tariff being introduced in Victoria. I spoke at length to one his ministerial advisors. The concerns raised by the advisor and my reponse to them are listed below.
=================
Thanks for taking the time to speak with me last Friday about the feed in tariff legislation.
In answer to the following concerns you raised regarding gross metering, and your reasons for justifying the 2kW limit: 1. The government doesn't want to pay people for the energy they use
The government should pay a premium for every watt of renewable energy, both when used domestically and when exported to the grid. This is because the energy is zero emissions and directly replaces energy from coal-fired power stations. The energy is also very valuable as it is generated at peak times on hot days when the grid is nearing capacity to supply.
2. A gross metered feed in tariff without the 2kW cap will drive up electricity bills for low income households
Premier Brumby claimed on Stateline (Friday May 9, 2008) that the FIT "would have imposed a significant burden on low income households, with some estimates that this would add up to 10% to the cost of power bills". I understand from you that the economic model used to support this claim is now a Cabinet in Confidence document that cannot be released to the public.
Given that other economic analysis has estimated no more that 1% increase in power bills, I question the veracity of the report (or model) that the government claims has informed their decisions on structuring the FIT.
I also think is is quite inappropriate for such an important and non-sensitive piece of economic information to be subject to Cabinet secrecy. This is not transparent or accountable process or decision making.
In addition, specific measures, such as Government funded installation of a solar system, could be provided for low income households if they are genuinely disadvantaged by the feed in tariff. Other subsidies or grants to them are also possible. 3. The FIT doesn't encourage energy efficiency.
The feed in tariff is not a policy instrument for directly encouraging energy efficiency, and should not be regarded or measured as such. However, households with solar panels generally become more aware of their electricity consumption and production and are therefore more likely to investigate and adopt measures to improve the efficiency of their electricity usage.
A more appropriate way of encouraging energy efficiency - which is complementary to a gross-metered non-capped FIT is to mandate that homes produce an amount (say 15% or 20%) of the energy they consume. This would drive efficiency measures so that the energy production percentage can be achieved (e.g. by solar panels) with the minimum and most cost effective energy generating system.
The Government should also mandate energy efficiency labelling for all appliances immediately. 4. The VRET is a more important factor in encouraging renewable energy
While the Victorian Renewable Energy Target is good to have, I would argue that it should be higher (e.g. 20%). Also, it yields little benefit to household producers with solar panels, it mainly benefits energy companies and large scale producers. I addition, a FIT complements and supports the VRET. Treating them as alternatives is a false dichotomy - we can have both.
5. The 30 minute timeboxing for net metering reduces the impact of the 2kW cap
While this may result in some additional payments to producers I think this will be insignificant compared to what gross metering would yield. This is very complicated too - the vast majority of people simply don't understand this measure.
A 2kW system will supply about 60% of an average household's elecricity consumption, so there will be very little net exports to the grid from such systems. I can see no good reasons for the 2kW cap. In summary
It seems to me that the Victorian government has lost sight of the overall goal of reducing carbon emissions. Many more solar panels on Victorian and Australian roofs would directly reducing carbon emissions, and successful Feed in Tariff models in other countries have proven that this works. In Germany, this has resulted in power now produced from solar panels that is equivalent to two coal fired power stations - Germany now has 4,000 times more energy output from solar panels than Australia.
The Victorian Government's claim on the proposed Feed in Tariff will pay off solar panel systems in 10 years is inaccurate. More accurate financial modelling indicates that it will have negligible effect on reducing the payback period for panels.
Increased clean energy production for solar panels, along with investment in other forms of renewable energy such as wind power and large scale solar, will reduce and hopefully eliminate the need to build any more coal fired power stations which the entire community would have to pay for - and which would also impose significant financial burden on low income households.
I strongly urge the government to modify the tariff to a proven effective and equitable model , which is:
60 cents per kWh
paid for at least 15 years
paid on the entire output of a system via gross production metering
no caps on array size and/or outputs.
This tariff would encourage many more people to install panels, dramatically increase output of clean zero emissions energy, and contribute to a thriving and growing local solar installation industry in Victoria.
It would benefit all Victorians, and be a key local measure in tacking climate change.
What on earth is going on in the Victorian Cabinet?
After visiting the Bali convention on climate change and using their generous travel allowances to see how a good feed in tariff can promote emission reductions and jobs from solar power in countries like Germany, our Victorian Government has delivered a feed in tariff that is crippled and worthless.
It really is cynical greenwash, and follows the trend of them taking no real action to address climate change.
Who in the big end of town has guided them to such a poor outcome? They can't really be that stupid can they? Once again, politics delivers a very poor and non-transparent policy and legislation for the people, who expect so much more.
Read the letter below I sent to Cabinet for more details. And watch this video.
=================
Dear Mr Batchelor,
Thanks for your late advice about the introduction of the new Feed in Tariff in Victoria further to my correspondence with your office on this matter on 19/3/08.
Unfortunately, I believe that the Government has made serious mistakes in the structure of this tariff, which almost completely negate the positive effects a well structured tariff would have.
My concerns are:
1. The Feed in Tariff is only paid on net metering.
The total electricity generated by panels should be subject to the tariff, as all the clean electricity generated has zero emissions which directly substitutes for coal-fired power and therefore reduces emissions accordingly. In Germany and other locations where they pay the tariff on gross metering, there has been a dramatic rise in installation of solar power. Germany now has 400 times the solar output of Australia despite having about half our sunshine.
You have missed the opportunity to provide similar encouragement to a new economy and local industry (and jobs) based on increased installation of panels on available roof space.
2. The Feed in Tariff has a maximum ceiling of 2kW
This is nonsense. The more solar zero emissions power we generate as a nation the better. This is a critical measure for reducing our emissions to combat climate change. The 2kW array size limit for getting the Feed in Tariff is simply crippling the financial motivation for people to install solar panels, and crippling their payback if they choose to install a bigger array.
We currently have a 1.5kW array that has been running for 6 years and intend to expand it to 3kW. Your Feed In Tariff will provide us with no benefits.
Most five star standard households currently consume about 20 to 25kwH of electricity per day. A 1kW array produces about 5kwH per day, while a 2kW array produces about 10 kwH per day. Such systems will therefore export negligible net energy to the grid, particularly if a 2kW air conditioner is run on hot sunny days.
There is no rational reason to apply such a tariff ceiling; it should be removed. 3. No certainty for investment is provided
The complexities and restrictions of your feed in tariff resulting from net metering combined with the 2kW ceiling provide no certainty or guarantee for investment in a solar array, unlike gross metering with no ceiling which does. This is evident in countries like Germany where there has been significant investment in solar power - now the equivalent of two coal fired power stations, but with zero emissions.
The resultant lack of certainty for investment will greatly impede the uptake of solar power in Victoria. 4. Your Feed in Tariff is discriminatory.
The very few who may be lucky enough to benefit from your tariff will be those who can afford a 6 star house, relatively expensive efficient appliances and a 2kW array. By contrast, lower income less efficient households with a 1kW array and less efficient appliances will get no benefit. This is discriminatory.
In summary
Your assertion that the FIT "could pay off the cost of installation in less than 10 years" is incorrect. The combination of the 2kW ceiling and paying on net metering means very few, if any, will get any financial benefits from the tariff so it will be impossible for it to pay off the residual cost of solar panel installation after the rebate.
This scheme effectively does not deliver on Labor's 2006 election promise to introduce a workable feed in tariff due to its crippled nature.
Your tariff will not provide any incentive for leadership in Victoria in uptake of solar power or renewable energy initiatives.
Your tariff is not strategic and does not improve affordability of sustainable solar power. It will not empower Victorian households to take action on climate change.
I attended the rally at parliament today with 400 others to protest about the problems with your feed in tariff. I spoke to some of the many ETU members present who had expectations that the Brumby government would provide a feed in tariff that would stimulate local employment in clean energy energy industries. They feel you have let them down. I agree with them on this.
Your tariff has also not met the expectations of many local community groups who are very keen to see real government action on climate change. As such, it is a great disappointment.
I strongly urge you to adjust the tariff to remove the 2kW ceiling and use gross metering, so that Victoria can mirror the proven success of such tariffs where they have been implemented elsewhere and I understand will be implemented in the ACT.
As a reference, http://www.greenlivingpedia.org has many examples and much information about successful and implemented renewable energy policies, initiatives, and sustainable housing.
I would like to meet with you to discuss my concerns about this further. Yours faithfully,
After a period of denial and inaction about our looming water crisis, the Brumby Labor government is now hell bent on pushing their so called "water grid" as a solution for our ongoing reduced rainfall. I am not sure where they got this concept from. It seems to have entered "government speak" around the world from the Thames in the UK to Queensland.
Unfortunately the concept as described in Victoria has a number of serious flaws and seems to be mainly a public relations exercise.
My understanding of the concept in Victoria is that large scale engineering works - such as the North South pipeline, and perhaps the planned $3b desalination plant at Wonthaggi - will create a system where water can be transferred long distances to places where it will be used.
The major problems with this approach are:
Any pipelines that are not gravity fed will require a lot of energy (mostly derived from coal-fired power) to pump the water. This will result in major greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed North South pipeline is taking water from the Murray Darling catchment - where it is desperately needed - to Melbourne, where it is not. This has major impacts for people living both along the Goulburn, and all the way down the Murray River to Adelaide, whose residents rely on the river for most of their drinking water
The costs of pipelines is high. The 70km North South pipeline is estimated to cost $750m.
The environmental impacts of pipelines is high. The North South pipeline route has the potential to affect 75 threatened animal and plant species.
The planned desalination plant will produce a lot greenhouse gas emissions too, and the water from it will have to be pumped all the way to Melbourne.
The Brumby Government's rationale for all this is not clear. We are quite obviously running low on water, but we are not yet on Stage 4 restrictions, and Melbourne's daily household water usage is still quite high.
People still have their swimming pools full too - topped up with water trucked in, resulting in yet more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is a cruel irony in climate change causing reduced rainfall, then most of the governments measures to address water shortages resulting in more greenhouse gas emissions, which will further exacerbate climate change.
Fixing leaky irrigation channels and pipes does save water loss and is worth doing, but it doesn't "find new water" (or create it).
Here is my proposal for addressing the water shortage:
Mandate water tanks for every new household - 5000 litres storage per bedroom - to catch and use rainwater.
Subsidise a retrofit scheme for water tanks to existing households, or provide a rebate on water bills for those who have tanks installed.
Aim to recycle 80% of the water we use, rather than just flushing it down sewers and out to the ocean. Cease putting water out at the Gunnamatta and other ocean outfalls.
Aim to reduce domestic usage to 120 litres per person per day
Stop logging in Melbourne's water catchments immediately - this should save 30 gigalitres of water per year.
Use recycled water for the cooling towers of Latrobe Valley power stations, rather than drinking water.
Design gardens that capture water. A lot of new housing developments have more paved area than garden, which results in more water runoff and less entering the soil and water table.
Shift agricultural usage to the most efficient methods. Eliminate sprinkler application and flood irrigation where they are still in use, in favour of drip irrigation.
Just when I thought government rhetoric and funding (using taxpayer's money) on pretending that the coal industry can somehow be made "green", "clean" and even "carbon neutral" had reached ridiculous levels, Peter Batchelor comes out with this:
"But Mr Batchelor said coal must be used in a more environmentally friendly way and clean coal technologies, such as burying carbon emissions underground and drying coal, offered the potential for zero emissions from coal-fired power stations."
"The future of coal relies on it becoming greener," he said.
Mr Batchelor said that capturing carbon, by returning and storing it underground in a safe and environmentally friendly way, "mimicked nature".
The question here is whether he actually believes this nonsense.
Zero emissions coal fired power stations? Green coal? That's funny, I thought it was brown or black.
Mimicking nature? Oh, we dig it up (using fossil fuel energy), process it, burn, capture CO2 from the chimneys (using more than 30% more energy and coal in doing so), liquefy it (using more energy), pump it a considerable distance (using more energy), squirt it under the ground - if we can find cavities vast enough to accommodate it - then cross our fingers and hope it stays there.
So how exactly does this mimic nature?
Next week's state budget will contain $110 million for an industrial-scale project investigating the capture and storage of carbon produced by power plants.
The Government will also fund a new body, Clean Coal Victoria, based in the Latrobe Valley, and commit $5 million to search for carbon storage sites, such as used oil and gas reservoirs in Bass Strait. So they don't even know yet whether they will be able to store it.
No public money should be spent on this risky venture, which even if it can be made to work, won't be viable until 2020 or later. We need emission reductions now.
So why are they doing this?
Well, there are marginal Labor state seats in the Latrobe Valley and an upcoming by-election in Gippsland which Labor wants to win. Looks like politics wins and real action on climate change looses. Or maybe they do believe their own nonsense.
So Premier John Brumby has just decided that the solution to Melbourne's traffic congestion is to further extend clearway times across inner Melbourne.
If there is a war between transport options in Melbourne, then the car is winning hands down. In addition to spending spending a vast proportion of our transport dollars on roads and freeways, we are now reducing amenity in urban streets in favour of yet more traffic.
Melbourne has been rated several times as having "high liveability". I think that more roads filled with more cars for longer periods will detract from this.
Melbourne is faced with transport problems, not traffic problems. Unfortunately the Brumby Government and its predecessors just don't get it. Without viable options such as public transport and safe cycling, people are forced to use their cars for commuting and shopping.
More people and more cars means more congestion. While this seems simple, unfortunately the roads lobby seems to have completely captured the government agenda.
How about a referendum on transport options, including new rail lines and upgrading existing ones, instead of just spending billions on freeways and roads?
No significant new urban railways have been built in Melbourne since the Glen Waverley line in 1930. Not one.
Emissions from cars and trucks are a major contributor to climate change - it is high time that steps were taken to reduce our reliance on them for routine transport.
Yesterday in Melbourne, petrol prices hit an all time high of $1.55 per litre, with some motoring groups voicing concerns that the price could reach $1.60 per litre and that "petrol stations were 'pushing the envelope too much' by charging such high prices" and that "new prices reflected the industry's agenda to keep pushing up fuel prices".
While there is some possibility that oil companies and petrol stations can raise their prices without warning in an opportunistic manner, I think it must now be obvious that the basic supply and demand law of economics is the real concern here.
The world demand for oil now exceeds supply, the phenomenon known as "peak oil". So the price is going up.
As oil supplies dwindle and demand continues to increase (e.g. from China, India and other growing economies) then the price will continue to rise.
How high? Well, I can imagine that $2.00 per litre could be reached by the end of 2009, and a $5.00 per litre is possible by 2012. When will it reach $10.00 a litre, perhaps by 2020.
In Europe (e.g. Norway and Italy), the price is over $2.20 per litre already. In the United States, where Hummers and 8 litre V8s are still bought, the price is currently $0.70 per litre.
Petrol 9(and other fossil fuel) price rises will have dramatic effect on our lifestyles and our economy. Fossil fuels such as petrol, diesel, LGP and CNG (which is more abundant) are used heavily for food growing, transport and distribution. Private cars using fossil fuels are used heavily for personal transport, often for simple commuting to and from work.
So the price of food and transport will rise dramatically in coming years unless governments take action to put policies in place to shift towards alternative renewable energy sources for food production and transport and indeed to fabric of our society.
Unfortunately the current state of play in Australia is not good, as per the following:
Freeways and roads are being built rather than rail and cycling infrastructure
CNG is being shipped overseas rather than used locally, and no effective CNG refuelling infrastructure is in place
Many thousands of trucks (mostly diesel) are used daily for goods and food transport, including thousands doing routine trips such as along the Melbourne Sydney route
Their is no significant low emissions and/or hybrid car manufacturing in Australia; the Ford and General Motors plants are still focussed on building six and eight cylinder cars (such as the new GM ute for export to the United States, and Governments are still buying them for their car fleets.
When will our politicians wake up from their fossil-fuel fugue? Hopefully before petrol reaches $5.00 per litre. They are elected to provide leadership on such matters, but currently they are not. Some, like Senator Kim Carr, are trying to get hybrids built in Australia, but he is a lone voice and he is not succeeding. And he drives a Ford Territory gas guzzler. Actions speak louder than words.
For the record, I drive a 1993 Mitusbishi 4WD van, which I bought as the 2.5 litre motor uses half the fuel of a comparable 6 cyclinder 4WD. I also ride my bike a lot.
While the environmental impacts and statistics of plastic bag use in Australia don't seem to be controversial, it seems our political system in general and Environment Minister Peter Garrett in particular are incapable of doing anything about it.
It seems that our politicians have just pandered yet again to an industry that results in four billion bags are thrown away in Australia each year, many of which go to land fill and directly pollute our environment.
Industry "voluntary schemes" supposed to address this are manifestly inadequate - plastic bag use had ballooned by 40% last year under this approach.
For those waiting for Peter Garrett to "to do good things" now that he is a Labor government minister - I hope you aren't holding your breath. He has pledged to phase out plastic bag use by 2009 but is unable to do anything meaningful to achieve this.
In Victoria, the best Enviroment Minister Gavin Jennings can do is to introduce its own pilot study into a bag levy of 10 to 25 cents in partnership with major supermarket chains later this year.
We should take a lead from South Australia and go with a bag ban from January 2009. Failing that, we should put a tax on them of at least 50c per bag and let basic economics solve the problem.
My grandparents lived their entire life shopping with reusable string bags; we can too.
I applied to attend the Australia 2020 summit but I was not selected. I thought it curious that Steve Bracks (ex Victorian Premier) and John Thwaites (ex Victorian Environment Minister) did get to go. Surely they have had ample time and opportunity to contribute to policy and outcomes during their terms of office?
I put a submission in just in time. You can view it here. I was a bit rushed to meet the deadline so it was not as detailed as I would have liked. I should have included a Treaty for indigenous Australians as a case in point.
I think the summit is a positive initiative, even if biased a bit towards "names and people of moderate to high profile". Just being able to make a submission was good too after years of dissembling by the Howard government.
However, the real challenge will be to put good ideas from the summit into action. If Kevin Rudd and the Labor government fails to do this then it will be a big disappointment to many who made submissions and attended.
Fingers crossed - let us hope they get their act together.
""Clean coal" is a term coined by industry and government to describe as yet proven methods of burning coal for producing energy with reduced carbon emissions. The term is actually misleading as burning coal for energy will never result in zero emissions.
The term "clean coal" is also used interchangeable with "carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)".
The are numerous concerns about the use of this term, including:
CCS is not yet proven and there is a high risk that it will not actually be possible or viable
Carbon dioxide escaping from underground storage could be lethal
The United States government recently pulled its participation and funding from the clean coal/CCS pilot project called FutureGen.
Burying (sequestering) huge amounts of liquefied CO2 is unlikely to be possible, and keeping it there will be problematic
There will be high energy costs (and more emissions) to pump CO2 from sources such as power stations to locations where it may be stored.
It will be very expensive to develop and deploy - probably more expensive than proven renewable zero emission solutions such as wind, solar and geothermal energy within 5 to 10 years.
Much more coal will have to be burnt to power CCS (up to 30% more)
Cannot capture all emissions from a power station so that even if widely used greenhouse emissions would not fall or stabilise but actually continue to increase
It is highly unlikely CCS technology (if it works) will be able to be retrofitted to existing coal fired power stations - which should be decommissioned.
CCS, if it can be made viable, is likely to be unable to handle the volume of carbon emissions from coal. While CCS proponents often point out that carbon sequestration projects are already in operation, the largest in existence (Sleipner, in Norway) currently buries just 1 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of carbon dioxide. Victoria has 65 million tonnes of CO2 from stationery electricity alone and this figure is growing exponentially
CCS, if it can be made to work, won't be available for deployment earlier than 2020 (possibly even 2030) so it would be to late to reduce emissions over the next two decades - which is arguably now the critical period. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology interdisciplinary expert study on The Future of Coal envisages that coal with CCS may begin to make a contribution to emissions reductions around 2025. A similar result was obtained in an earlier assessment by the Australia Institute.
Policy implications
Government funding and effort expended on "clean coal" will detract from that for proven renewable energy technologies that are available now
The coal industry should be funding CCS, not the taxpayer
We need roadmap to exit from coal fired power, not go looking for reasons and excuses to keep burning it.
Government funding for CCS is actually just another subsidy to the already highly subsidised, private and highly profitable fossil fuel energy sector.
Some groups claiming to be "for the environment" such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Climate Institute have recently endorsed "clean coal" and "CCS" as viable options for addressing climate change and receiving government funding [link].
It is a concern that such groups are participating in industry and government spin which will hijack and confuse real action to address climate change, the end result of which could be catastrophic.
It is inappropriate for governments to fund and promote CCS as a viable solution for climate change that is on par with genuine zero emission renewable energy options such as wind and solar.
Note that CCS technology is viable and in use for separating and burying CO2 from natural gas at the Gorgon and other gas fields on the North-West Shelf. This is much more efficient than attempting to capture and store CO2 from burning coal, and the CO2 is pumped back into the same well the natural gas is extracted from.
Government funding should be immediately withdrawn from CCS research and development and redirected towards zero emission energy solutions, re-training programs for workers to move from polluting industries into sustainable, renewable energy projects and into carbon sink projects such as bio char (terra preta de indio)."
It is very encouraging that Sir Thomas Eddington’s transport study includes proposals for new cross city cycle links within inner Melbourne, and that he recommends that a whole of government approach to cycling policy and infrastructure be adopted (Age 7/4).
We need a Minister for Cycling to plan and work with local councils to complete both cross-city routes (the hub) and safer, more convenient urban commuter routes (the spokes).
As an example, cyclists wishing to commute from many of Melbourne’s eastern suburbs currently have to negotiate very busy roads, back streets or detour to the Gardiners Creek or Eastern Freeway bike paths when they travel to and from the central business district.
A safer more direct cycle link, possibly following the Box Hill railway line for sections, would encourage many more people to commute and make local trips by bicycle rather than take their car. This would ease road congestion and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions too.
This approach could be adopted for all Melbourne's existing railway lines too, where easements are available for bike paths. Links
Our solar photovoltaic array at the rear. The solar hot water system is in front.
Here is a copy of a letter I have just sent to Peter Batchelor, the Victorian Minister for energy and resources, about the importance of introducing a feed in tariff for solar power in Victoria.
Feed in tariff legislation is in the process of being enacted in South Australia and Queensland. We need this in Victoria too..
If you have time, it would be worth sending in a letter of your own to your state politicians too.
CC: Hon. John Brumby Premier of Victoria C/o Department of Premier and Cabinet 1 Treasury Place MELBOURNE VIC 3002 Via email john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
We have been operating a grid interactive solar photo voltaic array on our house in Surrey Hills since 2002, over which time we have saved approximately 15 tonnes of CO2 emissions. You can view details of the house and the solar system here.
We welcome the commitment of the Victorian state government to introduce a fair price for solar electricity generated on rooftops and fed into the electricity grid. We believe that a move toward renewable energy is an essential means of addressing climate change, and solar photovoltaic (PV) micro-generation has an important role to play in boosting Victoria’s renewable energy share.
By offering a premium price for electricity generated on rooftops and fed directly into the grid, feed-in tariffs recognise the wealth of benefits which arise from the adoption of this technology. These include:
environmental benefits from reduced emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants
network benefits from reduced transmission losses and generation closer to the source of consumption;
supply benefits from producing clean power for the grid during peak load times on very hot days
economic benefits through lowering of peak wholesale electricity prices
social benefits via diversified electricity generation and job creation.
However, for a feed-in tariff to create the level of take-up required to achieve these benefits, it is essential that it is paid at an adequate rate, for a long enough time, and on the total production of the solar system. I call on the government to mandate a feed-in tariff at:
60 cents per kWh;
for at least 15 years; and
paid on the entire output of a system via gross production metering
A feed-in tariff set at this level will provide the necessary incentive for individuals to invest their personal finances into solar PV systems, safe in the knowledge that the price paid for electricity generated will adequately pay back this investment over the next 15 years.
Feed-in tariffs have been remarkably successful in over 40 countries internationally, and an adequate feed-in tariff in Victoria has the potential to build an industry in sustainable solutions to climate change, provide an alternative to polluting brown coal, and position the state as a leader in renewable energy in Australia.
Climate change is one of the greatest threats facing Victoria. I trust that you as the responsible minister (and the Premier and my local elected representative) take this issue seriously and ensure that this policy measure delivers a major expansion of renewable energy leading to real reductions in greenhouse gas pollution.
Can you please advise us whether you support introduction of a feed in tariff, and if so, when it will be introduced?
The population within Boroondara is likely to further increase as more medium-density housing becoming available. I therefore believe that an increase in total councillors from ten to eleven or twelve is warranted to cater for future population growth within the council area.
Based in the figure of 121,000 voters among the 154,450 people in Boroondara, twelve councillors would have approximately 10,000 voters per each, a figure that is in accord of other metropolitan municipalities.
This figure would be equivalent to that for Glen Eira (10,701), greater than Stonnington (8,895) and less than Whitehorse (11,229).
I don’t believe that concerns expressed by the VEC regarding having an even number of councillors to a problem as the mayor could have a casting vote in the event a motion was supported by six councillors and opposed by the other six. In addition, the likelihood of such tied votes frequently occurring would be fairly low.
Matters relating to the electoral structure of the municipality
I believe that candidates elected by proportional representation to multi member wards would be more representative of voter’s choices. For example, 26 percent of voters in a ward with three candidates can elect a candidate, whereas in single member electorates 51 percent of votes are required after preferences. Proportional representation across multi-member wards throughout the Council area would therefore make it more likely that candidates with strong community support will be elected.
Multi-member electorates also give residents the opportunity to choose which of their ward councillors to interact with, and may provide more diversity of councillors (e.g. gender, ethnicity) to residents.
Single member electorates facilitate special interest groups (which may have significant financial resources) fielding several candidates and directing preferences to get their preferred candidate elected. Voters are often largely oblivious to such machinations and preference deals, so the allocation of their preference when voting may not reflect their intentions, largely due to lack of detailed information about candidates and a lack of understanding about the electoral process.
I believe the current ward boundaries in Boroondara are too small and not based on significant local demographics such as communities of interest. In addition, the largely arbitrary boundaries of the current small-area wards risk actually dividing local communities of interest. For example, many people within Boroondara would use and have views about Camberwell Junction and its infrastructure (such as public transport), yet the current ward boundaries place it within a single ward.
In addition, some of the current wards contain only small shopping centres while others contain larger ones that generate more traffic. I believe that larger wards encompassing greater diversity of facilities such as shopping centres, recreational facilities and public transport will provide better overall coverage of community interest in and concerns about these facilities.
The model I favour is four three-councillor wards with Camberwell Junction as the focal point. Each of these larger wards (North East, North West, South East and South West regions) would contain a mix of large and small shopping centres, numerous recreational facilities and a diversity of voters, ethnic groups and communities of interest. Camberwell Junction is a regional transport, shopping and services hub, so it is appropriate that all wards have an interest in its function, development and management.
Care should be taken to ensure that the South East area ward contains both the appropriate number of voters and area, as its outer boundary would be diagonal rather than rectangular. Alternatively, if this ward ended up smaller than the other three, its number of councillors could be reduced to from three to two.
While ordinal ward names may convenient, I suggest the following ward names would better reflect Council and community heritage. Information on the names was sourced from the Boroondara Council History of Ward Names. North East: Cotham Maranoa
Maranoa takes it name from the native plants garden established by John Middleton Watson on land he bought in the early 1890's. He continued to buy land in the area most of which later became Beckett Park. He began to create gardens on one side with Australian and New Zealand indigenous species. Maranoa is derived from native words in Queensland, meaning flowing, alive or running (for a river)
Cotham was a settlement from the early 1850s, near Wellington Street east of Denmark Street where the two roads from the river crossings met. The roads then diverged and travelled to settlers along the river or along the Main Gippsland Road due east. It was soon overshadowed by the larger Village of Kew, also established in the 1850s just north along the road to Bulleen, later called High Street. The Main Gippsland Road was generally known as the White Horse Road after the hotel in the Box Hill district, but on the Kew side of Burke Road it retained its name as the Cotham-road, the road to Cotham.
North West: Studley Glenferrie
Studley is associated with John Hodgson, the Kew pioneer responsible for the establishment of the Studley Punt in the 1840s. The punt took traffic across the river into land, which was part of his squatting run known as Studley. The road to the punt where a bridge was later erected was known as the Studley Park Road.
Glenferrie was the name of Peter Ferrie's property on the Glenferrie Road/Toorak Road hill in the 1840's gave its name to the road that led to it. The name is also used for a railway station and for local businesses and a hotel.
South East: Lynden Maling
Lynden takes its name from the road and park through long time farming land generally known as Highfield. The first subdivision occurred after the First World War, through a property belonging to the Boyd family, and named after trees.
Maling Takes its name from the road beside the Canterbury Railway Station, which ran through a large property owned by the Logan family. The name was given to honour long term Councillor and three times Mayor John Butler Maling in 1899. The area is now recognised and protected by Council as an important tourist precinct.
South West: Gardiner
Gardiner takes its name from John Gardiner, the first white settler in the Boroondara parish. At the end of the 1830's John Gardiner lived close to the top outlet of the creek named for him, stretches of which had other names until the 1850's.
I couldn’t believe my ears when I saw and heard Garrett on the ABC TV news and 7:30 report tonight say in parliament today that he had to bring in the 100K household means test on solar panels because it was too successful.
Yes, that’s right. Too many people were installing too many clean green renewable energy panels. So they brought in the 100k means test to snuff this out.
Garrett’s metamorphosis is complete. He is now just another politician. The best he can offer on World Environment day is a voluntary (read ineffective) energy labelling scheme for TVs. This is totally lame.
If you would like to send an email to Peter Garrett about this you can use this form the ACF has provided on their website.Rudd can’t stop subsidising the Australian car industry that continues to build petrol guzzling V6 and V8s and throws more money at them to build hybrids. Why not redirect existing subsidies to this? Freiburg in Germany has shown what can be really done to reduce the reliance on cars.
How many more coal fired power stations will be built under the Rudd government, when we need to decommission 1 per year to meet emission reduction targets?
It didn’t take long for Labor’s “green spots” to fall off after the election.
Here is a copy of the email I sent to Garrett on the means test for the solar subsidy:============
Dear Mr Garrett
I'm very disappointed that the Government has announced new restrictions on the solar panel rebate program - at a time when Australia should be ramping up its efforts to tackle climate change.
The new $100,000 per annum household means test is going to stop thousands of Australian families from going solar, and put a big dent in our growing solar industry.
I'm calling on you to be our solar champion - and increase the means test to $250,000 per annum - the same level as the household energy and water efficiency 'green loans' program.
I also know the biggest decision your Government will make this year will be setting Australia's 2020 target for reducing our greenhouse pollution.
The target will set the scene for Australia's overall effort on climate change - and for our shift to solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy. That's why, in addition to increasing the means test for the solar rebate, I also urge you to commit to a strong greenhouse pollution reduction target of at least 30% by 2020, and ensure a cleaner, safer future for Australia.
Solar panel rebates are not middle income welfare. Solar electricity production is one of the important measures we need to take to address climate change. The $100,000 means test effectively knocks the rebate out for the vast majority of people who would have installed panels and claimed it. I personally know of five people in this situation.
Please increase the means test to $250,000 per annum.
Regards, Peter Campbell
============