Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

ABC Still in Denial about History of Lower Murray and Estuary

By

‘Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated failures. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.

Those inspiring words are attributed to Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of the United States (1923-1929).

It’s easy to give up.  Particularly when you choose to take-on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.  But Bob F-J is no quitter.  Following is yet another letter from Bob F-J to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation complaining about their Media Watch program of March 19.  As Bob F-J explains in the following letter of complaint: Media Watch misled viewers by withholding critical facts.  In particular, Media Watch failed to inform the Australian public about the majority view of scientists on the nature of the Murray River estuary and failed to inform the Australian public of the history of the Lower Murray and its estuary…

[Read more…] about ABC Still in Denial about History of Lower Murray and Estuary

Really Reducing Emissions Would Mean Recession

By

In Australia we now have a carbon tax, to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. But I bet if there really was an across the board reduction in carbon emissions by industry the government would be complaining. Back in late 2008, when the price of oil plummeted, there was no celebrating the reduced energy usage anticipated by the reduction in demand. Rather everyone was complaining about the global financial crisis.

Indeed if our industries really curbed emissions it would be a sign production was slowing and the economy was going into recession.

What does the Australian Treasury really want: energy consumption or a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide? Given current technologies, economic growth necessarily means energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. The two are inextricably linked.

But go to the Australian Government’s Treasury website and look under carbon price and there is a message about how modelling shows that:

“The Australian economy and the global economy both continue to grow strongly at the same time as we cut pollution to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change”.

Look at Australia’s All Ordinaries index and it shows that the Australian share market has gone nowhere since August last year while some economists suggest that the recent sharp drop in the global base price of metals is a sign of a likely drop in global industrial production and the risk of recession – not economic growth.

It’s a strange business this preoccupation with climate change and desire to save the planet by way of a carbon tax. Carbon is the chemical element with symbol C and atomic number 6. Carbon is known to form almost ten million different compounds including the hardest naturally occurring substance the diamond. But more than this, carbon compounds form the basis of all known life on Earth. Carbon should not be equated with pollution – and neither should carbon dioxide that is the stuff trees breathe in.

The carbon tax is in fact a tax on energy imposed on several hundred of Australia’s most productive enterprises. Most of these enterprises will simply pass the additional cost onto the consumer. Meanwhile the Australian Treasury has already compensated many consumers by way of a one-off payment in anticipation of the carbon tax increasing their cost of living.

If the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, was really serious about us all reducing energy consumption he would surely provide no compensation for the increased costs associated with the tax. He would simply insist ordinary Australians pay more so they consume less.

Indeed if Mr Swan was serious about reducing emissions he would be wanting a global recession, or at least one in Australia so we could do our bit – show moral authority, lead the way in reducing emission etcetera.

What the Carbon Tax and ETS will Really Cost: Peter Lang

By

Tomorrow, July 1, Australia gets the carbon tax the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, promised she would never introduce.   The nation’s 500 “biggest polluters” will start paying a $23-a-tonne carbon price.

Retired geologist and engineer, Peter Lang, calculates what this tax, and the Emissions Trading Scheme to follow, will really cost Australians:

Introduction

Popularly called the ‘Carbon Tax’, the CO2 tax and ETS will cost us more than the government claims.  Initial costs will be relatively small – a ‘honeymoon rate’ – but an accelerating rate thereafter will soon create much higher costs.  Some people will be partly compensated for a while, but after that we will all pay the full costs.

Actual costs are not easily derived – much depends on assumptions and estimates.  From Treasury estimates, for instance, the cost will be more than $13,000 per person (every man woman and child), or more than $26,000 per worker, total to 2050 (in today’s dollars).

However, the costs will most likely be much higher.  Firstly, while the ‘honey-moon rate’ includes only the 500 largest emitters, all CO2 emitters will eventually be brought into the ETS to make the scheme work as planned.

Secondly, emissions will eventually have to be measured, not just crudely estimated as is done now.  Not only CO2, but all the other twenty-three Kyoto gasses, from all sources, will have to be included.  The compliance costs are not included in Treasury’s estimates (see The ultimate compliance cost for the ETS).  Therefore, the actual costs the ETS will impose on us will inevitably be higher than we are being led to believe.

Below I explain the calculations of:

  • the benefit (total to 2050)
  • the cost (total to 2050)
  • the benefit to cost ratio
  • the cost per capita and per worker

Lastly, I list the assumptions that underpin the estimate of the benefits.

The cost and benefit analysis figures I used as inputs are chosen from sources well respected for reliability and credibility. The figures and subsequent analysis tell us, in effect, that Australia is planning to spend $10 dollars for every $1 of benefit it hopes to derive – provided the assumptions about the consequences of AGW are correct.  This suggests that our climate policies are flawed and need major change.

[Read more…] about What the Carbon Tax and ETS will Really Cost: Peter Lang

Save the Carbon, Harvest the Forest?

By

Government policies across the world generally favour locking-up forests for carbon sequestration. But a new study by the NSW Government’s Department of Primary Industries suggests: Total greenhouse gas emissions abatement and carbon storage from a multiple use production forest exceed the carbon storage benefit of a conservation forest.

The report stresses that to quantify the climate change impacts of forestry, the entire forestry system should be considered: the carbon dynamics of the forest, the life cycle of forest products; the substitution benefit of biomass and wood products, the risk of leakage resulting from deforestation and forest degradation in other countries.

The study compares the overall greenhouse gas balance for two coastal harvested versus two conservation forests. The accounting method used shows that most of the savings for the harvested forests is in the area of “product substitution”; the idea being that substitution of wood through the use of cement, steel and aluminium creates emissions.

If you are interested in the crooked business of carbon accounting, or looking to justify the harvesting of forests for more fashionable reasons than economics, the report is worth a read:

Harvested forests provide the greatest ongoing greenhouse gas benefits. By Fabiano Ximenes et al. NSW Government, June 2012.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/434643/Harvested-forests-provide-the-greatest-ongoing-greenhouse-gas-benefits.pdf

Act Locally to Axe the Tax

By

Dear Supporters,

In the next few days we will be launching a poster campaign to coincide with the introduction of the Carbon TAX.

The campaign will consist of distributing this poster http://www.galileomovement.com.au/images/poster_campaign_800c.jpg to shops and business in your local area and asking them to display it prominently in their windows or notice boards.

We have chosen this method of communication as we think it will reach more people than will a letter box drop and needs less effort.

We need your help in two ways:

Firstly, you can request us to send you by mail between 1-5 posters for you to take to your local shops. (More if you are really confident)

Additionally, you are welcome to download and print your own copies and ask businesses to hang them in their front windows.

And secondly, we are looking for 100 supporters to donate $5.00 each to help cover the costs of printing and postage. (All money donated will go towards this campaign only).

Link to our Donations Page http://www.galileomovement.com.au/donations.php

A special big thank you to Steve Hunter who has allowed us to use his illustration.

If you have any questions, or want to show your support or order posters, please email us at Galileomovement@gmail.com

Thank you for your support!
The Galileo Movement

Rio+20 Was Different

By

‘APPARENTLY, the Rio + 20 Conference ended on Friday. The word apparently is used jokingly. Saturday’s headlines of both the New York Times and the Washington Post failed to include any mention of the closing of the conference. These “newspapers of record” focused on sensational sex trials instead. It seems the conference did not end as the editors wished. According to reports, the conference was tightly controlled by the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – particularly Brazil which headed the conference. The leaders of Brazil, India and China have made it clear that they will not punish their citizens by stopping economic growth. Russia needs revenues from exports of oil and gas to maintain its budget and government spending.

The conference was different than past conferences for several reasons. There was no grand announcement of Western governments committing huge sums to the governments of the third world. There were no political rock-stars flying in at the last moment to put a deal together. There were no all night sessions extending far beyond the scheduled close of the meeting.

The European ministers were disappointed in the failure for the world to adopt their agenda. The non-government organizations (NGOs) were largely locked out of the process of reaching an agreement, their demands were ignored. The disappointment, even despair, expressed by a number of environmental groups is indicative of the success of the BRIC countries.

Those in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), under whose auspices this conference was given, are no doubt disappointed that they will not have a $100 Billion a year Green Fund to manage. The leaders of some third world countries are no doubt disappointed they will not be receiving huge sums from the UNFCCC, dashing their hopes of expanding their Swiss bank accounts or obtaining that special villa in the south of France. But the conference gave some political leaders the opportunity to stay at a luxurious resort while preaching austerity for others. And the conclusion gives the opportunity for many ordinary citizens in the world to sigh with relief…

By Ken Haapala at www.sepp.org