General Motors, going, going, nearly gone

I haven't yet written about the enormous changes we have seen over the last year or so - when the capitalist system and imploded into a chaotic mess of greed, dishonesty and confusion.

I am talking about the 2008 crash, when the world's financial system and economies unravelled in a very conspicuous manner. More on that later.

I have been watching the demise of General Motors with some interests. The company has been manufacturing mostly large an inefficient cars and trucks over a quite a long period. They have remained seemingly oblivious to the previous oil shocks and more recently, the arrival peak oil.

The crash and subsequent recession in the United States has hit GM hard. Nobody is buying their cars (mostly gas guzzlers) any more. However, GM employs a lot of people in the US and across the globe, including Australia.

So the Obama administration's automotive task force has overseen a massive bailout to try and keep them afloat.

Since late 2008, GM has received $US15.4 billion from the US Treasury to keep it afloat.

On April 22 2009, GM received an additional $US2 billion ($2.8 billion) in federal assistance.

So far, the best they can do is to "ditch the Pontiac brand", while keeping the GMC, Chevrolet, Cadillac and Buick brands.

Who would have thought the United States government (and hence taxpayer) would give a failing corporation over $US 18 billion in bailout payments?

It is clear that to survive, GM needs to reinvent itself and start making cars or other products that people actually want to buy.

They should retool to make electric vehicles and think about getting into transport manufacturing for a low carbon economy future - perhaps very fast trains?

The latest deadline for GM is the threat of a bankruptcy filing if it can't meet a June 1 US deadline. Time will tell if the $18 billion of taxpayers money to keep them afloat is good money after bad.

Links

• GM to ditch Pontiac, gets more aid
• Green cars, Greenlivingpedia
  

Brown Mountain logging finished in this seasons first coupe

The first 20 hectare “coupe” of this season’s logging allocation in Brown Mountain was completed on 22 April 2009. The destruction includes the felling of more trees 600 to 800 years old.

The tree that was radiocarbon dated was 10 metres in girth. Some trees logged have a 12 metre girth - by extrapolation they would be 800 years old.

Here are some photos of the catastrophic effects of this logging.

The stump of another tree over 600 years old

There are two more 20 hectare coupes remaining. The officer of Environment Minister Gavin Jennings apparently now has the DSE report about threatened species and is considering what to do. It is not clear whether this document will be released to the public, or whether the remaining areas of Brown Mountain forest will be protected.

More photos and more information: Brown Mountain old growth forest, Greenlivingpedia

If you have the time, write a letter or email to:

• your local MPs
• Premier John Brumby john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

Ask them to protect Brown Mountain and the remainder of Victoria's old growth forests still allocated and available for logging.

Extreme weather was the main cause of Black Saturday bushfires

I attended a seminar on April 21, 2009 about the catastrophic bushfires in Victoria on Black Saturday. The seminar was organised by the Melbourne School of Land and Environment at Melbourne University.

The speakers and topics were:

Professor David Karoly - Is this climate change?
School of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science

Dr Kevin Tolhurst - Bushfire behavior under extreme climate
Department of Forest & Ecosystem Science, Melbourne School of Land and Environment

Dr Patrick Lane - Implications for subsequent catchment water yield
Department of Forest & Ecosystem Science, Melbourne School of Land and Environment

These talks shed some light on the scientific observations about recent bushfires on February 7 2009 in Victoria and the reasons why they were so severe.

Professor David Karoly stressed that the extreme weather parameters on and leading up to February 7 were the most important factor, including:

• Record low rainfall - 35 days of no rain up to February 7
• Record low relatively humidity on February 7th of 5%
• The hottest recorded temperature of 46.7 on February 7

The strong north winds and the southerly wind change on February 7th were not unusual in themselves, but combined with the above factors, and ignition of the fires, the results were catastrophic.

Bushfire index ratings compared between extreme fires are:

• 100: Black Friday in 1939
• 120: Ash Wednesday in 1983
• 140 to 190: Black Saturday. These figures have never been seen before and are regarded as in the "catastrophic" range.

Professor Karoly also pointed out that CSIRO scientific predictions are that the current rate of climate change were are experiencing will result in 4 times as many extreme fire dangers days like Black Saturday each year by 2050.

He concluded with these observations:

• A tragedy occurred with the bushfires in SE Australia on 7 February 2009
• It is difficult to separate the influences of climate variability, climate change, and changes in fire management strategies on observed increases in fire activity
• Climate change is increasing the likelihood of environmental conditions associated with extreme fire danger in south-east Australia
• Observed increases in forest fire activity have been linked to climate change in the western US, in Canada, in Spain and in Greece.

Dr Kevin Tolhurst provided some scientific research results on the spread and intensity of fires. The scale of these fires has not been modelled to date, and factors such as extreme convection columns have not been studied or modelled to date.

In summary, Kevin stated that:

• Dominant factors affecting fire behaviour change with the scale of the fire
• Fire size and atmospheric instabilty are important to blowup fire behaviour - they enable feedback which increases the fire intensity
• Drought is an important precursor to high intensity fires - previously "wet" forests, gullies and moist slopes burn
• The fire footprint (the overall size of the area burnt) is determined by only a few hours of extreme weather
• Fire behaviour is a dynamic process and therefore needs dynamic modelling.

The forum concluded with a moderated general discussion of the science of bushfires.

I pointed out that many fires active on Black Saturday such as the Bunyip fire burnt large areas of farmland as well as forest areas (two thirds of the Bunyip fire was cleared farmland), and asked whether recent commentary in the media about fuel loads being the major cause of the fires, particularly in forest areas, was correct.

Kevin stated that the extreme weather dominated the fire behaviour rather than fuel loads which played a lesser role. As an example, he mentioned the Lara bushfire on grass paddocks on 8 January 1969 along the Geelong Road that killed 17 people trapped in their cars. In total, 280 fires broke out on the 8th of January 1969. Of these, 12 grass fires reached major proportions and burnt 250,000 hectares. The fires also destroyed 230 houses, 21 other buildings and more than 12,000 stock.

For also stated that less extreme fires, fuel loads can play a greater role in contributing to the extent and heat of the fire.

There was also a question from a member of the "Stretton Group" as to why fuel reduction burning similar to that conducted in Western Australia is not done in Victoria.

Kevin responded that the weather systems, forest types, and flora and fauna impacts are different between WA and Victoria, so the WA burning regime is not directly comparable or relevant to conditions in Victoria.

Around 100,000 hectares of forest has now been burnt twice in succession in 2003 and 2006/7, which has killed the large areas of Mountain Ash forest and the seed for these trees, which cannot now regenerate.

So climate change is contributing to the frequency and severity of bushfires, which are now destroying wet forest that would previously have acted as a natural fire breaks. As theses wetter forests are not adapted for burining, they will now largely replaced with dry schlerophyl forest which is more prone to burning in the future. Increased fuel reduction burning, as advocated by some sectors of the forest industy and associated lobby groups, would further exacerbate this situation.

It is clear that we need to make decisions about land and forest management and bushfire management based on firm scientific evidence rather than pressure from ill informed lobby groups.

Armstrong Creek catchment

Lake Mountain toboggan run

Regenerating tree - Acheron Way

Burnt forest and regenerating tree ferns - Acheron Way

Links

• Bushfires and extreme heat in south-east Australia, David Karoly, RealClimate, 16 February 2009
• 2009 Victorian bushfires, Greenlivingpedia
• Bushfires; Ash Wednesday, Holties House, Friday, December 15, 2006
• Prescribed burns are prejudging the bushfire inquiry , Crikey, Tuesday, 21 April 2009
  
  
  
  
  

Down the drain

This was published as a letter to the editor in The Age, 17/4/09



OUR use of mains water has been close to zero litres since 2001, when we installed water tanks. Despite record low dam levels our tanks are still half full.

If more homes were provided with rainwater storage of about 5000 litres per bedroom, the rivers of water that go down the drain every time it rains would instead be captured.

Tanks are a cheaper and better option than energy intensive engineering projects such as the desalination plant and the north-south pipeline. Using tanks, a daily target of mains water usage of less than 20 litres per person is achievable now.

Peter Campbell, Surrey Hills
Source: The Age

More information

• http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Water_tanks
• http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Melbourne_water_usage

Seeking preselection as the Greens Lead Senate Candidate for the 2010 federal election

This is my supporting statement as a candidate for preselection as the Greens Lead Senate Candidate for the 2010 Federal election.


I am asking you to support me as the Greens lead senate candidate for the next federal election because I believe that I have the skills, experience and knowledge to campaign well and to be a very strong Greens Senator for Victoria.

I believe this is crucial time in history. We are in a climate emergency, experiencing peak oil, and the global financial system crisis is causing much distress throughout our society and across the globe. I have the skills and experience to articulate these challenges and work collaboratively within both the Greens and the community to develop effective solutions that the Australian public is looking for.

We need to leave behind the petty partisan politics of the old parties and forge a new engagement with the Australian people to revitalise democracy and proactively transition our country to a sustainable future.

I will proactively support and promote Greens policies and values for peace, democracy, care for the environment and social justice. I believe these are vitally important for our shared sustainable future and for social cohesion.

I have developed a prominent profile in the community on green issues and advocacy, including water conservation, energy policy, climate change, forest protection, public transport and conservation of our natural environment. I have been a regular participant on talkback radio, and have had several letters to the editor published in local, state and national newspapers.

I have been a strong advocate for improved and safer recreational and commuter cycling through my membership and activities with the Boroondara Bicycle User Group.

I have worked extensively with a local climate change action groups and networks. Most recently, I attended the inspiring Climate Change Summit and Day of Action in Canberra and the Australian Climate and Forest Alliance conference preceding it. I am also mindful that policy measures and legislation to address climate change must be carefully designed to avoid disproportionate and unjust impacts on low income households.

I am a self employed independent IT consultant currently working in the energy industry. My work includes providing consulting, management and IT advice on climate change and emissions trading.

I initiated the Greenlivingpedia.org project in 2007 to provide information, campaign resources and collaboration on green living, green building and green community action in Australia and globally. I am very keen to promote the wider use of information technologies such as wikis, blogs and social networking within the Greens and government to strengthen our democracy and increase grass roots participation.

Our sustainable house renovation, featured on Greenlivingpedia, has been open on several occasions to promote sustainable design, building and energy practices within the community. We have established a permaculture garden as our most recent project.

Many people hoped that the new Federal government would embrace real action on climate change, repeal Work Choices and reverse the racist Northern Territory Intervention inflicted on indigenous Australians. On these issues and others we have been disappointed. It seems the two old parties occupy different sides of the same coin.

The Greens provide a new paradigm and a new politics. We must break the shackles that industry lobby groups have on government. Through power sharing arrangements in the Senate, I and the other Green senators would hold the government of the day to account, as Bob Brown, Rachel Siewert, Christine Milne, Scott Ludlum and Sarah Hanson-Young have been doing so well.

In the longer term, we need to aim to form Australia’s first Green government. This means we need to win lower house seats in addition to electing Senators. A well planned and executed campaign will do both.

I have a thorough knowledge of and commitment to the Australian Greens’ Charter, policies and processes. Running as the Greens candidate for Kooyong in 2001, 2004 and 2007 has provided me with experience and confidence in campaigning, initiating and participating in debates on both local and national issues such as climate change, social policy, energy policy and environmental issues. Our vote increased in each of these elections.

I have also run as a Greens candidate for State Government in two elections. Running for the old upper house seat of East Yarra in 2002, where I achieved 15% vote, provided me with experience similar to a Senate campaign. Our Green Team in this campaign achieved record results in the lower house seats of Hawthorn, Box Hill, Kew and Burwood.

Over these campaigns I have developed the ability to speak in pubic and articulate Greens policies on topics ranging from the Iraq War, to climate change and providing more local kindergarten places for our children.

I have been a Greens member for over 10 years, during which I have gained extensive experience in party processes and mechanisms as a Victorian State Councillor, a member of Eastern Suburbs Regional Council and the local Boroondara and Whitehorse branches and a member and convenor of the Victorian Election Campaign Committee.

I have actively participated in policy development as a long term member of the Forest Working Group. I led the preparation of our revised forest policy statement during the 2006 Victorian State election., during which I ran as the Greens candidate for Box Hill.

I have represented Victoria at national level at the 2005 and 2008 Greens National Conferences as part of our delegate teams, and worked intensively on the National Election Campaign Committee during the 2004 Federal election.

I have developed time management and negotiation skills and good interpersonal skills through both my experience with the Greens, my professional employment, and my work with several volunteer and community groups.

I have a passion for the outdoors, including bushwalking, cross country skiing, volunteer Search and Rescue for over 25 years, recreational and racing cycling, kitesurfing and revegetating our local South Surrey Park with indigenous plant species.

In summary, I believe I will provide leadership on the issues that really matter for the future of Victoria, Australia and the planet. We now have an urgent imperative for this.

I seek your support to be the lead senate candidate for the Greens in Victoria, and after the election, to hopefully be Victoria’s first Greens Senator.

Preselection timeline
9/4/09 Nominations closed
23/4/09 Candidates finalised and declared
24/4/09 Ballot packs posted to Australian Greens Victoria members
22/5/09 Ballots returned to Returning Office, care of State Office
25/5/09 Preselection Result announced to party members

See also

• Peter Campbell for the Senate - more details on my nomination

Electric vehicle on show in Melbourne

I took some photos of the Mitsubishi iMiEV electric vehicle that was on display in Melbourne on 9 April 2009. The car has 30% of the carbon emissions of a comparable petrol car. There is no availability to date for Australia however.


More information and photos: http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/IMiEV_electric_car

Unfortunately the best that General Motors Holden has come up with so far in Australia is to commit to building another four cylinder petrol car - with generous government handouts. They don't seem to realise we are running out of petrol and the age of the electric vehicle has arrived.

Like dinosaurs, these industries will go extinct if they don't adapt. General Motors in the United States is very nearly bankrupt and about to go into receivership.

The Victorian Government's water strategy is all at sea

This is a letter to the editor from Brian Wilson of Doncaster East published on April 5, 2009 [link]

I think it describes concerns about the Victorian Government's obsession with large scale water projects, and the overlooking of more sensible, sustainable water options such as water tanks and recycling. It highlights to me too that many in the community want more focus on sustainable water options, and the government that is supposed to represent us is not listening or consulting, and that the government's agenda is driven by the "big end of town".

Recycling washes best

"Water projects 'not needed' " (29/3) included reference to the consultants' (ignored) recommendation that recycled water for drinking should get "serious consideration", but that this would require a large public education campaign. Unfortunately, the only "education" campaign by this government to date has been to reinforce the public misconception that water recycling is somehow unsafe; the reality is that the reverse is true.

Water recycling is being used with complete safety in many parts of the world, and Queensland is also well down that path (an initiative that, it could be argued, the voters in that state have recently endorsed).

And just think of the advantages that recycling, rather than desalination, would achieve. The waste water treatment plant (or plants) would be located at or near existing treatment facilities. So no need for the Wonthaggi site and connecting pipes and power lines.

And waste water would no longer contaminate the ocean at Gunnamatta as it would be recycled. And the end result would be exactly the same — pure water!

Recycling uses the same reverse-osmosis process as desalination, so much of the current design would be retained. But because it is far less energy intensive, running costs (and therefore the impact on the environment) would also be less.

And as for the north-south pipeline, its only possible redeeming feature, given it now appears to have passed the point of no return, is that one day it may be used to pipe north some surplus recycled water to help relieve the stressed Murray-Darling system.

Video
Check out this video about the desalination plant, and visit http://www.getrealonclimatechange.org/

Letter to local MP on Feed in Tariff

To: Richard Dalla-Riva, MLC Eastern Metropolitan Region.

Dear Richard

I am writing you as a resident with Eastern Metropolitan Region to express my concerns about the proposed Feed-in Tariff legislation under consideration in the Victorian Parliament.

The proposed Feed-in Tariff (FIT) structure does not provide sufficient incentives for people, schools and business to install solar power (due to net metering and the 3.2kW array size cap)

This will compromise creating a vibrant jobs-rich solar sector - as they have in Germany where they have a good FIT.

Consumers who export electricity will only be paid "credits", not cash. This effectively removes incentives for energy efficiency appliances. It will also encourage people to "use their credit" by consuming more electricity, since it will not be redeemable as cash.

The Tariff should be amended to a gross tariff with a 10kW cap, as they have legislated for in WA and ACT.

A gross feed-in tariff (as the same for a ‘net’ feed-in tariff) will result in a small increase in household electricity bills – approximately $6-12 per year. Concession card holders should be exempted from this extra cost.

There is wide community support for an effective Feed-in Tariff.

Can you please represent my views on this to the Parliament and within your party?

Yours faithfully,

Peter Campbell
Home address supplied.

See also:

• Feed in Tariff - write a letter or visit your MP Lighterfootprints.org.

Logged Brown Mountain tree dated at over 500 years

The results from radiocarbon dating of a sample of one of the old growth forest giants logged recently in Brown Mountain in East Gippsland are in. The tree is between 500 and 600 years old.

A photo of the logged tree stump that was radio carbon dated.

This tree, and the forest it used to be part of, pre dates white settlement in Australa by 279 years. Logging these irreplaceable forests is an abomination sanctioned by the Brumby Government.

Logging has been temporarily halted when threatened species of possum and freshwater crayfish were found in Brown Mountain's forests.

The Brumby government should immediately protect all remaining old growth forest available for logging, as they promised the would do in 2006.

Links

• Brown Mountain forest, Greenlivingpedia
• Felled old-growth tree '500 years old' , ABC News
• Premier Brumby please protect Brown Mountain forest
  

Senate inquiry into Commonwealth funding for public transport

I attended a public hearing today in Melbourne (Monday 30/3/09) of the "Inquiry into the investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services"

Senate inquiry public hearing in Melbourne on Monday 30/3/09

This first ever national inquiry into public transport was initiated by Greens for WA Senator Scott Ludlum and is being conducted by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Senate Committee.

The inquiry is covering:

• Assessment of direct federal government funding for public transport infrastructure
• Assessment of the benefits of public passenger transport, including integration with bicycle and pedestrian initiatives
• Lack of useful public transport for many people in middle and outer areas of Melbourne and Victorian towns.
• An audit of of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services
• Measures by which the Commonwealth Government could facilitate improvement in public passenger transport services and infrastructure
• The role of Commonwealth Government legislation, taxation, subsidies, policies and other mechanisms that either discourage or encourage public passenger transport (including perverse FBT incentives for people to drive their 'business" cars more).
  
• Best practice international examples of public passenger transport services and infrastructure.

As Melbourne's population grows and the challenges of climate change and oil scarcity become more pressing, it's clear that the city will be disadvantaged without a massive injection of funding into mass public transit now. The chaos commuters experienced during the heatwaves early this year, may only be the tip of the iceberg.

I listened to the Victorian Government submission today and was surprised to hear that they think the two mega rail projects in the Victorian Transport Plan (the $4b Regional Rail Link for a new track from West Werribee to Southern Cross Station and the $4.5 billion Melbourne Metro – a new rail tunnel between the city’s west and east) are the highest priority public transport projects. They also claimed that long promised by never delivered rail lines to Donvale and Rowville could not be built due to "lack of core capacity" with the current rail network. I certainly do not believe they have presented sufficient evidence to justify these claims.

Taking public transport is a critical climate-friendly means of travel and reduces our reliance on the cars that are choking Melbourne. But you cannot user it if is not there.

I spoke with Senator Ludlum after the hearing; he informed me that submissions can still be made to this inquiry - at least up until this Friday (3/4/09).

If you have time, please write a submission about the need for federal funding for improved public transport, and for better integration with bicycle and pedestrian initiatives.

The Committee prefers to receive submissions electronically as an attached document - email: rrat.sen@aph.gov.au

External links

• Senate Inquiry details, including terms of reference
• Cars beating public transport to tax breaks | theage.com.au
  
  

Railway easments for bike paths

The Brumby government's Victorian Cycling Strategy is welcome though long overdue. $115 million might sound like a lot of money, but this is less about one quarter the cost of the interchange between Eastlink and the Monash Freeway.

While several good initiatives are listed, it is disappointing that the plan does not provide for many safe and convenient cycle routes outside of the 10km radius that would be used by commuters, for local trips and for family outings on weekends.

The opportunity of using existing rail easements that could accommodate bike paths throughout Melbourne has been largely overlooked. For example, a good bike path route could be constructed along much of the railway easement from Box Hill to the Yarra via Camberwell and Hawthorn where it would connect with the Capital City trail and upgraded inner city bike paths. Thousands of people would use such a path if was available.

Possible Eastern rail trail route

Many people don't feel safe cycling with only a line of paint between them and cars on busy roads. Dedicated and direct bike paths across Melbourne are required to really mainstream cycling as a safe, legitimate and climate friendly transport mode.

I cycle a lot, and use bike paths to avoid cars when I commute. The huge increase in numbers cycling has now stretched the ad hoc "recreational meandering bike path" approach past its safe limits.

What we need in Victoria is:

• Dedicated bike paths - either as Copenhagen style lanes or dedicated paths free from cars
• Designated commuter paths should not allow pedestrians. Bikes travelling at 30 km/h do not safely mix with walkers. Unfortunately nearly all bike paths are designated by default as pedestrian too. Existing paths such as Gardiner's Creek are now too narrow for the several thousand cyclists that use them every day.
  
• A minister for cycling. Responsibility is currently shared in and unclear way between the Roads Minister (Tim Pallas), the Public Transport Minister (Lyn Kosky). The Health Minister (Bronwyn Bishop) and the Environment Minister (Gavan Jennings) both have an interest too. Bike paths that cross local council boundaries are often problematic. There is no minister clearly accountable for all cycling, including all bike paths and lanes, racing, commuting and recreational riding.
• More funding. Serious cycling infrastructure would require more than $50 million per year for at lease 10 years. Drip feed funding just doesn't deliver.
  

External links

• Peddling priority , Clay Lucas, The Age, March 24, 2009
• Cycling groups praise strategy , Clay Lucas, The Age, March 24, 2009
• Eastern Rail Trail bicycle path proposal
• East West Link- Boroondara BUG
• What we need before even more of us get on our bikes, The Age, Editorial, March 24, 2009
• $115m plan paves the way for victoria’s cycling future, Media Relase, Premier of Victoria.
  
  
  
  

The CPRS kills carbon neutrality

Further to the good work of Richard Dennis from The Australia Institute which has highlighted that the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is in fact a Reallocation scheme, it has now emerged that the CPRS is also greatly impacting local government across Australia in their efforts to go carbon neutral.

Local government has in fact led the way on climate change, with several already announcing plans and commitments to go carbon neutral, and many others seriously considering doing so too.

Unfortunately, the CPRS has created doubts and confusion about what carbon neutrality means at Local Government level.

Greenhouse Friendly abatement credits obtained to date (voluntary scheme) will be not be valid under the CPRS.

Under the CPRS, entities offsetting and or reducing emissions will no longer be able to claim carbon neutrality as their emissions are reallocated and the link between entity emission reductions and aggregate emissions will be broken.

For example, from: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme — Implications for Greenhouse Friendly™

Introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (the Scheme) has implications for Greenhouse Friendly™. The Scheme will impact on the types of abatement that can be provided and the issue of carbon neutrality.

The Scheme will have broad sectoral coverage, which means that from 2010, there will be less scope to pursue offset activities with offsets limited to emissions sources uncovered by the Scheme. In the lead up to the Scheme, companies could be taking action to reduce their emissions based on the expectation of a future carbon price. Therefore it will become increasingly difficult to demonstrate the additionality of abatement projects. Further, Greenhouse Friendly™ abatement credits will not be fungible into the Scheme.
National Carbon Offset Standard

The Government has made a commitment to develop a national standard for carbon offsets to provide national consistency and give consumers confidence in the voluntary carbon offset market. The offset standard will provide guidance on what constitutes a genuine, additional voluntary offset credit, as well as setting requirements for the verification and retirement of such credits, and standards for calculating the emissions of a product or service.

The Department of Climate Change released a discussion paper on the National Carbon Offset Standard on 19 December 2008 for public consultation. The Department is currently conducting public consultations.

Please note that the Greenhouse Friendly™ Guidelines and other publications are yet to be revised in accordance with this announcement.

You can download the discussion paper [here] (PDF)

From this discussion paper:

2.2 Implications for carbon neutrality
From a consumer’s point of view, the environmental credibility of carbon neutrality comes from the fact that offsetting means an entity’s activities do not increase aggregate emissions and therefore help to mitigate climate change. As described above, the effect of a cap on emissions from covered sources is to break the link between individual voluntary action and aggregate emissions.

The Municipal Association of Victoria (representing local governments) has already made this submission concerning the discussion paper [link] (PDF)

The MAV has also provided this briefing to their members [link] (PDF)

So in addition to the CPRS (if legislated) doing nothing to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, it will effectively prevent local and state governments reducing their emissions too.

External links

• State emission cuts 'futile' and would aid polluters , Royce Millar, The Age, 23 March 2009.
• Flaws in emissions trading scheme must be fixed , The Age, Editorial, 24 March 2009
• Cabinet talks on target's futility , Royce Millar and Adam Morton , The Age, 24 March 2009
  
  

Clean green jobs or protection for polluters?

This post was published as a letter to the editor in The Age on 13 March 2009.

Peter Batchelor's recent announcement that the Victorian government will be seeking proposals for a solar power station sounds promising, but this potential project is not fully funded yet.


At the same time, Peter Batchelor announced that Victoria's proposed Feed-in Tariff legislation has a net tariff structure with a 3.2kW array size cap.

The stated intention for the Feed-in Tariff is to provide incentives for the installation of domestic solar systems. However, the proposed tariff structure greatly reduces the financial incentives to households, which conflicts with its primary purpose. Why cap something you are trying to encourage?

The government has not provided a valid explanation for their proposed tariff structure. It is at odds with the proven effective gross metered tariffs that Western Australia and the ACT have just implemented, similar to Germany's which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs in their solar sector.

The Brumby government should stop playing politics and get serious about solar and creating jobs for a clean green energy future.

See also

• Feed in Tariff, Greenlivingpedia
• Victorian government to fund new solar power station, media release

Every drop is precious

Recent logging industry claims that logging our catchments will improve water yields and protect them are false and opportunistic. Scientists have confirmed that logging in our water catchments, like bushfires, decreases the quality and quantity of water they produce.

The recent catastrophic bushfires travelled at alarming speed, up to 100km/h, across farmland and through plantations and heavily "managed" forests, including forests where recent fuel reduction burns had been done. Bushfire and climate scientists have confirmed that Victoria's hottest day every, combined with very strong north winds, created conditions for an unstoppable firestorm.

The bushfires slowed considerably when they eventually entered Melbourne's water catchments. Intact wet sclerophyll forests in our water catchments are less prone to burning, and temperatures and wind speeds have eased. Melbourne Water is doing a great job managing our protected catchments.

However, the Victorian government has been sitting on their hands holding continual reviews about the destruction of some of our catchments by logging; it is now time for action. Stage 4 water restrictions are looming in the near future, and every drop of water is precious. We are now facing less water in our dams and drastically reduced rainfall across the state.

Melbourne's water catchments, and those elsewhere across the Victoria, should be immediately protected from logging in the interests of all Victorians.

Bolt dogwhistling: Stridently dark green

From Andrew Bolt in today's Heraldsun: Stridently dark green

GLOBAL warming preachers have been crowing over the bushfires in ways not just despicable but dangerous.

Here are Bolt's lies:

• Green activists had been desperately wrong to oppose fuel reduction burns (Greens policies support fuel reduction burning)


• Sat 7 Feb was not Victoria's hottest day on record (it was, he quotes an anecdotal newspaper report)


• Forest experts insist that green policies on forest management helped to kill so many in the first place (no forest experts quoted - anonymous sources, and an outright lie)


• The planet actually hasn't warmed for a decade, and we've faced even worse conditions than these before (not true)


• Global warming is not associated with the recent bushfires (not true - the increased risk of such events has been predicted the the CSIRO and climate scientists)


• Global warming preachers are desperate to try to fool you (Who exactly? This is just mud throwing)


• But I don't just write all this to go nyah-nyah. Normally that's fun, I admit, but too many people are dead for such crowing of my own. (hypocrite - that is exactly what he is doing)


• Greenhouse gases which might not actually cause the warming that might already have stopped anyway. And which didn't cause these fires. (incorrect)

And a false dichotomy:

Bolts $4b "plan" OR the greens' $100 billion and more to "stop" global warming?

Bolt doesn't have a plan other than a random assortment of ideas he has pinched from recent newspaper articles. The Greens don't have a $100 billion plan to stop global warming.

Clearly, some actions on addressing bushfire risk and emergency procedures are required. The Royal Commission will hear, gather and assess evidence, then make recommendations. I think the vast majority of them should be enacted.

In short:

Fear, no evidence and incorrect sums, blaming, and several red herrings.

This is more of Bolt's propaganda war against "greens", "Greens", conservation and anyone who believes we should take action to address climate change and global warming. It is a mixture of mud slinging and denial.

And here is online response to Bolt's shameless dogwhistling:

“I am disgusted with the whole 'green' movement. Every 'green' advocate should be cut -quartered-and hung. Bob Brown & the other 'green' cronies should not be given the time of day. What's more important - the life of a tree, or human life? Bugger the environment, if it means my life is in jeopardy? The environment has looked after itself quite well for God knows how long, & it will continue to do so - without my help thank-you very much!

Posted by: Steve Morgan of Echuca 8:29am today”

Andrew Bolt (and Miranda Devine) must accept full responsibility if their hate-mongering and lies results in murder and/or "lynching".

I wonder if they both believe their nonsense? If they do they are idiots, if they don't they are pariahs; best avoided.

Barrie Cassidy blames greens for bushfires

The harrowing tales from survivors and CFA people on the After the Firestorm: An ABC News Special" tonight were compelling viewing.

However, the host Barrie Cassidy then displayed the most appalling and offensive editorialising journalism I have ever seen the ABC broadcast.

Barrie Cassidy said "and people say the greens have too much influence, what do think Peter Attiwell?"

This was a leading question for Attiwell, who is ex Forestry faculty Melbourne Uni and has been employed by the Victorian Association of Forest Industries (VAFI) at various times. Attiwell has previously made public statements about "logging being good for forests", "forests need disturbance" and the "importance of fuel reduction burning for forest management" over recent years.

Attiwell's response to this leading question was inaccurate on several counts, and represented a pro-logging anti conservation political position.

Attiwell claimed that

• there is far too much fuel in the forests and that is why the fires were so bad
• The 1983 Royal Commission made 23 (?) recommendations and the government has only implemented 6, oops 7 of them
• There hasn't been nearly enough burning, the cycle is once every 30(?) years, only a very small percentage has been fuel reduction burnt.
• We need to burn on a cycle of every 7 years to make things safe
• We don't need another commission, we just need proper burning. Ecological burning.

No contrary opinions to this were aired or raised.

Cassidy also failed to mention that Black Saturday was the hottest day on record in Victoria and in any Australian capital city ever, and that the three days above 43C the previous week made the entire state tinder dry. These type of extreme weather events have been linked by Professor David Karoly and the CSIRO to the effects of climate change.

I know for a fact that a lot of the forest around Marysville has been fuel reduction burnt by DSE on numerous occasions over the last 10 years. This of course made no difference to the ferocity of the fire.

There is no scientific consensus on the claimed ecological benefits of fuel reduction burning. It is actually done to reduce fuel loads, not manage ecology. Scientists have also observed that excessive burning of native forests can actually make them more prone to burning by changing the ecology of the forest from wet sclerophyll to more fire prone dry sclerophyll over time.

Much of the fires burnt on grassland, farmland, plantations and heavily "managed" and logged native forest. Around 50% of the area burnt was privately owned land.

On Cassidy's mention of "the greens", there are no elected Greens in the Murrindindi, Yea or even Nillumbik shires, and there are none in the Victorian State Parliament in these regions either. To claim that greens set policies in these regions is specious and ludicrous. Policies are set state and local governments, and enacted by DSE, the CFA and other government departments.

In addition, fuel reduction burning, conducted without species and habitat loss, is are actually supported by the Greens and organisations such as the Wilderness Society, so Cassidy is dead wrong on this too.

Barry Cassidy's conduct on this matter was biased against the Green political party and local and state conservation groups.

It was also extremely offensive and inaccurate. Opportunistic political comments by those pushing agendas are grossly insensitive to bushfire victims.

As I have stated previously, the only focus at present should be to find the deceased and help the survivors and others deeply affected. I and many of my friends (some of whom are still fighting the fires and are on the ground in affected areas) have been deeply personally affected by these bushfires and the loss of life.

Barrie Cassidy should be subject to disciplinary action and the ABC should also issue a formal retraction of his comments.

You can comment on the ABC TV program website too.

The Victorian bushfires tragedy

My sympathies go to the many families, relatives and friends, and everyone across Australia for this tragedy. The entire nation is suffering. We need to pull together as a community and nation to help recover and assist those who are grieving and have suffered great loss.

Opportunistic political comments by those pushing agendas are grossly insensitive to bushfire victims.

The only focus at present is still finding the deceased and helping the survivors and others deeply affected. I and many of my friends (some of whom are still fighting the fires and are on the ground in affected areas) have been deeply personally affected by these bushfires and the loss of life.

Feed in Tariff questions for Premier Brumby

The following email was sent to Premier John Brumby and the Victorian Cabinet on 6/2/09.

Dear Premier Brumby,

I have now written to Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's office on five separate occasions concerning the Feed-in tariff legislation your government has stated it will introduce.

As yet, none of the questions (listed below) that I have asked concerning this tariff have been satisfactorily answered by Minister Batchelor or his staff, which I find very disappointing and quite unacceptable.

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?

7. Why is the Brumby government proceeding with a feed in tariff for Victoria that will be completely ineffective and conflicting with proposed national legislation?

8. What is the Brumby government's target for domestic solar panel installation (in MW) for 2009 and 2010?

I note that Professor Ross Garnaut stated in his final report in 2008 that a gross feed in tariff was the best one to adopt, as has been introduced in the ACT feed-in tariff legislation where they pay on gross metering with a generous 10kW cap on array size.

Several explanations on the government website at http://dpi.vic.gov.au/energy/feedintariff are not consistent or accurate, some of which I address below.

Problems with 2kW cap on array size.

DPI have stated that:

"Data available from the Commonwealth Solar Homes and Communities Plan indicates that the average size of residential PV systems is 1.5 kilowatts and over 90% of currently installed PV systems are at or below 2 kilowatts. For this reason, the 2 kilowatt capacity threshold was deemed appropriate for the premium fee-in tariff scheme."

Your stated purpose for the feed-in tariff is to increase the residential uptake of PV systems. Putting an artificial cap on array size, based on the average systems installed to date, simply limits the financial incentives for households to install systems over 2kW for no good reason. It is therefore in direct conflict with your stated purpose. Your basis for the proposed 2kW cap on array size is simply not valid.

Encouraging energy efficiency

Your government states that encouraging energy efficiency is another objective of the feed-in tariff. This is simply not relevant. The feed-in tariff is a policy measure for encouraging the uptake of solar panels, not driving energy efficiency. I urge you to consider effective measures for encouraging energy efficiency such as:

• Introducing energy efficiency labelling standards for all consumer electrical goods
• Introducing energy efficiency standards as part of building standards
• Consider raising the price of electricity so that consumers will be encouraged so use less

The cost to households is much lower than you claim

I understand that a cabinet committee submission from the Department of Sustainability and Environment stated that the so-called "gross feed-in" solar subsidy scheme would have cost households just $18 a year, or 35 cents a week, increasing electricity bills by just 2 per cent. This is significantly less than your previously claim, based in information not released from Energy Minister Peter Batchelor's office, that claimed the cost at $100 a year for households. This claim now appears to be in error.

More solar panels could avoid or reduce recent power outages.

The very hot weather across Victoria last week, combined with many households using energy hungry air conditioners during the day (up to or great than 8kW) resulted in electricity supply falling below demand. Photovoltaic panels, if enough are installed, would generate power for the grid precisely when on hot sunny days when it is needed most and power is most expensive. Additional generation by solar panels may have avoided these supply problems and kept the grid, and Melbourne's train network, operating properly during the heatwave conditions.

Solar panels reduce emissions and therefore address climate change.

All power generated from PVs should be paid a gross tariff as they produce power that would otherwise be sourced from the coal-fired electricity, thereby reducing carbon emissions, This is an essential measure for tackling climate change, which is now an urgent concern following the recent extremely hot weather resulting in some deaths and huge disruption to Victoria's economy.

The Feed in tariff should also provide financial incentive for large scale solar power energy producers to encourage investment in large scale solar plants too.

I strongly urge you to implement a proven effective gross feed in tariff with no cap on array size as this would greatly boost installation of solar panels and green jobs, both of which will benefit Victoria.

Peter Campbell

Previous correspondence

Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: 5/10/2008 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:58:48 +1000
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:38:12 +1000
Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 22:29:08 +1000
Subject: LETTER: Please introduce a feed in tariff Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:26:37 +1100

A great climate action summit in Canberra

I attended the first ever Australian climate action summit in Canberra.

More than 500 people from around the country gathered for three days from 31/1/09 to 2/4/09 to produce a national, unified set of objectives for the community campaign of climate action for the crucial year ahead.

Over 140 community climate action groups united in their decision to oppose the Federal Government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), saying that it will fail make the required cuts to greenhouse pollution.

At the summit there was:

• Two days of facilitated meetings and workshops to build a unified national climate campaign.
• One day of dynamic training in climate campaigning skills for taking action, facilitating climate action groups, effective lobbying and more.
• On the first day of the 2009 Federal Parliament, thousands of people were mobilised in a high profile demonstration for real action on climate change by encircling Australia's federal parliament.

In 2009, the united Community Climate Action Groups will campaign to:

• Prevent the CPRS from becoming law as it will fail to make emission cuts necessary to stop the climate emergency.
• Build community-wide action to demand green jobs, a just transition for fossil fuel industry workers and 100% renewable energy by 2020.
• Aim for stabilisation at 300ppm CO2 and strong international agreement in line with what science and global justice demands.

I was amazed at how much common ground there was between the people who attended, from all walks of life.

More information (and soon some photos) is available on Greenlivingpedia here

Premier Brumby please protect Brown Mountain Forest

Below is a copy of a letter I just sent to Premier John Brumby, and some recent photos of Brown Mountain logging - a crime against the enviroment. More information here.

Orbost Spiny Cray found in Brown Mountain Creek

Illegally cleared (bulldozed) rainforest gully

Illegally felled forest giant in buffer zone outside of logging area

=======
Your Ref: DSE057747
Your File: FS/18/0020

Dear Premier Brumby,

I received a communication from Janine Haddow (DSE) dated 30/12/2008 in response to an email I sent to you and Minister Jennings on 29/10/2008 asking to stop the logging of old growth forest at Brown Mountain. Unfortunately, Ms Haddow did not adequately address the concerns I raised with you.

To reiterate, the Labor Party pledged in a policy document during the 2006 State election that:

"In addition to the Goolengook Block, a Labor Government will immediately protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting by including them in the National Parks and reserves system."

Premier Brumby, you have broken this promise. In late 2008 bulldozers destroyed 20 hectares of Brown Mountain forest classified as old growth. Now they are about to continue to destroy another 40 hectares.

This Brown Mountain forest should have been included in the forest areas specified for protection because it is designated as old growth forest by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and it forms an important part of the link between the Errinundra and Snowy River National Parks, the creation of which was also a policy commitment.

You are allowing and supporting the clearfelling of old growth forest as "business as usual" despite these forest's critical role in storing carbon (over 1000 tonnes per hectare) and providing water for the depleted Snowy River catchment.

Ms Haddow’s assertion that "logging occurs on a very small proportion of Victoria’s public land estate" is simply not relevant. No old growth forest should be now logged, as your policy states.

Ms Haddow’s other assertion that "over time the net result from logging Victoria’s native forest is an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas concentrations" is not correct. A scientific study by Mackey, Keith, Berry and Lindenmeyer (2008) found that:

“the carbon stock of forests subject to commercial logging, and of monoculture plantations in particular, will always be significantly less on average (40 to 60 percent depending on intensity of land use and forest type) than the carbon stock of natural, undisturbed forests.”

These forests also provide habitat for threatened species such as the Powerful Owl, the Spot Tailed Quoll, mainland Australia's largest marsupial carnivore, the Long-footed Potoroo, Victoria's rarest marsupial, and the endangered Orbost Spiny Cray.

Locals had recently constructed East Gippsland's first old growth forest walk in these forests, which the Department of Sustainability and Environment knows about. Recent logging has now destroyed much of this walk. It will soon be obliterated, which will result in the loss of an asset that had potential to generate millions of dollars from tourism, as demonstrated by the Valley of the Giants Tree Top Walk in the Walpole-Nornalup National Park in Western Australia.

In addition, several serious breaches of the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007 have occurred during the recent logging at Brown Mountain. The following breaches have been reported with photographic evidence:

1. Mixed rainforest along Brown Mountain Creek has been bulldozed in readiness to start clearfelling the adjoining stand of ancient forest.

2. A logging contractor is being investigated for theft of burls.

3. A huge old tree has been felled outside the coupe boundary – this is illegal logging.

4. Used oil filters from bulldozers have been discarded on the ground which will contaminate soil and eventually water courses.

I also note that logging has continued against occupational health and safety regulations when members of the public are present. Worksafe is apparently investigating this.

VicForests has prohibited access to the nearby Errinundra National Park via the tourist road for the past 3 months of summer holidays - with no alternative route offered. This is unacceptable. The public must have access to our National Parks.

Please stop the logging of Brown Mountain immediately, and add the remaining old growth forest on Brown Mountain to Errinundra National Park.

Please honour your stated policy to protect all remaining areas of old growth forest in Victoria.

Peter Campbell
Home address supplied


CC:

• Gavin Jennings, Environment Minister
• Robert Clark, Member for Box Hill
• Janine Haddow, Executive Director for Natural Resources, DSE