Recent Posts
I don’t know what you lot are thinking, but I am struggling to keep up with everything going on at the moment! As I am working in this area, I am worried that I am going to start to talk about minor technical points in far too much detail (I’m a lawyer – its bound to happen), so I would be really keen to get some suggestions from anyone regularly reading the blog on things they might like to hear about. Otherwise, you are at risk of being bored: You’ve been warned.
Climate Change seems to be an area constantly escalating in the media and in politics. A lot of what we hear is negative too, so today for a changeI am going to try focus on some positive.
Since my last post I’ve been over to Western Australia for a couple of seminars in Perth (yes, I offset my fights), and I’ve met some interesting people working in the field.
The thing that seems to be happening now is a movement from will it happen, to how will it happen. The emphasis is now on “what can me / my business do to minimise the effects of Climate Change?”. We hear a lot about the risks, but today I wanted to talk opportunities. Both the opportunity for each off us to offset some of our effects, and also I guess the opportunities these companies have chosen to be entrepeneurial in this area.
One of the more interesting speakers I have heard recently was the Managing Director of a Company called CO2 Australia Limited. The company is in the business of “carbon sequestration”: basically the removal of carbon from the atmosphere. There are many technology based ways that companies are looking at sequestration for example there are a few pilot examples with coal where the carbon is taken out and pumped back underground for long term storage. Its fascinating stuff. However, CO2 Australia intrigues me as it goes about sequestering Carbon in the most simplest of ways: by turning back to nature and planting trees. Now – until I heard Mr Grant speak, I was a bit dubious about planting in a country with sweet f* all water, and issues with fire… but I must say, I retract earlier comments (referring to my comments on Malcolm Turnbulls address). In my defence, not all trees would be suitable for such a project, but CO2 Australia uses Eucalypt Mallees – a tree which has evolved in Australia, can survive drought and will re-sprout after fire because of the way it has evolved. Although it would be nice to think they have done it for the good of humanity – us humans aren’t that altruistic, so of course it does it for return! The demand for the trees comes from companies who wish to offset their emissions. The company will pay money to CO2 Australia to plant trees to offset Carbon emissions. But also, in return for the Carbon it sequesters, CO2 Australia receives credits which it can sell as it is accredited under the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS) and also under the Federal Governments voluntary scheme Greenhouse Friendly. A credit is recieved for each unit of Carbon it sequesters. Pretty entrepreneurial I think.
Another company receiving Credits under the NSW GGAS scheme is “easy being green”. Easy being green will come to your house and install energy saving lightbulbs for free. In return for the energy you save – they get the credit under the GGAS scheme which covers the costs of the bulbs and installation, and you get to feel like you are doing something to help the earth. As mentioned on their website – apx 8 – 12 bulbs will save 1 tonne of greenhouse gas emissions per year. Nice.
And speaking of light bulbs, there are now companies offering these services on an international scale. One of the companies I have come across recently is Cleaner Climate. They are currently involved in a CDM project (clean development mechanism – refer to the second blog on Kyoto) in South Africa. In one of the areas concerned near Durban, the company proposes to install 8 million light bulbs. The best thing about this project in my view is that they train locals to replace the bulbs – so not only is the energy a factor, the project will also deliver knowledge and understanding to the community. It’s a very socially responsible project. Of course they too gain credits for the projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol.
That’s enough for today, but hopefully this gives you ideas of what you or your company can do to minimise your impacts!
Ok, Ok, so I am currently reading Malcolm Gladwells book “The Tipping Point” hence the unoriginal blog name. But – there is another reason besides plagiarism: everyday momentum seems to be building and everyday Climate Change seems to becomes a bigger and bigger issue which creeps up the priority pathway.
Malcom Gladwells book helps us to explain these changes. He talks about how “epidemics” are created, and how things (like fashion trends I guess) go from being something a few wear, to something everyone wants or needs. How do you get everyone to jump on the bandwagon? And can we do it with Climate Change?
I’ve been involved in an online forum which goes until the end of the month. There is some really interesting thinkers in it, and it has largely been about “where we are” at the moment, and whether to solve this problem we need a paradigm shift in the way people think. The forum discussion has been about a move from “Anthropocentrism to Ecocentrism” – or from people first to Ecology first. Personally, I am not that much of a philosophiser – although I totally agree Humans should move away from considering only ourselves but is it the case that if we move too far into Ecocentrism we can start to shun responsibility and think we are not so in control of the situation? For example, in ecology, you learn about succession. In a disturbed environment – for arguments sake, lets say after a Fire - the first species to establish will be the ones who can adapt to the change the fastest. Gradually, these colonists (as they are technically referred to) will change the environment and later successional species will establish and start to grow while outcompeting the colonists. For example gorse or broom are colonists, whereas larger canopy trees are generally later successional species (I would argue not Gum trees though – those things can grow anywhere!). When the later successional species establish, they take the sunlight and so the gorse dies off and so, it always appeared to me, those colonist species seemed to create an environment which in the end would better support other species. I hope that makes sense… I don’t think I will quit my job and become an ecology teacher any time soon!
Anyway, the depth of my philosophical musings is this. With Climate Change – are we at risk of being the colonists? Are we creating an environment which over time will become uninhabitable for us, but more suited to other species? And, if we move to Ecocentrism, is that a way of saying it doesn’t matter if we wipe ourselves out, the earth will be better off without us and its just a natural process of succession? I don’t have those answers (maybe thats why Im not such a good philosophiser).
So back to the Tipping Point. We are obviously getting closer to it, but how do we make sure we have the right focus? Do we really need to move away from considering ourselves first, or is it better that we step up and take responsibility for our own emissions in order to combat this problem. Whatever our focus, we seem to be at a stage right now where there is a realisation Carbon Emissions are the cause of this problem. There are not many still arguing against that. Now we need to decide what the appropriate action is… and this is going to be the hard part.
We need to grow an environmental movement, that’s for sure. I think its too difficult to have people move away from a place where we consider ourselves first – that goes against our strongest instinct: survival. But we need a movement recognising that our culture of use and throw away, buy, buy, buy and grow our gross domestic product at all costs is not going to lead us anywhere but to our own extinction. But how can you make a movement like this carry? I want to own an Aston Martin DB9 one day… [quiet moment of reflection for me]… where was I? Oh, my point is – will people support an environmental movement that means they have to give up some of lifes little luxuries?
Can turning off our lights, taking public transport, not buying products covered in plastic, converting to renewable energy, having recycled rain water tanks for irrigation or using grey, or even blackwater and sacrificing having an Aston etc… really be the basis of something we can make fashionable to the extent that it becomes a movement. I hope so.
This week the UN Security Council held a debate on the impact of Climate Change on world peace and security. The topic was raised by Britain, who indicated that as this was an issue which would affect water, food production and land use; it was of a nature which could threaten peace.
As said by Margeret Beckett, the British foreign secretary (who coincidentally previously held the position of Britain’s negotiator on Climate Change) these threats to security will come from flooding, disease and famine leading to unprecedented migration; drought and crop failure intensifying competition for food, water and energy; and the potential for economic disruption on a scale not seen since World War II. [The “economic disruption” is a direct reference to the Stern Review, which I have discussed earlier in the Blog series in the Post "Climate Change reference materials". The Review predicts the effect of Climate Change on world GDP as being somewhere in the order of 90 billion: far outweighing the cost of responding to the threat of it, and akin to the effects of War.]
Regardless of dissent from China and Russia, who consider that the discussion of Climate Change encroaches on other areas of UN responsibility (and therefore was not a matter for the Security Council), General Ban Ki-moon, the UN Security General supported the notion that this was an important issue. He noted that Kofi Annan warned that "environmental degradation has the potential to destabilize already conflict-prone regions" and went on to say members should encourage ways to live sustainably within the planets means.
Climate Change will, without a doubt lead to increased competition on resources which will become increasingly strained (I don’t even want to think how much the price of my favourite wines will increase… back to the serious stuff). Resources and Politics have always been inextricably linked – today in Australia the Murray Darling Basin is in the spotlight as farmers are told they will not be able to irrigate their farms if it does not rain in the next 5 weeks.
But what about Resources and War? I am no history buff, by all means, but the winners in World War II were definitely those with access to one particular resource: Oil. Germany and Japan both lack domestic Oil fields. Germany looked to the Middle East and Russia for supply while Japan looked to the West Indies. Meanwhile, France and England were also shy of Oil, but managed to cosy up the US. Many military attacks were linked to supply of oil - in the first 5 months of WW II, 55 Oil tankers were sunk by U boats. Also, I have heard (but not sure about the validity of the comment) that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour was a strategic strike on US warships whose mission was to stop Japanese ships reaching Indonesia (thereby restricting the Japanese access to Oil).
Yes, interesting... but whats my point you ask? I guess my point is: is it appropriate for the UN Security Council to be considering this topic? [I note that they have previously considered HIV/Aids, and the impact on security] Is it that unbelievable that Climate Change, leading to shortages of food and water, could place enough pressure on the world to threaten security? Although Oil wasn’t the cause of WW II, it was definitely a factor. I imagine shortly we may see strategic alliances of nations securing supply of food and water… will it follow that this may lead to competition and eventually conflict? This remains to be seen I guess, but I dont consider it to be that much of a stretch of the imaginiation and am glad to see the UN Security Council being somewhat proactive in considering the issue.
Well, another exciting week in a warming world!
This week I attended the press conference for the release of the second installment of the IPCC's fourth assessment report: Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. (My first press conference! Don't know how I swung it actually, me working for a major commercial player and this being a media only event... must have smiled at the right person!). As with the last report, at this stage only the Summary for Policymakers has been released and is available from the IPCC website. Click here. It is anticipated the whole report will be released in September
[ Click here to read more ]
I am currently in New Zealand, and have had the opportunity to bump into a couple of drillers in my travels. These guys have drilled for Oil in various places in the world including Iraq, and also have drilled in the Arctic and Antarctic – Arctic for Oil I think and Antarctic for core samples.
So, we got into a discussion about how natural processes and how they create carbon dioxide, and if its produced naturally, why is it such a big deal if we are emitting it too. It is natural after all
[ Click here to read more ]
So... back to it. I do apologise for my slackness readers. What a time to be doing a climate change blog! So much going on, particularly with all the politics going on at the moment. Has anyone any thoughts on the new theory? I hear there has been a documentary in Britain which says that the rise in temperature preceded the rise in CO2 and therefore, the current temperature increases aren't linked to fossil fuels being burnt - check it out here. Any thoughts? I will definitely be doing some research into this, but would be interested to see if any of the readers have anything insightful to add.
So, last post (almost a month ago... I am so sorry), I introduced some of you to the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol is quite special, as it tries to use market mechanisms to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Essentially - it allows carbon trading
[ Click here to read more ]
In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (also called the Earth Summit) was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Earth Summit was a big deal! 5 conventions came out of the Summit including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – which is a treaty recording a non-binding commitment by the countries present to combat Climate Change through the reduction of Greenhouse Gases (GHG’s).
The treaty does not contain any limits or sanctions, but did contain the ability to create subsequent protocols containing limits. There have been numerous Conferences since the Earth Summit, the most well known of these being COP-3 (COP being the Conference of Parties) in Kyoto, as it gave us [drum roll please] the Kyoto Protocol
[ Click here to read more ]
Firstly, huge apologies to my readers. I had a last minute trip to Tasmania and unfortunately couldn’t update the site! There is good news though, Monday and Tuesday last week I attended the Sustainable Cities conference in Sydney and it has given me a lot of exciting insight and new ideas.
At the moment, I am trying to give you all a bit of background so I can start throwing some ideas around regarding emissions trading, and other proposed solutions to the climate crisis. As an aside, if you have not seen the Al Gore film – an inconvenient truth, or the website – climatecrisis.net, then I thoroughly recommend you check them out. The information presented is available in other places (I’m reading “the end of oil” at the moment – but its like reading a text book!). You can not underestimate the importance of presentation! It’s a great, easy way to receive the information in an exciting and digestible way
[ Click here to read more ]
There are 2 documents I will refer to a lot, so I thought it best I quickly introduce you to them and tell you where to find them
Firstly, the most important reference for the scientific basis behind Climate Change, and also for the link between Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases is: Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis, which was recently put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC have published previous reports making predictions about the physical effects of Climate Change, and the great thing about the latest report is that it compares the predictions made by the third assessment (published in 2001) with 6 years of research. Only the summary of the Fourth Assessment is currently available, with more comprehensive information being available in March. However, if you wish to delve into the predicted changes further I thoroughly recommend you review the third assessment. It is broken down into geographical regions and is easy to follow. It is available on the website http://www.ipcc.ch
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
|
Add Comments
Comments (2)
Read More
Comment by SaraJ
on Cool or be killed....
Will definitely be stopping by though and will throw some comments and ideas at you if you think it will help.
Sara