Comments on: Milne: The climate nightmare is upon us

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:59:04 +0000

Climate change is the most complex issue the human species has faced. Executing change in regards to climate change is about knowing the detail about climate change economics, CC society and psychology, renewable energy and energy efficiency, CC ecology, CC meteorology, CC building and design, CC urban design, CC transport etc.
It may seem our Australian Senators are not up to the mark. While Rome (Canberra) burns below are examples of the level of detail in CC change other countries are doing this week.
UK Government
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/2163/
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/2188/
Wales
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/2178/
USA
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/2185/
I guess the Devil is in the detail!!!

By: richard3109

richard3109 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:11:32 +0000

Senator Christine Milne really demonstrates in this article the importance of tackling Climate Change, attacking the stand-for-nothing politicians like Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull - who are just letting the destruction to our planet continue.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:49:43 +0000

Today the Bligh government announced the Queensland’s renewable energy plan. An overview of this is on the following press releases:
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11384:green-jobs-plan-for-the-future-clean-green-queensland&catid=148:australian-regional-news&Itemid=271
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/queensland-set-to-be-solar-powerhouse-20090621-cseg.html
The first point of analysis is how much GHG gas will be reduced by this spending program? How does a $1 spent with this program compare to world best practice and with the McKinnsey strategy?

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:27:00 +0000

Christine Mile gives a very good analysis of the state of play on the lack of implementation of achieving 350 parts per million. Yes we do need a Green New Deal for Australia and the Globe. In here analysis she identifies some of the major players who are not accepting this new reality. What could have been expanded further is the lack of quality leadership in nation states or large corporations of the climate change strategists and climate change field marshals who will get on with the job of organising for our new reality. Other forces at work resisting this new reality can be categorised into deniers, fear-ist and retreat-ists. What we have not scene enough of yet with the lack of action by nation states is anger from the populous.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:47:17 +0000

The major weaknesses of these types of publication like Greenprint are:
1. Based on motherhood statements and lack and real measures of GHG.
2. It is very difficult to measure GHG at the local/ household level.
3. Often the individual is made to be the major offender while they are the victims.
4 These types of publications while focusing on the individual do not address the energy waste and alternative energy sources of the major GHG offenders who are corporations, farming, land fill, SMEs, institutions and government.
In conclusion it is always easier to blame the victim rather then liberate them. So a Chapter on GHG outside the household and what action people can take would differentiate this book in the market place.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 05:34:44 +0000

A worthwhile read to get a copy of this very telling of the calibre of the politicians we are electing for our children’s future.
The Miseducation of Steve Fielding
Saturday, 20 June 2009 | The Australian Financial Review | Tom Dusevic National affairs correspondent page 23.
The Family First senator’s belated interest in climate change would be diverting if not so serious.

By: David1

David1 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:10:51 +0000

Michael I am sure a great amount of Feildings problems are caused by him having to serve so many masters. I have no sympathy for him on that score, he is supposed to be intelligent with an engineer degree. Sure doesn’t act like it, he sems to not know exactly where he stands, what he wants or how to get it. With the greens doing their usual over the top grandstanding, Brown is sounding more like Turnbull with his holier than thou, sicky sweet goodness oozing out, where have all the real pollies gone. Damn Hawkie and Keating were good for a bit of good ole biffing. What have we got now, Swanee, Turnbull sh.t, pretty Pyne, fat boy Hockey, mad monk, chairman Kev… they wouldn’t get a look in against ‘real’ pollies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Then there was Abetz yuk

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:07:36 +0000

Why do families in the renewable energy industry have to suffer because of this Senator’s (Fielding) slow learning curve?

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:06:34 +0000

Why do families in the renewable energy industry have to suffer because of this Senator’s slow learning curve?

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:04:29 +0000

Why do

By: Most Peculiar Mama

Most Peculiar Mama — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:00:51 +0000

“In representing this country which as tax payers we contributred towards directly and indirectly as a well trained and a professional Australian Senator why did he not seek all points of expert views in the USA and Australia?”

Leave the unicorns alone.

All he was hearing was the ‘other’ side. He went seeking balance. He found it. Now he wants answers.

Why can’t Wong and her minions simply answer the questions put to them?

Steffens about face today is a laughable disgrace, but entirely predicatable

Does anyone take this man seriously?

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:32:53 +0000

Thanks Mark for this. Yes that is a good point on getting the details from a local expert. Senator Fielding is obviously a well trained and a professional Australian Senator. Though Senator Fielding may have funded is own travel expenses he was representing this country overseas and we were most likely as taxpayers paying for this salary and the tax deduction she receives for this trip as a work related expense while he was visiting the USA. In representing this country which as tax payers we contributred towards directly and indirectly as a well trained and a professional Australian Senator why did he not seek all points of expert views in the USA and Australia?

By: Timonie

Timonie — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:34:08 +0000

Thanks so much for sharing Christine’s speeach with Paul Hawken’s call to action.

He also founded WiserEarth:

http://www.wiserearth.org

WiserEarth an online global community space for individuals and organizations working on social justice and environmental sustainability. WiserEarth Groups provides free wikis, discussion boards, file sharing, and other collaboration tools.

There are more than 3,800 Groups, Organizations, and Events related to Climate Change on the site.

With thanks for the important work you do.

By: Mark Duffett

Mark Duffett — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:59:11 +0000

@MichaelJC, on your point 2, I’m pretty sure Senator Fielding self-funded his recent US trip, though why he couldn’t ‘as an engineer’ simply read the literature is beyond me.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:16:37 +0000

Senator Fielding
Dear Senator Fielding
Your actions this week to vote down by deferring the Renewable Energy Target (RET) legislation has placed the Australian solar industry into a dramatic decline. You have left Australians with little support for solar power installations. Affecting both its reputation to its suppliers, bankers and customers. The new legislation you deferred would have taken away from households installing solar PV additional financial support.
Can you please answer the following questions?
1. Why as a politician do you believe the evidence for climate change is a conspiracy? That the evidence provided by the Australian Chief Scientist is not factual? What criteria have you based your decision on regarding climate change?
2. While you were in the USA on your taxpayer funded trip recently. What US Government Agencies and Universities did you visit on climate change and renewable energy? Was the Senator aware that the US Pentagon of any government agency in the world spends the most on renewable energy and energy efficiency?
3. What is the current value is the Australian solar PV industry in employment and sales?
4. In the next three months what is the anticipated number of jobs and have been lost due to your decision of deference to this industry?
5. How many families have you affected by not being able to access this program?

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:11:54 +0000

It issue for the Greens as a movement in Australia is they are stuck in a paradigm model of Aristotle of Democracy rather than Socrates. In making for analysis of existing processes and structures is overlooked for analysis of what is the responsibility of the individual, who is the victim of western capital and the nation state.

By: Peter Campbell

Peter Campbell — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:04:06 +0000

An excellent speech by Senator Milne.

I think that the current “politics as usual” paradigm in Canberra and State goverments across Australia is a part of the problem rather than the solution. As are the predictable comments from several naysayers who have posted responses.

I think we are in the midst of a period of great change, but the extent of this is not yet evident to many people. Often only portions of the change are visible/obvious (e.g. bushfires, floods, reduced rainfall, a protest rally, TV and news reports).

I also think that our current structures and systems are not well suited to handling paradigm shift change - such as weaning ourselves off profligate fossil fuel use, reducing excessive consumption, and sorting out the festering sore of global inequity.

Many current influential stakeholders (energy industries, mining industries, logging industries etc) are resisting change that impacts their perceived interests - and the political system is accommodating them.

The notion that our political/democratic system somehow “does what the community wants” is really not valid in this context.

I think we need a combination of:

* Personal changes - including adjustment of some lifestyle expectations
* Societal changes
* Political and governance changes (legislative, executive & judicial)
* Corporate changes - genuine sustainable practices rather than lipstick and marketing.

This won’t be easy, but it will sure be an interesting challenge.

I find it reasurring that Christine has layed out a vision for where we need to get to and how to get there.

Here is a supporting Greenprint I have been working on.

By: Bill Parker

Bill Parker — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:54:28 +0000

Mark,

Mark, I am fully aware of the need for GIGAwatts of clean energy not only to satisfy present demand but also to meet growth in demand. Solar is not the only answer, it is part of a mix. But there is one matter that doesn’t “rate” - energy efficiency. Hands up all those who know exactly what their energy usage is in kilowatthours every day? Try a reality check with David Mackay’s book:
http://www.withouthotair.com/

Mackay talks about the UK, and notes the need for “country” sized solar thermal plants and some. But the alarm bells should ring as he picks apart consumption. We are fixated on technological solutions and the answer is also to be found in our habits.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:47:07 +0000

Hi Mark, thank you for this links they are very interesting. Unfortunately if we let the market solve major economic, social and climate problems we made be up a Creek without a paddle. Since the global economic crisis we have not hear much from the rational economists of Canberra but the Australian energy industry is still coming out with a paradigm that is out of context. For instance how much is the Australian fossil energy industry subsidised each year? How as taxpayers can we justify this indirect cost to the power industry? It has been a long time since the executives of the Australian power industry had to adopt a new way of thinking about energy management.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:14:33 +0000

Power companies are promoting Green Power as a means for the consumer to buy renewable energy. A brochure produced by the Greens in Queensland is encouraging consumers to subscribe to Green Power. The brochure is titled “The Greens Jobs: Protecting the Climate is a job for everyone”. The brochure was issued by Michael Kane PO Box 661 Albion BC Q. 4101. On the last page of the folded document it states, ” Go Green Power- Check with your electricity provider if you can purchase green energy, ensuring your power comes from renewable sources such as wind, solar, tidal, geothermal or wave plants”
1. Why do the Greens promote green power?
2. When the consumer buys $1.00 of Green Power where does that money go? What does the consumer’s purchase buy?
3. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) are meant to be phased out in the near future. What is the Greens position on the replacement of these?
4. What is the Greens opinion of RECs in what they buy? And explain the Greens understanding accounting cycle of RECs?
5. What will be the Greens position on what happens to Green Power when RECs are phased out?
6. Do the Greens believe the current RECs system is fair and equitable to small and medium sized renewable energy generators?
7. What is the Greens position on accountability and transparency of Green Power, RECs and what RECs will be replaced by?

By: Mark Duffett

Mark Duffett — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:07:45 +0000

Please, green advocates, at least give some indication that you’ve come to grips with the issues set out here before stating or implying that a big rollout of solar and wind will be enough to significantly mitigate climate change. Even better, if you can, spend a few hours at http://bravenewclimate.com.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:48:51 +0000

Unless we empower ourselves with the terminology of the energy industry and that of renewable energy and energy efficiency governments will ignore the issues of a fully distributed renewable energy sector.
The current discussion papers on the white paper for a national energy policy indicates a complete lack of priority for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Clearly it is large translational mining companies and the, coal and gas power generating corporations that are shaping energy policy in this country.
As scientific evidence is being continually being announced of ever increasing rises in global temperature and increasing growth of Green-House-Gases. Voters are realising that this is a very real and serious problem. Voters are also realising that the biggest barrier are the politicians and their lack of action.
Until governments allocate resources to more ambitious renewable energy projects, voters will continue to move their vote to the environment.
The Australian Government needs to dramatically increase the “solar flagship” program and have at least 20 gigawatts of plants over 10 years (instead of one gigawatt), and allocate a similar amount of resources to a wind energy program.
Why are there politicians in this country that believe the evidence for climate change is a conspiracy?
I am interested in regional climate change action. A lot of focus to date has been on the individual, household, state national and international levels of climate change with little focus on the neighbourhood, local area or at a regional level. By focusing on a business owners, regional and local level it allows communities, government and industry to bring together the issues and actions they are taking on climate change.
Transition towns’ is a very good model as it is driven from the grass roots and is very good for local communities. A limit of the transition town model is it is not being supported to happen across the country or a region in a systematic manner. The practice or field experience of the transition town model is the development of experimentation with the principles of energy, water, food, transport, carbon life cycle etc. That is examining climate change at a hamlet, commune, village, neighbourhood, town or suburb level there is no real definition for what sustainability means and what measures exist to benchmark against climate change data.
Al alternative approach is examining climate change at a regional level that allows for cooperation between towns, institutions, the commercial sector and government on the issues of climate change. The regional level also has great access to data to be able to measure the impact of climate change on a geographic location.
The evidence is clear on this as least cost strategy for a major impact in Energy Efficiency. In contrast the scientific evidence now on the rate of climate change means that we are taking up the EE strategy too slowly and will need to make major inroads not only into buildings and cars but also fossil fuel generation. The major hurdle at the moment is not that we do not have the expertise or technology to implement these changes but the quality of our leadership.

By: Veronica Guy

Veronica Guy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:18:19 +0000

I am no member of any political group, club or party. The comments left on this site in response to this speech remind me of Nero. Please, people, it is obvious to any thinking person who keeps up (as much as is possible - there’s so much of it) with the growing evidence and the scientific modelling, that our climate is changing. It doesn’t matter who says it or how often it is said. As far as we should be concerned it should be shouted from the tree tops and urban roofs constantly, without let up and ever more loudly.

At this stage, it matters not one jot how much of that change is due to human activity. The point is that until the self serving governments of this world publicly state that economics is a sub set of the environment and NOT the other way around and start working in a direction that will change our world and economies, we are headed towards our own extinction and more than probably by our own hand.

Pretty simple really. Start working toward what the scientists have warned is the best we can achieve - 350ppm. Start educating the population into accepting what needs to be done to achieve that. Start funding renewable energy schemes on a massive scale. Let urban dwellers collect their own roof water and don’t even think of charging them for it (Victoria toyed with this one!!). Subsidise (properly) their costs in setting up their own power systems on their roofs and give them decent power rebates when feeding back any excess energy into the reticulated grid.

Above all, stop pettifogging and get on with it. My grandchildren (three of them) face a very bleak future while the power mongers play ridiculous, short term greed gains with the future of the world.

I could carry on with the exponential growth in global population. Population control underpins all the current woes but no one at all, let alone governments is willing to address the fecundity of our species. Medical tech has wiped out most pandemic type diseases andf kept more babies, children and now old people alive. The world is a finite place with a finite carrying capacity.

The way we are living is just not sustainable. When will it ever be addressed? Seemingly not in my lifetime.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:40:58 +0000

The current model of the national energy grid is designed for maximum consumption. The model of the national energy grid is not sustainable for a national climate change strategy. We already see the repeating of past mistakes of investments by picking pet projects and having power carried across long distances with geothermal in Queensland. The current business practices of the national grid stakeholders will easily want to make the existing systems more efficient and effective when government policy has designed the system to maximise energy output.
Coupled with these problems of the national energy grid of high levels of distribution inefficiencies is how Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and Green Power both of which seemed to be designed for large economic players to benefit from. With Green Power it is lot clear what it is purchases and for RECs how it is counted.
Another level of complexity there seems to be little interest in a distributed energy system from the managers of the energy industry. Added to this is the executive management culture of the Australian power industry that is based on status quo management where the game is to maximise their sunk costs and their myopic strategic thinking.
Hence we do not see much roll out of Renewable Energy like large-scale wind farms.

By: Mark Duffett

Mark Duffett — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:31:30 +0000

@Janet: This critic agrees with you on the risk of climate change. What I’m saying to Senator Milne, and the Greens in general, is that we shouldn’t be fighting it with one (nuclear) hand tied behind our back.