Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for February 2007

Less Carbon, Less Kenyan Produce for Tesco

By

Flying airplanes generates a lot of greenhouse gas emissions. So, according to the global warming doomsayers we should endeavor to fly less. Indeed according to a recent article at Grist.org the Bishop of London has proclaimed that it is a sin to fly on holidays.

British supermarket chain Tesco has extended the logic to food. That is it’s going to restrict the importation of air freighted goods by half and introduce a system of carbon counting labeling.

Al Gore should approve.

But farmers in Kenya who have developed produce to meet Tesco’s previous environmental requirements are not so sure.

“What is global warming?”, asks Samuel Mauthike, a small scale vegetable farmer in Kenya.

“Is it something caused by us in Africa?”

According to same story at BBC News, Kenyan Jane Ngige has commented, “One minute we are talking about fair trade and market compliance, the next this is less of an issue and the issue is lessening the carbon footprint of the developed world possibly by cutting markets in Africa”.

Ah, the fickle nature of modern environmentalism!

New Open Renewable Not-For-Profit Energy Project: A Note from Robert Rohatensky

By

Hi Jennifer,

We are involved in a not-for-profit project to develop a system for clean, location independent and renewable electrical power generation that can be built from common materials.

The system design of the project is being managed in a not-for-profit and open manner and applies the same methodologies and principles that have made Linux and other Open Source Software projects such a success.

The information is presented here: http://www.energytower.org
We have some initial electrical and thermal output calculations of the system for various locations here:
http://www.energytower.org/index.html#Calculations

I believe that this project will create an implementable, economical, reliable and serviceable system. Although the entire project is being managed in a not-for-profit manner, the intent is to work with business.
The detailed design, manufacture of the sub-assemblies, construction, system operation and integration with existing operations and waste heat sources can have large economic benefits for the entire economy.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Rohatensky
Regina, Canada

Queensland Water for Southern Irrigators: The Bizarre Beattie-Bradfield Plan

By

Just 2 years ago the Queensland government passed the Wild Rivers Act 2005. It’s purportedly about preserving the natural values of wild rivers through regulating future development while maintaining grazing, fishing and eco-tourism. The bottom-line is that the legislation was championed by activists to stop the further development of irrigation in north Queensland.

The legislation is resented by many, who perceive double standards from the one government: a government which supports new dams and infrastructure development in south east Queensland, but introduces the first Act of its type in Australia to limit development in the north of the state.

But now to add insult to injury, the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, resurrects the 1920’s Bradfield plan and suggests water be diverted from north Queensland Rivers to the Murray Darling system and for irrigation.

So the Murray Darling Basin is short of water. Well it’s in drought and furthermore inflows to major rivers have been reducing because of bushfires, plantations and more efficient use of water on farm including recycling.

There has been lots of rain in northern Australia and it’s in northern Australia that most of our water falls.

But for a Queensland Premier to suggest that large sums of money be spent building the infrastructure and piping water south, while at the same time restricting development in the north of this own state. Well that’s un-Australian!

rainfall06_bom_summary.JPG

Rainfall for the Murray Darling Basin from 1900 to 2006

Professor Ian Lowe Wrong, But By Not Quite So Much

By

A couple of days ago I reported on a landmark decision in the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal. It was decided that operations at a coal mine in central Queensland could be expanded without any of the conditions sought by two environmental groups, inparticular that mining giant Xstrata avoid, reduce or offset the greenhouse gas emissions likely to result from the mining, transport and use of the coal from the mine.

The decision included comment from Tribunal President Koppenol that Professor Ian Lowe, an expert witness for the environment groups, had exaggerated greenhouse gas emissions by a factor of 218 in his evidence. Professor Lowe immediately hit back in comment to media claiming he had only got the facts wrong by a factor of 15.

I must say, this seems like rather a large amount!

A reader of this blog, Cinder (aka Alan Ashbarry) has done his own calculations and concludes the Professor overstated the emissions but by not quite as much as President Koppenol claimed:

Hi Jennifer,

The decision by the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal is supported by a well argued assessment of the merits of the development of this mining enterprise. It also critically examines the evidence presented on behalf of the Queensland Conservation Council by its ‘Expert Witnesses’.

Whilst not privy to the verbal presentation of the witnesses we can see that the written evidence may be confusing to many. QCC witness, Dr Hugh Saddler, first calculated the emissions from the mine’s operations, the transport of the coal and then the use of that coal. Dr Saddler then determines an annual figure and a total mine life’s figure. He does so by using his own methodology rather than the Australian Greenhouse Office that he states “this calculation of emissions yields a higher figure than would be the case if the default emission factor given in the AGO Factors and Methods Workbook were used.” Dr Saddler did not provide the AGO figure.

In Dr Saddler’s written evidence http://www.envlaw.com.au/newlands5.pdf the calculated total annual greenhouse emissions and the total greenhouse emissions were compared with Australia’s total greenhouse gas emission including Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. A similar comparison was made with Global Annual emission (excluding LULUCF).

Dr Saddler’s comment “The total greenhouse gas emissions from the mining, transport and use of the 28.5 Mt of coal from the 15 year life of the Project (84 Mt CO2-e) are, therefore, equivalent to approximately 0.24% of international annual greenhouse gas emissions based on 2000 levels of emissions (of 34 Gt CO2-e).” appeared in Professor Lowe’s written evidence as

“To put the potential release of CO2 from the proposed mine extension into context, the lifetime emissions from the proposed mine extension … about 0.24 per cent of the current annual global release of greenhouse gases.”

The Chair of the Tribunal correctly points out that this should only be an annual comparison, and correctly points out that the 0.24% figure is calculated on the 15 year life of the mine. However in his attempt to correct the evidence of Professor Lowe who used Dr Saddler’s figures the Tribunal appears to have divided the annual emissions by 15 rather than the total of 15 years output.

The Tribunal should have calculated 84 Mt divide 15 years = 5.6Mt to determine annual, then divide by 34 Gt equaling 0.0164%, an overstatement by 14.63 times.

Such an error is understandable given the number of equations, calculations and comparisons presented to the Tribunal, and whilst it changes the order of magnitude of the exaggeration, it still shows an exaggeration. The correct figure still agrees with the conclusion that the mine’s annual contribution to annual global GHG emissions was “very small”.

The Tribunal also could have added the LULUCF figure of about 8Gt to the global annual figure or excluded the estimated 5.5 Mt per annum usage figure as it could have been argued that coal from another source would be used, thus this mine would not have a net impact on global use of coal.

Excluding the use of the coal, the mine’s operation and the transport of the coal is in the order of 0.1 Mt each year or 0.0003% of yearly Global emissions

It would appear that the expert evidence, by including comparisons of life time emissions and annual emission, has created a mathematical dilemma that is not easily understood by the lay person, and takes more than a 15 second grab on TV to explain.

This appears to be identical to the tactics employed by the Wilderness Society in Tasmania when they apply mathematical comparisons to official government figures in the forest debate, such as comparing today’s old growth forest to the area that estimated to have existed in the year 1750 even though the forest in 1750 was of all ages, and only a percentage would have been considered “Old Growth”.

The word “Statistics” can be found in a well known phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularised by Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

As Wikipedia says this semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.

Cheers, Cinders

Government to Ban Incandescent Light Bulbs

By

Australia’s Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull MP, today announced the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs.

He said, “A normal light bulb is too hot to hold – that heat is wasted and globally represents millions of tonnes of CO2 that needn’t have been emitted into the atmosphere if we had used more efficient forms of lighting.”

“These more efficient lights, such as the compact fluorescent light bulb, use around 20 per cent of the electricity to produce the same amount of light.”

“A compact fluorescent light bulb can last between 4 and 10 times longer than the average incandescent light bulb, which can lead to major savings in household energy costs.”

So why not just run some advertisements? Why ban the old technology?

According to the media release the banning will save on average 800,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per year during the 2008-2012 period. Given annual emissions are predicted to be about 603 million tonnes each year for this period then we are looking at a saving of 0.13 percent of total annual emissons.

Other abatement measures are predicted to save a total of 35.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

energy abatement measures.JPG
from http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/projections/pubs/stationaryenergy2006.pdf

Tribunal Rules against Global Warming Hysteria

By

The Queensland Conservation Council and Mackay Conservation Group objected to the expansion of a coal mine in central Queensland, in particular they claimed that there would be an adverse environmental impact unless conditions were imposed such that it was to, “… avoid, reduce or offset the emissions of greenhouse gases that are likely to result from the mining, transport and use of the coal from the mine.”

The objection was brought in the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal with The Decision handed down last Thursday.

Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe AO was an expert witness and indicated the over the life of the mine it would contribute to the cumulative impacts of global warming to the extent that it would add the equivalent of 0.24 percent to current annual global emissions.

The President of the Tribunal, Mr Koppenol, suggested it more appropriate to compare annual global emissions with annual output of the mine and that the figure was thus 0.001098 percent and that Professor Lowe’s figure was 218 times too high.

The other expert witness for the environment groups Mr Jon Norling relied heavily on the finding of the British Government’s 2006 ‘Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change’ and also the assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The President of the Tribunal again found evidence of exaggeration noting in the judgment that Mr Norling converted Sir Nicholas Stern’s ‘if’ to ‘when’ with reference to sea level rise.

Interestingly, the President, took it upon himself to read up not only on the Stern Review but also the latest IPCC summary, and also avail himself of the recent published critique of ‘The Stern Review: A Dual Critique’ * by Professor Robert Carter et al and Proessor Sir Ian Byatt et al.

President Koppenol noted in his decision that the Carter-Byatt critique of the Stern Review concluded that it was scientifically flawed and a vehicle of speculative alarmism and not a basis for informed or responsible policies.

In defending his decision to make reference to these documents, President Koppenol noted that the Tribunal is empowered by statute to inform itself of anything in the way it considers appropriate and that having become aware of these papers and regarding them as relevant, “it would have been in appropriate for me to have just ignored them”.

The final recommendation in The Decision by President Koppenol was for the expansion of the Xstrata coal mine to go ahead without any of the conditions sought by the environmental groups.

How refreshing it is to read a document from someone in a position of authority and to see that all the evidence has been considered.

—————-
* Update: It has been suggested to me by email that this link does not work and that a better link to the critique is here
http://www.katewerk.com/temp/sda_WE.pdf .