Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme falls short

Elected on a campaign promise of tackling climate change, Kevin Rudd's Labor government in Australia has released a preliminary greenpaper outlining the structure of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (an emissions trading scheme) for Australia.

Curiously, the greenpaper was released only days after the Garnaut draft on climate change, and it fails to meet several of Garnaut's key recommendations.

The significant problems are:

• emission permits will be given away to the most polluting industries
• cash payments will be given to coal fired power stations
• fuel excise will be lowered to compensate for fuel price increases due to a carbon price

In addition, there are no commitments to reduce emission other than to meet the 60% reduction by 2050. No cap for emissions has yet been set, and no interim reduction targets are specified.

Unfortunately, this structure of the CPRS greatly compromises any real effect on reducing emissions.

The Federal opposition led by Brendan Nelson has an even worse policy position. They are arguing about delaying the start date for emissions trading (the CPRS) by pushing it out to 2011 or 2012. In a nutshell, they are just playing politics, and still have several "climate change denialists" within their ranks.

We need to write letters to all our elected politicians telling them it is just not good enough - we need emergency action to decarbonise our economy, not political games and weak ineffective schemes and policies that favour big polluters and don't reduce emissions.

My Eddington report submission - EWLNA

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the East-West Links Needs Assessment (EWLNA), as transport is an essential feature of the livability of Melbourne and one of the main areas that require urgent action as part of a coordinated response to climate change.

I preface my feedback with the observation that I believe more urgent and profound action needs to be taken to prevent the economic, social and ecological collapses being caused by climate change.

While the EWLNA has some proposals with merit, such as improvements to public transport and cross city cycle links, it overwhelmingly fails to tackle the massive and urgent problems of greenhouse gas emissions from transport, and the challenges introduced by peak oil.

The focus on public transport in the EWLNA is welcome, and I strongly support increased investment in public transport. However, the EWLNA is largely a “business as usual” document, based on outdated ideas, at a time where business as usual means climate catastrophe and remaining unprepared for continual increases in oil prices.

It is unfortunate that the EWLNA has no vision for a sustainable transport future for Melbourne and therefore fails as a document that the State Government should use to guide its actions and decisions.

Transport policy cannot assume a “business as usual” case. Transport policy development must lead to a drastic reduction in reliance on oil, and a massive, rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it should be one of the major aims of transport policy to achieve these outcomes – and with these outcomes improvements in the amenity of our suburbs will be created. This is the best way to ensure prosperity and livability into the future.

The key points of I make in this personal submission are:

• The original scope of the EWLNA was too narrow – transport needs for Melbourne need to be considered as a whole rather than arbitrarily separated into segments and/or corridors.
• The EWLNA’s “business as usual” approach to transport planning is flawed as it does not take climate change or peak oil into account.
• I support an order of magnitude increase in public transport funding from the State and Federal governments, and I therefore broadly support the EWLNA recommendations that achieve this.
• Given the narrow scope of the EWLNA, it is not clear whether the proposed rail tunnel would be the most effective rail infrastructure project. A broader study of opportunities for rail network improvements is required, taking into account the possibility of building railway lines to poorly serviced suburbs, a metro system for inner Melbourne, and a rail link to Melbourne Airport.
• I oppose the construction of the proposed road tunnels or any new freeways – which history show us encourage more personal and freight road traffic which inevitably leads to increased road congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Past transport studies and experience have shown that building freeways does not solve congestion, and they will in fact increase congestion in the long term.
• The assumptions made to make up the EWLNA reference case with regard to oil prices, carbon pricing and road pricing are incorrect, and greatly exaggerate the case for supporting private car use and the road tunnel.
• The EWLNA ignores the now apparent climate emergency we face and ignores the pressing need for us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Any new transport infrastructure or plan needs to have emissions reductions as a central aim.
• The propensity for people to shift to public transport when high quality services are available is underestimated and the recommendations are consequently poorly targeted.
• The recommendations in the EWLNA will result in a 1% modal shift from cars to public transport by 2031, in contradiction with the Brumby Government’s 11% shift (by 2020). We need a much more profound shift if we are to retain Melbourne’s liveability and reduce our emissions.
• The EWLNA did not assess the modal efficiency of transport options with respect to carbon emissions or factor this into the recommendations made.
• Shifting transport journeys from road trips to lower carbon emission options is compatible with Melbourne 2030 strategy goals, the Kyoto Protocol, and with our need to reduce Australia’s overall greenhouse gas emissions.

The following assumptions made in the EWLNA reference case are flawed:

• No real increase in fuel prices beyond 2006 (petrol prices have now risen to around $1.65 per litres and could be $2.00 or higher by the end of 2007)
• No carbon price on transport emissions (which have now been flagged for inclusion in Australia’s carbon emissions trading scheme scheduled for introduction in 2010).
• No road pricing before 2031 – which is likely to be introduced well before then
• A gradual shift to hybrid cars will offset carbon emissions associated with increased motor vehicle usage. (A modal shift from cars to less carbon intensive transport such as rail and bicycles is required).

There is currently a transport crisis in Melbourne, with roads and freeways now suffering chronic traffic congestion. Rather than build the proposed road links, a cheaper, more effective alternative to the issues identified in the EWLNA is to upgrade and extend the public transport system, take move freight from road to rail, institute more efficient freight handling practices and introduce incentives for people to reduce car use.

The cross-city cycle connections recommended would greatly facilitate bicycle travel and make it safer within inner Melbourne. However, to be effective, these routes need to link with equivalent high quality and safe bicycle paths transecting adjacent suburbs. For example, there is currently no safe and efficient bicycle route through Hawthorn and Camberwell towards Box Hill.

Cycling is the most carbon-efficient form of medium distance personal transport. However, low safety and convenience factors are major barriers preventing people from cycling in urban areas.

The current Principal Bicycle Network needs to have routes added to connect with the proposed cross-city cycle connections. Integrated planning for cycle paths and routes is essential to get the best outcome. Improved safety at a local level is also crucial to enable safe access to the Principal Bicycle Network and to activity centres and public transport.

Conclusion

I hope that the State Government uses this opportunity to change course and focuses on shaping a transport system that will help us meet the challenges of climate change, peak oil and improving the amenity of our suburbs.

“Business as usual” transport planning and construction of freeways will cause us more pain in the future.

A sustainable future involves cutting emissions and creating a massive and permanent modal shift from cars to public transport, walking and cycling.

External link: CEN Eddington Report Submission

Labor's feed-in tariff can still be fixed

Below is the third letter I have sent to Peter Batchelor; so far he has not bothered to answer my first two. I don't think he will bother to answer this one either. So much for accountable government "for the people".

I have also sent copies to all members of John Brumby's Cabinet, as they participated in the decision to implement a Clayton's feed-in tariff in Victoria.


Dear Minister Batchelor,

I am disappointed to have still received no response from your office to my suggestions and questions regarding the government's proposed feed-in tariff legislation (included below).

It should now be apparent to you and the rest of Cabinet that your proposed legislation has had a very detrimental effect on the uptake of solar panels and therefore comprised Victoria's opportunity to become a leader in the installation and even manufacturing of solar panels. This in turn compromises Victoria's ability to meet both State VRET and Federal MRET requirements.

The 100K household income means test on the solar rebate introduced by Peter Garrett has further exacerbated this situation, to the point where solar installations have plummeted when the very opposite should be occurring.

Your stated concerns about impacts on low income households can be addressed by providing them with an appropriate concession.

Also please note that net metering in fact favours high income households where nobody is home consuming power during the day (when a net output can be generated) and actually discriminates against working families where a parent is at home with children using appliances such as washing machines, lighting and cooking - which prevents them generating net output.

In the interests of transparent and accountable government, could you please answer the following questions?

1. When will your feed-in tariff legislation be introduced?

2. When can a copy of it be sent to me?

3. What is the purpose of the 2kw array size cap?

4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere?

5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret?

6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?

Brumby claims water tanks use more power than desalination

I have just send this letter in to Premier John Brumby. It will be interesting to read his answer, although I suspect I won't get one.


Premier Brumby,

You stated on ABC 774 radio on Thurday 26 June 2008 that "the proposed Wonthaggi desalination plant would use less power than equivalent rainwater tanks"

Can you please provide evidence for this claim?

Studies of water tanks have shown that they would use one fifth of the power of the desalination to supply the equivalent amount of water (150 gigalitres).

I have a power meter on our rainwater tank pump on our house so I will provide you with more empirical data on this next week to confirm this data.

Information about the plant and why rainwater tanks would be a better option is available in this article: http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Victorian_desalination_plant

I look forward to your timely response to this very important question.

Climate emergency rally in Melbourne

I attended the Climate Emergency Rally in Melbourne on Saturday 5 July 2008. It was a great event. Good speakers and calls for immediate action on climate change.

Here is a video of Bob Brown speaking at the rally:




And article with photos and more information about the rally is available on Greenlivingpedia here.

Brumby Labor carbon fails carbon test

Peter Batchelor's announcement that the new brown coal-fired power station will proceed in the Latrobe Valley (Age 2/7) fails the simple critical test of "will this reduce our carbon emissions".

It will belch millions of tonnes more carbon dioxide into our increasingly hotter and drier world.

We need to be decommissioning coal-fired power stations and making major investments in proven zero emission renewable energy.

Link: Latrobe valley's new $750 million clean coal power station a step closer

The Brumby government has got it wrong on water

The Brumby government has announced their strategy for coping with the now chronic water shortage due to Victoria's greatly reduced rainfall.

Rainfall in the state has reduced 75% over the last ten years, which far exceeds the worst case predictions by the CSIRO when they modeled the effects of climate change.

It is therefore appropriate that the Victorian government take fairly urgent action to address this very serious issue that now impacts all Victorians. The question is, have they got the right strategies in place?

The government's Water Plan, also labeled as “Our Water Our Future” details the following key initiatives:

1. A new desalination plant for Melbourne
2. Modernising Victoria’s Food Bowl irrigation system to capture lost water for farms, the environment and Melbourne
3. Expansion of Victoria’s Water Grid
   
4. Upgrading Melbourne’s Eastern Treatment Plant to provide over 100 GL of recycled water in 2012 and assessing a range of alternative uses of this water
5. Supporting new and existing water conservation programs for homes and industry.

While elements of this plan seem reasonable, the projects arising out of it to date are highly questionable.

The desalination plant

The proposed desalination plant at Wonthaggi is supposed to provide 150 gigalitres of water per year – enough for one third of Melbourne's consumption. However, this plant will require 90 megawatts of power to run. This translates to 1 terawatt hour per year (1,000 gigawatt hours).

The government has stated that they will source renewable energy for this, but there is significant risk that they won't be able to get enough.

Premier John Brumby stated on ABC Radio 774 on 26 June 2008 that the desalination plant would cost less to install and use less energy than installing domestic rainwater tanks with electric pumps. The information he based this claim on appears to be incorrect. Calculations on domestic pumps supplying one million households indicated that they would only consume 365 gigawatt hours per year, less than half the amount required to power the desalination plant.

More energy is also need to pump water from the desalination plant to Melbourne.

Stopping logging in Melbourne's water catchments would yield about another 30 gigalitres per year.

Modernising Victoria's irrigation system

This $750 million project is part of a government water strategy, which would also modernise infrastructure in the region to save 225 billion litres of water now lost through evaporation, seepage and system inefficiencies.

While replacing fixing leaks and water losses in irrigation infrastructure is a good thing, the Victorian government has announced a plan to pump water from the Goulburn River, which is in the water-deprived Murray Darling catchment, over the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne.

The two glaring problems with this are:

1. There is not enough water in the Goulburn River to take more out without critically endangering both the Goulburn and Murray Rivers.

2. The water taken out, estimated to be 75 gigalitres, will be pumped over the Great Dividing Range to Melbourne, which will result in more carbon emissions

Expansion of Victoria’s Water Grid

The concept behind “expanding the water grid” is to provide interconnections between river systems and storages across the state of Victoria.

The claimed benefits for this include:

• Increase the security of water supplies by diversifying the sources of water available for communities connected by the Grid

• Enable water to be traded more readily, by making it easier to transfer water to where it is most needed and valued

• Increase the value of supply options (current and future) by increasing the flexibility and diversity of uses.
• The expanded Victorian Water Grid will allow more water to be transferred between water systems.

However, around 10,000km of expensive new pipeline is required to create this network.

There are social equity issues with taking scarce water from rural areas to for Melbourne's domestic water supply.

Environmental flows have not been provided to the Yarra River which flows through Melbourne, contrary to scientific recommendations and a previous government commitment. This environmental flow should be provided to ensure the health of the river.

Carbon emissions are generated every time water pumped through a pipeline unless renewable energy is used for this.

Upgrading Melbourne’s Eastern Treatment Plant to provide over 100 GL of recycled water in 2012 and assessing a range of alternative uses of this water

This proposal is a good one. However, Melbourne produces around 320 GL of wastewater per year. Around 400ML per day is pumped out from Gunnamatta Beach outfall alone.

The government should set a higher target for recycling water of at least 200GL, and eliminate ocean outfalls.

Latrobe Valley power stations consume 140 billion litres (GL) of water per year, so recycled water could be used for this purpose rather than drinking water.

Supporting new and existing water conservation programs for homes and industry

This initiative is commendable. However, Melbourne's daily water usage is still quite high at 277 litres per person per day. A reduction to 150 litres per person per day is achievable, which would greatly reduce demand for water, and expensive new infrastructure to provide it.

Summary

The Brumby government has embarked on an expensive plan to address Victoria's water shortage, with a particular focus on ensuring Melbourne's water supply, with some severe impacts on rural areas resulting. In particular, the loss of water from the ailing Goulburn River, and the building of an energy hungry and polluting desalination plant at Wonthaggi will have major impacts to these regions.

The entire Murray Darling River is now at risk. Rather than taking more water from the Goulburn River, increased environmental flows should be provided to both the Goulburn and Murray rivers.

The $4.9b spending on these water projects will be passed onto Victorian taxpayers, with water bills increasing by about 15% already in 2008. It is projected that water prices will double by 2012 to pay for these projects.

Simple proven measures to increase water supply by protecting water catchments from logging are being ignored.

Melbourne's water supply needs would be better and more cheaply met by:

• reducing water consumption through increased efficiency measures

• stopping logging in water catchments

• major investment in domestic water tank systems, which have the added advantage of being installed incrementally

• harvesting, storing and using more of the 450 GL of storm water Melbourne loses per year

• recycling at least 200GL of sewerage per year and stopping ocean outfalls.

These initiatives can be funded from recurrent spending at cheaper rates (10%) than funds for giant projects such as the proposed $3b desalination plant (20%) under a Public Private Partnership.

The other worrying aspect of the government's water strategy is the apparent lack of supporting information on how their decisions were made, and grossly inadequate public consultation during its development.

The water strategy has been delivered as a fait accompli by government; they are not showing any signs of investigating lower risk and cheaper, more distributed alternatives.

We need to reduce petrol use, not increase supply

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.

External links

• Greening Australian Transport for information about greening transport
  

More trains are needed for Melbourne, not more roads

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.

Links

• List of proposed Melbourne rail extensions - Wikipedia
• City rail network in meltdown | theage.com.au
  
  

Like trying to mix woodchips and water

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)

Garrett guts solar rebate because it was too successful

It is World environment day on the 6 June.

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

============

Water for swimming pools is bad for the environment and climate change

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.

100K means test on solar rebate is lunacy

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 hit 162.9c per litre and still no action on public transport

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.


Links

• Petrol pain ahead The Age
• No silver bullet for petrol, says Rudd, PerthNow
  
  
  

Feed in Tariff - Victorian government reasons don't hold up

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.

Regards,

Peter Campbell


Links

• Premier Brumby declares Victoria a national leader on alternative energy, Stateline Victoria

The rally against the crappy feed in tariff - photos

Here are some photos of the rally at Parliament today about the crappy feed in tariff legislation the Brumby Government is introducing.

Solar kids

Solar Faker?

Greens MLC Colleen Hartland

Phil Cleary from the ETU

Links

• More photos
• Quarrels led to watered-down solar plan, -The Age
• Why the feed in tariff is useless, Peter Campbell
• Brumby Government’s solar feed-in law a flop Environment Victoria
  

Brumby government delivers a useless feed in tariff

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,

Peter Campbell

CC: Cabinet members and other MPs

Of mythical water grids, pipelines and logging in catchments

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.
• Logging in Melbourne's water catchments continues - which is resulting in less water and a reduction in its quality.
  

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.

Brumby has also stated that:

"the only way you can find new water is by reducing savings, evaporation and seepage and those things".

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.
  

Links

• Pipeline route to threaten protected species ABC Goulburn Murray
• Melbourne water usage - Greenlivingpedia
• State water grid to secure supply: Brumby - ABC News
  
  

Brumby goes for "green coal" and subverts real action on climate change

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.

Link: State puts greenhouse money on clean coal The Age

More clearways mean yet more cars

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.

Links

• Inner-city anger at clearway purge The Age