Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Australian solar town

Australian Town Expects to Go Fully Solar in 2 Years

by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 11. 5.07

Science & Technology

Already the proud record holder for having Australia's hottest day - 53°C in 1889 (in the shade, to boot) - Cloncurry is vying to become one of the first towns to be fully powered by solar energy in 2 years. The Queensland state government plans on building a 10-MW solar thermal power station that will derive its energy from heat stored in Cloncurry's ubiquitous graphite blocks.

Eight thousand mirrors will be set up as part of the station to reflect sunlight onto the blocks - whose heat will then generate steam from the water pumped through. The steam will be harnessed to produce electricity via turbines. Graphite's superior ability to store heat for lengthy periods of time will enable the production of electricity even after the sun goes down.

The government estimates the station will be able to deliver close to 30 million kW hours of electricity per year when it starts operating in early 2010, which should be enough to supply the entire town. Granted, the town's small size certainly takes some of the edge off this ambitious statement; it is still, however, a laudable achievement (assuming it reaches completion) and hopefully only the beginning of what solar thermal power will accomplish.

Via ::Reuters: Australian town to run on solar power in 2 years (news website)

Tips on green lifestyle guides by Treehugger

Here's where the rubber meets the road, people.

We present below, a plethora of handy guides to help you green your lives with ease, while understanding why. Our aim is over 100+ guides so do come back to visit. And please tell your friends, family and colleagues! Most of us understand that we need to do something, some of us understand what to do but few of us are actually doing anything...Carpe diem kids!
Pick one and let's get started!

* How To Green Your Summer
* How to Green Your Carbon Offsets
* How to Green Your Book (for Publishers)
* How to Green Your Gardening
* How to Go Green: Back To Basics
* How to Green Your Outdoor Sports
* How to Green Your Book (for Authors)
* How to Green Your Kids' Toys
* How to Green Your Community
* How To Green Your Accessories
* How to Green Your Baby
* How To Green Your Wedding
* How To Green Your Electronics
* How to Green Your Pet
* How to Green Your Sex Life
* How to Green Your Coffee & Tea
* How To Green Your Dishwasher
* How to Green Your Recycling
* How to Green Your Cleaning
* How to Green Women's Personal Care
* How to Green Your Furniture
* How to Green Your Work
* How to Green Your Water
* TreeHugger's Green Gift Guide 2006
* How to Green Your Gifts
* How to Green Your Lighting
* How to Green Your Electricity
* How To Green Your Car
* How To Green Your Wardrobe
* How to Green Your Heating
* How to Green Your Meals
* How to Green Your Public Transportation

Ahhh...that feels better.

Thanks for reading! Please send feedback or tips to tips at treehugger dot com.
Team TreeHugger

http://www.treehugger.com/gogreen.php

http://tinyurl.com/28aveb

Mower lower emissions

home + garden

Use Electric, Human-Powered Yard Tools

Photo credit: bert_m_b

A significant way of reducing global-warming pollution in your backyard is to avoid using gas-powered motorized yard tools such as lawnmowers and leaf blowers. More fuel is spilled each year filling up garden equipment than was lost in the entire Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Meanwhile, mowing an average 1 1/4-acre lawn produces more air pollution than driving a 1995 pickup truck from Washington D.C. to New York and back again.

Small engines also emit an inordinate amount of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides, all of which contribute health-damaging smog. Instead of adding to the air and noise pollution in your neighborhood, wield lower-emissions electric tools—or, better yet, zero-pollution manual tools, such as reel push mowers, hand trimmers, and rakes.

If you're fretting about the hassle, consider planting low-maintenance turf grasses that grow slowly and require mowing only a few times of year, as well as native wildflowers and plants that require little-to-no maintenance after planting. Tip: Check with your local agricultural service or lawn-and-garden center to find out what species are appropriate to your region.

Difficulty level: Easy to moderate

by Jasmin Malik Chua, Jersey City, USA
on 11. 5.07

Sustainability in the suburbs

My favourite and most worrying conundrum.How do I live a sustainble lifestyle within the context of the suburb that I live in and with the resources available to me including time,community and finances.What are the changes I want to make and based upon what premises.Is it to limit our consumption and production or contributing to the greenhouse gas problem through excessive use of carbon/co2/greenhouse gas based or produced electricity or goods?Or is it something bigger...important as this task is to tackle individually and as a suburb /conscious community.At what end to start and where do I want to end up?The amount of changes seem daunting and sometimes hard to put into a meaningful global context to see how they are working to lower emissions .Yet still I have to start somewhere with this lifestyle change (and journey with my partner as well)...which in many ways has many aspects and benefits that we dont ordinarily think of.I also realise that my simplification efforts and cost lowering and conscience relieving ,has already had a start with the way we try to limit and control our consumption for more spiritual and financial reasons...eg things like using hand mowers...recycling clothes,not being rabid consumerist buyers of everything new,buying spray free and organics....these all are an aspect of the sustainable life...its where they sit and piece together whcih is sometimes confusing.What about work?

Sustainability in the suburbs

Friday, September 21, 2007

Unions and Climate Change

Climate Change

CFMEU and ACF unite for action on climate change

Date: 11-Sep-2007

In a rare convergence of interests, the mining union and environmentalists have collaborated to call for urgent Government action on climate change.

With climate change set to be a critical federal election campaign issue, the CFMEU Mining and Energy division and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) said strong, urgent action on climate change would be good for jobs, the economy and the environment.

ACF Executive Director Don Henry and General President of the CFMEU mining and energy division, Tony Maher, today called for Government and Opposition to commit to:

1 Set science-based, legislated targets to cut greenhouse emissions
2 Substantially increase the existing mandatory renewable energy target
3 Join the international effort by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol before the end of 2007

“It’s taken an issue as pressing and potentially devastating as climate change to get ACF and the CFMEU to stand together on the same platform,” said ACF’s Don Henry.

“Strong binding targets, guided by the best available science, are vital if we are going to protect future generations from dangerous climate change. Australia can show leadership by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol before the end of this year – and encouraging the USA to do the same. Australia is missing out on billions of dollars because it hasn’t ratified.”

“Emissions trading will not be enough on its own to drive the scale of investment that is necessary to clean up our energy economy and address the threat of dangerous climate change,” said the CFMEU’s Tony Maher.

“A regulatory mechanism is essential to secure sufficient investment. Substantially increasing the mandatory renewable energy target will lower average emissions – it’s critical and it’s supported by mineworkers.

“The Government’s decade of denial and inaction is the real threat to coal miners job security. The coal industry is going to have to clean up its act if it is going to have a future in a low carbon economy. That means billions of dollars of investment by mining companies in new technologies. We’re ten years behind where we should be.”

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Green News Links in Australia

It is often hard to focus on good green news in the general media and some of the suggested sites are good value especially in relation to Australian concerns and their impacts globally.

Another site worth a look in regard to news on many aspects of the climate change and sustainability issue is the following ; http://www.plantchange.com/au/

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Another Western Australian Family Company Bought

"In a move perhaps motivated by a realisation that the company needed greater perspective and better resourcing beyond just a localised base and parochial attitude TCC Group a predominantly family based company was sold to international oil and gas services provider Cape Plc.The changes that this will bring in regrd to change management/organisational change will be interesting to say the least.To have to have sold to an overseas company is perhaps sad in the sens e that it no longer is a purely western australian owned and operated company but one controlled and based ultimately in the UK.Implications for sustainability devlopment/approaches and health and safety perspectives and fit will be intertesting to see as well.The company goes from approximately 700 workers to connecting with a company that has 8000 workers in 24 countries.similarity in activities is one fit the company has ..but cultures will of course still have to be merged and evolve/be managed effectively to gain the best out of such a deal.Lets hope for the best."

[q url="http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/56085/UK-s-Cape-buys-TCC-from-Iannello-family-for-85m"]Sunday August 26, 2007

Print Email

UK's Cape buys TCC from Iannello family for $85m

23-August-07 by Mark Pownall

Sunday, August 19, 2007

10 kinds of people: Sustainable practitioners and the guzzlers

An interesting article from Computing for Sustainability.It takes some interesting perspectives and reflections upon sustainbility as a lifestyle choice that at times needs focus and clarification.It cites also the importance of education.

url="http://computingforsustainability.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/10-kinds-of-people-sustainable-practitioners-and-the-guzzlers/"]10 kinds of people: Sustainable practitioners and the guzzlers

Posted by Samuel Mann under CfS_Agenda , CfS_Agenda4-CurrentStatus , Education for Sustainability , curriculum , sustainability , ethics , research

The world is made up of 10 kinds of people: those who are sustainable practitioners and those who aren’t (OK, old computing joke). Suggesting that there are only two groups is clearly far too simplistic, but we need to know where people are so that we can work with them for the better.

The fourth item on the CfS Agenda is to work towards an understanding of current levels of sustainability:

4. Develop an understanding of the current status of sustainability (values, awareness, knowledge, skills & behaviours) of all our stakeholders (students, intake, stakeholders, staff, graduates, professional/trade connections and our respective Iwi partners).

How might we describe people’s sustainabilityness as a basis for computing education for sustainability? What matters is both perceptions and actions. The Accountability21 report identified that the majority of people recognised the issue (in that case of climate change), but didn’t know what actions to take (my review).

In Integral Communications for Sustainability Barrett C. Brown describes five ecological selves. He then describes different methods of communicating with these groups. The “EcoGuardian”, for example can be described as:

Eco-Guardian, romantic ethos, respects Nature; return to lost ecological, paradise; “tribal”

their ‘hot buttons’ in successful communication are:

Refer to traditional rituals, ceremonies, icons; reference mystical elements, superstitions, magic; appeal to extended family, harmony, and safety; honor blood bonds, the folk, the group, taboos; rely little on written language and facts; use storytelling, emotions, drama, songs, dances, imaginative 2D images

The “Eco-Warrior” by contrast can be described as

Eco-Warrior heroic ethos, Conquer Nature; reject civilization; fight “the system”; macho

and is excited by:

Demonstrate “What’s in it for me, now?”; offer “Immediate gratification if…”; challenge and appeal to machismo/strength; point out heroic status and legendary potential; be flashy, unambiguous, reality-based, and strong; use simple language and fiery images/ graphics; appeal to narcissistic tendencies

In a different approach, although old, Dunlap and Van Liere’s (1978) New Environmental Paradigm is widely used. This environmental attitude survey essentially seeks to establish the extent to which people agree with this set of statements:

# We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.

# The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

# Humans have the right to modify the natural environment.

# Humankind was created to rule over the rest of nature.

# When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.

# Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans.

# To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a “steady state” economy where industrial growth is controlled.

# Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive.

# The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.

# Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs.

# There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand.

# Mankind is severely abusing the environment.

What is not clear is how these attitudes are related to a person’s professional roles and actions.

We need to develop a measure that can be widely applied (to students and other stakeholders) in order to drive CfS curriculum planning. In addition to getting a scope of actual curriculum areas (Green RFPs, Energy management and so on), we need to come to an understanding of people’s perceptions regarding sustainability. Once we have a feel for the characteristics of groups of our student body we can sensibly address their learning.

This means we need a system to investigate understanding of sustainability, beliefs about sustainability, current actions and change agents, understanding about the role of sustainability in their future careers. As part of this, we need to consider current understandings of discipline specific areas - what, for example can we assume about naive understandings of ethical priorities.

What else do we need?

One Response to “10 kinds of people: Sustainable practitioners and the guzzlers”

1. c! Says:

August 5, 2007 at 9:14 am

> What else do we need?

We need educators themselves to take such an environmental attitude survey and consider what it means for their own ability to teach certain things. While sustainability as a concept may not be inherently pluralistic, there is a tremendous plurality of people pushing a huge variety of methods to reach sustainability. Some of these are undoubtedly mutually exclusive, and I would expect to see the same problems extend to education unless there is some serious soul-searching and consensus among educators at a large scale.

[/q]

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Sustainability Auditing,Coaching and definitions

In the ongoing discussions I have with many workers and employees,consultants working in the broadly catered for area of sustainability there is still much gettoising and narrow viewing of sustainability practices and indeed trying to not make transversalist connections and solidarities, but fragmenting artificially off sectors,industries and connections to green politics,art and other 'balanceing' and overall justice making activities.This is not helpful because the concept of sustainability though vague at times,covering and being used as a deceptive blanket at times for imperfect approaches...can be used as a unifying and solidarity/collaboration making banner to open and involve many conceptually linked root children and branches of the core striven values of sustainability..., if only the values can be seen expressed ,clarified and doors open to them in the various sectors.

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Deep Green in the US elections?

''Who would have thought that in such a conservative state of politics that in the USA such a candidate would arise .I suppose the extreme state of USA politics can breed such responses. How popular a reading and support he will get will be interesting to follow.I have 'nt seen any equivalent statements by any of our local Australian politicians in the green arena made public as yet...though I am sure there are those with many sympathetic ears and eyes for this sort of belief.We will see what impact he has on USA politics and defacto Australia as this person gets more coverage."

Kucinich on the Record
An interview with Dennis Kucinich about his presidential platform on energy and the environment
By Amanda Griscom Little
01 Aug 2007
Read more about: climate | Dennis Kucinich | elections | energy | politics | presidential race 08 | all of these topics
Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS | share/bookmark(less)
Share: digg | hugg | stumbleupon | reddit | newsvine | fark | facebook
Bookmark: del.icio.us | google | yahoo
Grist and Outside
This is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.
Dennis Kucinich
Dennis Kucinich.
Photo: SEIU via flickr

He may be eating the front-runners' dust in the polls, but among deep-green voters, Dennis Kucinich is considered a trailblazer. A Democratic U.S. rep from Cleveland, Ohio, Kucinich is calling for a radical overhaul of the U.S. government and economy -- one that infuses every agency in the executive branch with a sustainability agenda, phases out coal and nuclear power entirely, and calls on every American to ratchet down their resource consumption and participate in a national conservation program.

A vegan who counts Ralph Nader among his heroes, Kucinich doesn't exactly embody the sensibility of the average American. He says his commitment to sustainability "extends to everything I am and do" -- from the food he eats and clothes he wears to the policies he espouses. It's the same progressive platform that made him a darling of the far left when he ran for president in 2004. Will it take him any further this time around?

I reached Kucinich by phone at his home in Ohio.

For more info on his platform and record, check out Grist's Kucinich fact sheet.

question Why should voters consider you the strongest green candidate?

answer Because mostly our candidates aren't going to be able to do anything about the underlying issues that threaten our environment. Many of the candidates -- Edwards, Obama, and Clinton -- are heavily funded by hedge funds on Wall Street, which are driven by a psychology of short-term profits and investments. And with candidates taking that kind of money from those interests, it defies belief that they're going to be in a position to take this country in the direction it needs to be taken.

question What sets your green platform apart from the rest?

answer As president of the United States, I'm going to shift the entire direction of America. We need to see the connection between global warring and global warming, and it's oil. Sustainability is the path to peace. And I'm the only true peace candidate in this election. So peace means being in harmony with nature. If you're in harmony with nature, you don't exploit nature. You don't ruin the land, you don't extract the oil, you don't take the coal out of the earth.

My underlying philosophy is a green philosophy. It means that I'm looking at a total reorganization of the federal government to create a cooperative and synergistic relationship between all departments and administrations for the purpose of greening America.

question You propose, for instance, the Works Green Administration.

answer The Works Green Administration harkens back to the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the Works Progress Administration, where he put millions of people back to work rebuilding America's infrastructure. I too have an infrastructure-rebuilding program which will put millions of people back to work. Picture this: You take every area of involvement in the federal government -- whether it's the Small Business Administration, or the Housing and Urban Development Department, or the Department of Agriculture, or the Department of Labor. Each would incorporate green goals. We'd have billions of dollars loaned to the states at zero interest for green development programs, we'd have programs furthering green housing, agricultural policies would relate to green.

question Do you think Americans are ready to answer the call to conserve?

answer Of course they are, they're just waiting for leadership, and it has to come from somebody who's not tied to any of these interest groups, or is worried about whether he's going to offend a contributor. And so, yes, I think people know that their future's at stake.

What I intend to do as president is to call for that instinct which is within every person for not just survival but to be able to thrive. We need to make the connection between prosperity and sustainability. And it also means we have to turn toward peace. We have to stop warring, because war is ecocide, war destroys the environment. And so I'm going to call forth the people of this country for a whole new direction. I think America's not just ready for it, it's overdue and people know that.

I will also ask the American people to participate in a grand and great conservation effort. Imagine if tens of millions of homes suddenly had an awareness that when you don't need the electricity, don't flip the switch. That you use only the water that you need and you don't use any more, you don't let the faucet run.

question Do you believe that we need a carbon tax in addition to a cap-and-trade program, or neither, or both?

answer We need to do whatever we can do to create disincentives for the use of carbon-based energy. But that's not enough. Carbon-based taxes alone won't cut it, because some people may be willing to pay an extra tax to use something that's bad for the environment. Inevitably we need a requirement to move away from all carbon-based technologies, and to fund fully all alternative-energy research that is in harmony with the environment.

question So you would propose a strict cap on carbon emissions, a carbon tax, and a massive government-supported plan to promote renewable technologies?

answer Yes, but I'd want to put the emphasis first on the government supporting renewable technologies. A tax could reflect the full cost to society of certain types of energy. But the answer is not simply punishing those people who are using carbons. You have to do everything you can to move people toward renewable energy.

question You've been calling for years for a renewable portfolio standard that would have the U.S. get 20 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2010. Now that 2010 is around the corner, what sort of RPS plan would you implement as president?

answer Well, obviously we've lost the advantage of that particular time frame. For the next time frame, I think we could set something by 2020 and look to 30 or 40 percent. But that means we're talking about a very sharp turnaround here.

question How would you shift the utility industry toward renewables, toward this whole new paradigm?

answer One of my proposals is to have millions of homes with wind and solar technologies, and people can sell energy back to the grid. The role of utilities will change dramatically because it's not going to be a centralized approach toward energy production. They'll have to figure out different ways that they might be able to provide support for green alternatives. I want to see, eventually, all the homes in this country have the option of that technology. In turn, you can create millions of jobs building alternative technologies.

question Would nuclear power play any role in your energy policy as president?

answer Nuclear has to be phased out. The hidden costs of nuclear are enormous -- of building these plants and storing the waste forever. It's not financially or environmentally sustainable.

question Nuclear makes up 20 percent of America's electricity supply. What would you replace this with?

answer You don't want to leave a gap in our energy needs, but at the same time, with a program of conservation and movement toward alternative energy, we can begin phasing out nuclear.

question What about coal, the source of more than half of our electricity supply? Would you phase that out, or do you believe in the promise of advanced coal technologies?

answer No, coal has to be phased out. In the same way that the Department of Agriculture for years was paying some farmers not to grow, I think we can get to the point of paying coal miners not to mine. Why should the miners have to suffer from the lack of foresight of our energy policies? That's something that I intend to address in my Works Green Administration.

question The electric utility industry would argue that such a massive shift would pass along huge rate hikes to consumers. How would you protect Americans from these expenses?

answer We do not need to be held hostage by the utility industry. I'm not someone who's going to roll over when these utility industries issue their threats. We're going to break up the monopolies in utilities, that's No. 1. No. 2, these utilities are going to be closely regulated for their activities. No. 3, they're going to be required to go green as license conditions. No. 4, they're going to be closely monitored and shut down if they violate the Clean Air Act. We're going to have a very aggressive EPA, and utilities are not going to be dictating energy costs. I don't mind working with them, I don't mind moving toward areas where they can be cooperative in protecting the environment, but they're not going to run energy policy.

question But such a transition would create huge costs. How would you pay for them?

answer It pays for itself. See, the whole idea about sustainability is that you conserve, you save, and then you use the savings for other things. However, where we need financial incentives, this is where the government can play a major role in putting money into circulation for the production of these [green] products, and to put people to work. Roosevelt understood in the '30s that there were things he had to do to move the economy. And I understand what we need to do to move the economy in a green direction.

question Do you support subsidies for ethanol or other gasoline alternatives, like biodiesel?

answer I don't know about subsidies. I think those technologies are transitional to fuel-cell technology. I wouldn't want to create incentives to lock us into usages that are not where we ultimately want to go. And there is a serious issue with ethanol and its impact on food supplies.

question Many argue that the U.S. shouldn't commit to a global greenhouse-gas reduction target that doesn't involve China and India. Do you agree, and how would you bring them to the table?

answer First of all, as president, I'm going to let the rest of the world know that the days of America trying to be a nation above nations is over. We have to quit trying to dominate other countries, and we have to step out of our isolation and into the brotherhood and sisterhood of all people. I think the world is ready for an American president who puts the sword down, so that nations won't have to spend a tremendous amount of their resources trying to prepare for war.

We have to be ready to take the lead, but we need to have harmony with other nations. As president, I intend to work with the leaders of China and India and other nations to promote an environmental consciousness and sustainable economies. I will use trade as a vehicle to try to raise the level of living for all people, and environmental sustainability must be the watchword. All of our trade agreements must have within them requirements for protecting the air and the water and the land of all the countries we do business with.

question After climate and energy, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing the nation?

answer Agriculture -- the way we grow our food -- and we really need to make sure that we protect our water supply. These issues are closely tied to each other.

question Who is your environmental hero?

answer Oh, I have many. Thomas Berry, whose book The Great Work talked about how our great work in life is to achieve a real harmony with the environment. I think Lester Brown has done some incredible work on raising the consciousness of people. Amory Lovins has done some excellent work, and I think Ralph Nader has pointed to a lot of the environmental implications of corporate conduct and trade laws. And John Robbins has been so incredible in his awareness of the impact of the food we eat on our environment.

question What was your most memorable wilderness or outdoor adventure?

answer As a child, we lived in the city, we moved around a lot. But there was one place we lived, above railroad tracks, and on the other side of the tracks was this vast acreage called "the gulley" that was created with the blasting of the railroad. It had these huge rock piles and vegetation everywhere and it almost looked prehistoric. It was a place that I would go to often and find solitude and be able to just think. So much of my own life has been connected with a desire to be close to nature, to be close to the water, to be close to green.

question If you could spend a week in one natural area of the U.S., where would it be?

answer I would say somewhere in northern Maine. The whole state is beautiful, but northern Maine is just extraordinary, and I've seen all 50 states. I also love Maui.

question What do you do to lighten your environmental footprint?

answer My philosophy of life extends to everything I am and do. If I say I'm for peace, I'm for peace in the kind of products that I use, in the kind of shoes that I wear, and in terms of the clothes that I wear, in terms of my eating habits. I'm always thinking in terms of sustainability. That's the way I live. I live in a small house and we're very conscious of our energy usage. I drive an American car, a Ford Focus, but it's one of the highest fuel-economy cars.

I've been living an essentially vegan lifestyle since 1995, and that has led me to a condition of extraordinary health and clarity. Now, I'm not, as president, going to tell everyone what they have to eat, but I will share my own story about how the choices that I've made have meant, for myself, a better life, and a happier life. I'm 60 years old, but I'll bet that I'm in better physical shape than a lot of people a lot younger.

question If George Bush were a plant or an animal, what kind of plant or an animal would he be?

answer I don't want to go there.

question Fair enough. Would you spin it around on yourself? If you were a plant or animal, what kind would you be?

answer An eagle.

question How so? Truly American?

answer No. Keenness of vision.

Read more about: climate | Dennis Kucinich | elections | energy | politics | presidential race 08 | all of these topics

Amanda Griscom Little writes about environmental politics and interviews green luminaries for Grist. She is a contributing editor for Outside magazine, and her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/08/01/kucinich/index.html?source=daily

http://tinyurl.com/2yceqf

Monday, July 09, 2007

Desert dump is no answer to nuclear weapons problem

MEDIA RELEASE

July 2, 2007

Desert dump is no answer to nuclear weapons problem

The Arid Lands Environment Centre in Alice Springs says promoting Australia
as the world’s nuclear waste dump is not the answer to the problem of
nuclear weapons and terrorism.

The call follows reports in the Australian newspaper (2/7/07) that former US
ambassador Robert Gallucci is advocating Australia as a potential global
radioactive waste dump to address proliferation concerns.

“The best way to ensure nuclear materials do not end up in weapons is by
stopping the mining and exporting of uranium and getting serious about
nuclear disarmament,” said Natalie Wasley, the Beyond Nuclear Initiative
campaigner at ALEC.

“A desert dump cannot be touted as the answer to securing nuclear weapons
material when Australia is still exporting uranium to countries not
complying with their disarmament obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty”.

Ms Wasley says any plans for an international dump would be met with strong
resistance around the country. “The plan for a federal dump in the Territory
is strongly opposed by targeted communities, the NT Government, national
environment groups and many citizens”.

“The current waste dump plan is already failing due process in the search to
secure a site and there is little confidence that any international waste
dump would be based on community consultation or have any regard for
environmental, social and cultural concerns.

"Despite the rhetoric of Australia being the most geologically suitable
location for a dump one of the proposed sites , Muckaty station north of
Tennant Creek, is within a seismically active zone”.

“From the outset, the communities targeted for the Federal dump were
concerned that an NT dump would be expanded to host high level international
materials,” said Ms Wasley. “It is time for the government to come clean on
its full plans for radioactive waste.”

Opposition from Australian states to the federal radioactive dump means it
is highly unlikely they would welcome an international one. “Once again it
would be remote and indigenous communities in the Territory who are forced
to take the toxic waste – this time from around the world. The federal
government’s plan is the thin edge of a radioactive wedge and we will not
sit back and let this happen”.

Contact: Natalie Wasley 0429 900 774
------

Beyond Nuclear Initiative
Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC)
John Cumming Plaza, 67 Todd Mall
PO box 2796,
Alice Springs, NT
Australia 0871
ph: (61) 08 8952 2011
mobile : 0429 900 774
email: natwasley@alec.org.au

Sustainable Seafood – Towards an Ocean Wise Australia!

Marine

Sustainable Seafood – Towards an Ocean Wise Australia!

Canadian chef Robert Clark

+

Canadian chef Robert Clark

The Australian Conservation Foundation is developing a new and exciting sustainable living initiative called Ocean Wise Australia.

Based on the successful Canadian Ocean Wise program launched by Vancouver Aquarium, Ocean Wise Australia aims to increase the awareness of Australian seafood consumers regarding sustainable seafood.

Leading Canadian chef Robert Clark recently brought the sustainability message to Australia in March as guest of the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Melbourne Food and Wine Festival.

As executive chef at Canada's leading seafood restaurant, C Restaurant in Vancouver, Robert Clark believes that he not only has to be responsible about the food choices he makes but that he can also inspire change in the industry. “As chefs, our job is not only about serving great tasting food, but encouraging our staff and our guests to learn how to get sustainably produced food to the table” said Clark.

Recent reports reveal the number of overfished Australian fish species has increased 8-fold over the past decade, highlighting the urgent need to better protect Australia’s oceans. “Unfortunately, overfished species like orange roughy and swordfish are still finding their way onto Australian dinner tables” said Chris Smyth, ACF’s Marine Campaign Coordinator.

International marine scientists predict that if current seafood practices continue, the world’s fisheries could collapse in less than 50 years. Couple this with the impacts from fisheries catching non targeted species (by-catch) and seabed trawling, water pollution, marine pests, habitat damage, ocean-based aquaculture and climate change – and a clear picture emerges that Australia’s ocean life is under increasing pressure.

However, Seafood that is sourced within the natural limits of the marine environment and with minimal damage to marine habitats can be called ‘sustainable seafood’. By working with restaurants and their diners, Ocean Wise will help maintain the variety and abundance of seafood in Australia and promote healthy oceans used in a sustainable way.

The Ocean Wise Australia program will provide the opportunity for the Australian restaurant industry to choose sustainable seafood menu items, while recognizing its ongoing commitment to excellence and progressive business practices.

The Ocean Wise Australia menu assessment program will also give restaurants the confidence to improve the sustainability of their menus, at a pace that suits the individual business, and will promote and reward their efforts in doing so.

“The decisions each of us make when we purchase seafood have a real impact on the health of our ocean life and fisheries. This is where the restaurant industry can play a vital leadership role and help reverse the trends” said Smyth.

Ocean Wise Australia is currently in the development stage as we are still seeking funding for this program. If you would like more information on how you could support this sustainable seafood initiative please contact Mark Thomas 03 9345 1148 or m.thomas@acfonline.org.au

Source: acfonline.org.au

Monday, June 25, 2007

Labour Policy and Water

'' An interesting article citing the new Australian labour party policy to encourage the use of and fund recycling of water initiatives as well as focussing on promoting the use of water tanks especially in the eastern states of Australia''

Rivers and Water
Rainwater tanks, greywater and recycling
Ecomanage tanks
+
Ecomanage tanks

Date: 25-Jun-2007

The Australian Conservation Foundation has welcomed the announcement by Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd that a federal Labor Government would subsidise the installation of rainwater tanks or greywater plumbing for up to 500,000 households.

“Rainwater tanks and better use of greywater are important pieces of any plan to secure urban water in Australia,” said ACF executive director Don Henry.

“Rainwater tanks are a cost-effective and efficient way of storing water – the water in rainwater tanks does not evaporate like it does from dams. Rainwater tanks don’t work everywhere, but they have great potential in many parts of Australia.

“While 38 per cent of Adelaide households have a rainwater tank, fewer than 6 per cent of the houses in Melbourne, Sydney and South-East Queensland do.

A study conducted for ACF earlier this year found 65 per cent of the houses in Sydney, 73 per cent of the houses in South-East Queensland and 72 per of the houses in Melbourne have potential for a rainwater tank.

Mr Henry also commended the Federal Government on its announcement of a water reclamation plant for Geelong, in Victoria, that should save 2,000 megalites of drinking water a year and reduce the amount of wastewater than runs out to the ocean.

“As climate change dries out many parts of Australia, governments must be looking at bold and innovate ways to help people catch the rainwater that falls on their roofs and make better use of greywater and recycled water.

“I would urge the Federal Government to engage much more strongly with the states on urban water solutions and I would urge bi-partisan support for a major federal initiative, in cooperation with the states, to dramatically cut energy and water waste and achieve sustainable cities.”
Print
Source: acfonline.org.au

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Links Of Interest

Monday, June 18, 2007

BHP Billiton Climate Change Policy

Leadership missing from BHP Billiton climate policy

by cazwaz | June 18, 2007 at 07:56 am | 13 views |

Whats new 1984 all over again!

"Here is another example of rubbery figures being used to appear to be doing something significant.The use of the term 'energy intensity reduction target' are fascinating and scarey in what they indicate a company is willing to do to distort understanding ,knowledge and opinion by using confusing,obtuse but definitely strategically deceptive concepts and technical wordings that aim to deflect criticismand analysis."

Climate Change
Leadership missing from BHP Billiton climate policy

Date: 18-Jun-2007

BHP Billiton’s long-awaited climate change policy, released today, is weaker than the commitments made by many other leading international companies, the Australian Conservation Foundation said today.

“As a major international company BHP Billiton should be providing corporate and public leadership on climate change, not disappointingly weak policies,” said ACF executive director Don Henry.

“BHP Billiton has not adopted any targets for gross reductions in its emissions, putting it behind other international companies like BP, Alcoa and Dupont, which have all committed to absolute reductions of 10 per cent (BP), 25 per cent (Alcoa) and 65 per cent (Dupont) by 2010.

“Instead of setting a target to reduce emissions BHP Billiton has set an ‘energy intensity reduction target’ of 13 per cent, which allows the company’s emissions to continue to increase so long as the company continues to grow.

“The weak energy intensity target of 13 per cent puts the Big Australian well behind the Chinese Government, which has an energy intensity reduction target of 20 per cent for the period 2005 to 2010.

“We would urge BHP Billiton to play a more public and constructive role in the climate change policy debate in Australia,” Mr Henry said.

BHP Billiton’s submission to the Prime Minister’s emissions trading task group said of an Australian scheme: “ideally this would include participation in the CDM [the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism] market”.

“The only way for Australia to participate in the CDM market is for Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. BHP Billiton should be urging bi-partisan support for Kyoto ratification, not burying the idea in submissions," Mr Henry said.

“The $300 million over five years for low emissions technology development represents an investment of around half of one per cent of the company’s annual profit – not the level of commitment Australians would expect from one of the country’s major corporate players.”

Source: acfonline.org.au

Shaping A Sustainable Future

Shaping a Sustainable Future

by cazwaz | June 18, 2007 at 07:22 am | 7 views | add comment

Shaping a Sustainable Future

ACF President Professor Ian Lowe, AO

+

ACF President Professor Ian Lowe, AO

Professor Ian Lowe, Spirituality and Sustainability Forum – 6 June, 2007

I begin by thanking His Holiness the Dalai Lama for being in Australia to share with us his wisdom and unique insights, as well as for giving me the opportunity to share this occasion with him. I also acknowledge the traditional owners of this land, because a sustainable future has to be built on genuine reconciliation with the original Australians.

I’m delighted to speak here today as President of the Australian Conservation Foundation. For forty years, ACF has been a strong voice for the environment, promoting solutions through research, consultation, education and partnerships. Our members and supporters have played a key role in protecting outstanding natural areas and raising public awareness of the importance of our unique environment.

The most important question we face is: what sort of Australia do we want? The future is not somewhere we are going, but something we are creating. Will it be a clean, green sustainable future? Or will it leave our children a dreadful legacy of climate change, radioactive waste and derelict land? The Australian Conservation Foundation has analysed the growing threats to our continent. We have developed an ambitious strategy to inspire Australians to move to sustainable practices within a generation. To focus our attention on what that means, let me take you through an exercise called negative brainstorming. Imagine we have been asked to develop strategies to ensure an unsustainable future. How could we achieve this goal?

We would start with a population growing exponentially. No species can expand its numbers indefinitely in a closed system. If we don’t stabilise our population by socially acceptable means, they will be limited in time by starvation, disease and fighting among ourselves.

We could increase the impact of our growing population by increasing consumption per person, putting compounding pressure on resources and the natural environment. We could deplete important non-renewable resources, such as oil, and over-use renewable resources like water, forests and fisheries. We could do serious environmental damage, like causing a major loss of species or changing the global climate. To ensure our economic decline, we would adopt the trade pattern of a Third World country, exporting raw materials and importing value-added goods and services. To increase social instability, we could widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. As a moral foundation for this unsustainable society, we would embrace consumerism.

I don’t think I need to elaborate. The way we are currently living is not sustainable; it doesn’t satisfy any of the main criteria. Despite the evidence that our consumption is degrading our environment, we encourage both growing numbers and increasing consumption per person. If the optimists are right and we haven’t yet passed the peak of world oil production, we are certainly near it, and there is no prospect of scaling up production to meet the demand which has been stimulated. The evidence is overwhelming that we are over-using water and degrading our major river systems. We are changing the global climate, with serious economic and social consequences. We are in the middle of the sixth major extinction event in the history of the planet, with global warming adding to the driving forces of habitat loss, introduced species and chemical pollution. In economic terms, we have had more than 50 consecutive trade deficits, a trend that should have alarmed our leaders. Their only solution is to urge us to export even greater quantities of low-value commodities. The Australia I grew up in was one of the most equal nations in the world, but we are now the third least equal country in the entire OECD. Finally, consumerism is now our unofficial national religion, with ever larger shopping centres being built to allow us to worship at all hours. The policy settings in Australia would lead any outside observer to conclude that we just have not noticed that we are living unsustainably – or, even worse, we just don’t care.

We can achieve a sustainable future, but it will require fundamental changes to our technologies, our social institutions and our values, in our approach to the natural world and to each other. My message of hope is that human systems can change radically and quickly. The transition we need may be catalysed by growing community awareness of the problem. A serious obstacle is the dominant mind-set of our decision-makers and opinion-formers who still see no problem, or think potential solutions threaten their short-term interests.

We have a beautiful and unique environment and many aspects of it are in good condition by international standards. But several national reports have documented the scale and seriousness of our environmental problems: loss of biological diversity, degradation of inland waterways and destruction of the productive capacity of rural land. These problems are getting worse, because the pressures on natural systems are still increasing. Each year the Australian population grows by about 250 000 and our material expectations increase. Each year we use more resources, produce more waste – and put more pressure on natural systems.

The UN has published three reports on the Global Environmental Outlook. They show some successes, such as the concerted international effort to repair the ozone layer and “encouraging reductions in many countries” of urban air pollution. They also document “environmental challenges” – increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, over-exploitation of water, 1200 million people without clean drinking water and twice that number without sanitation, species being lost at an increasing rate, fisheries in decline, land degradation and a range of serious problems caused by our disruption of the natural cycles of the planet. Our activities are now affecting global systems in complex, interactive and accelerating ways.

The UN’s Millennium Assessment Report found that life has got better for many people in the last fifty years, but the overall level of human production is now using the Earth’s resources at an unsustainable rate. We need to move beyond the simplistic view that economic growth will solve our problems.

In societies like ours where most people have the essentials of a decent life and more, economic growth does not necessarily make people happier or more fulfilled, especially when we factor in the social and environmental costs. Yet we are constantly being urged, as Dr Clive Hamilton says, to use money we don’t have to buy things we don’t want to impress people we don’t like. Dr Richard Eckersley recently noted that the traditional seven deadly sins – pride, greed, envy, lust, laziness and so on – have been re-packaged as the marketing imperatives of the modern world! We need a different approach, one that recognises our responsibility to future generations. We should see the economy as a means of serving our needs within the limits of natural systems, rather than an end in itself, and focus on our quality of life. Australia ranks 23rd in the world in wealth per head, but I can’t think of any country in the top 22 I would rather live in. It wouldn’t make sense to destroy our quality of life to be slightly richer.

There is a growing awareness around the world that a sustainable future will involve significant change. Great advances could be made by policy reform, which could dramatically cut resource use and the environmental consequences of our lifestyle, but the political will to implement such a strategy is nowhere in sight. While politicians are more concerned about the next election than the next generation, the necessary reforms won’t happen.

Market-led wealth generation is necessary. So is technological change. But these must be supplemented and guided by a values-led move to an alternative vision of our future. So we need courage and real leadership at this critical juncture. We need a technological transition based on the principles of renewable resources, efficient use and “industrial ecology” – using the waste of one industrial process as the feedstock of another. Hunger could be eliminated if we stabilised our population and improved distribution systems; more generally, the UNDP recently estimated that the entire world could have adequate food, clean water, decent shelter, basic health care and education for 5% of the global military budget!

Above all, we need a future of genuine globalisation, recognising that we share a common fate with the whole human family, rather than the false globalisation that considers only economic issues.

We have known about the problems of peak oil and climate change for decades. But Australia still has no concerted response, no overall energy policy. We need a serious target based on the climate science that says global greenhouse pollution must be cut by at least 60 per cent. That requires us to do much more. We can’t afford to keep using old technologies that are changing the global climate – like coal-fired electricity. The natural energy flows like solar and wind are thousands of times greater than human energy needs. Renewable energy might cost a bit more than burning coal, but it won’t impose the large and growing costs of climate change. A recent study by the Australian Conservation Foundation and other NGOs found we could get 25 per cent of our power from renewables by 2020. It might cost a typical household about a dollar a week extra – a small price to save the planet.

Instead, some irresponsible politicians are canvassing the notion that nuclear power might be the answer. Nuclear energy is too expensive, too slow and inevitably creates a dreadful legacy of radioactive waste and the potential for nuclear weapons. Just as we no longer mine asbestos, we should reject all elements of the nuclear fuel cycle and develop clean energy alternatives. We should also recognise the benefits of turning energy more efficiently into the services we want. A government report four years ago concluded we could reduce energy use by up to 30 % using existing cost-effective technology. Several European countries now have a target of cutting energy use to a quarter of the present level by efficiency improvements.

The call for a new approach is now coming from the community, from local government, from the professions and from the business sector. The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change called for a long-term aspirational target for cutting greenhouse emissions, like the UK goal of 60 per cent reduction by 2050 or the California goal of 80 per cent, as well as a short-term binding target, like a 20 per cent reduction by 2020.

We also need a clear financial signal to drive investment. Putting a price on carbon will encourage industry to invest in cleaner technologies and help our economy become more efficient.

There will always be some who say we can’t afford to do things better. As the International Chemical Secretariat showed in its report, Cry Wolf, some vested interests always resist change by over-stating the costs and ignoring the benefits. When the catalytic converters that have dramatically cleaned up our urban air were proposed, some in the car industry claimed they would cost over $1000 each with a fuel consumption penalty on top, for no obvious benefit. In fact, they cost about $100 each, led to more sophisticated engines and improved fuel efficiency, and are estimated to have cut health care costs in the UK alone by about $5 billion a year.

Independent modelling by Allen Consulting shows that we can afford to take strong action to reduce greenhouse pollution. More importantly, that will be much better for the economy than inaction now, leading to a need for much more drastic measures in the future.

We won’t achieve a sustainable future unless we embrace new values. I like the idea that we should aim to become what has been called Globo sapiens, wise global citizens. Rather than the inevitably futile path of trying to dominate nature, we need to understand the limits of natural systems and live within those limits. Rather than continuing to erode the social fabric for short-term gain, we must develop social institutions that will let us work together to solve our difficult problems, help us to take the hard decisions we need for a sustainable future. Rather than seeing the level of material consumption as an end in itself, we should recognise that consumption is, at best, only a means to the end of greater satisfaction. As a wise colleague said, the trouble with the rat race is that even the winner is still a rat!

Let me give some specific goals we could achieve within 10 years. We could dramatically cut greenhouse pollution and assume a global leadership role in avoiding dangerous climate change, mainly by using and exporting renewable energy technology. We could enjoy sustainable cities with households using much less energy and water, producing much less waste. We could have the world’s best national park system with substantially increased protection for our forests, rivers, wetlands, tropical savannah and oceans. We should protect the great world-class landscapes of northern Australia, including the Kimberley and Cape York, working hand-in-hand with the traditional owners. We should help our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region to protect their magnificent forests and coral reefs. And we could stabilise our population and consumption levels by concerted policies. Let this be the year we determine to work more effectively together to produce a sustainable way of life that will be better for all future Australians

You might think this vision is utopian, but that has been said about all the important reform movements. Those who opposed slavery two hundred years ago were told that no economy could function without slave labour. The suffragettes were persecuted when they demanded the vote for women a hundred years ago. Only forty years ago, Indigenous people did not count as Australian citizens. Twenty years ago it was still utopian to dream of Berlin without the Wall, or South Africa without apartheid – or even such modest social goals as good coffee in Queensland! Many of the reforms we now take for granted were initially denounced as utopian. They happened because determined people worked for a better world.

The US economist Lester Thurow said that it is hard to tell people the party is over, especially if they haven’t got to the bar yet! In those terms, I am telling you that one type of party is coming to an end: the party based on the delusions of unlimited resources and fulfilment through increasing consumption. But I am also telling you about a better party that is starting up. It is a better party because it won’t run out of food and drink. It is a better party because it won’t leave you with a very nasty hangover of radioactive waste or disrupted global climate or despoiled natural systems. It is a better party because it is based on quality of human experience rather than gluttonous consumption.

It is a better party because the neighbours won’t be enviously peering through the windows or throwing rocks on the roof, because they will all be invited. And it’s a better party because our children will be able to keep enjoying it after we are gone.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, reminded British voters before their 2005 election that there are always excuses for avoiding these important issues. Without a strong mandate for change, he said, we can’t be surprised or disappointed when courage fails and progress is limited. I have two postcards at home that inspire me. One says, in French, If it’s not you, my little one, who will begin to change the world? Who will do it? It reminds me that we should all do what we can to produce the sort of future we want, rather than waiting for others. The second says Prendre des chemins de courage – take the roads of courage. As Rowan Williams said, we all have a responsibility to help change popular views and give courage to our leaders – literally encourage them to take responsibility for our future.

This is a Federal election year. We must urge politicians and candidates for elected office to have the courage to move beyond short-term economics and base their election platforms on planning for a sustainable Australia, thinking about resource limits, about global environmental issues, about social equity: in other words, about sustainable futures. They might be surprised at the response if they involve us in serious discussion of our future – as the Swedish government did to develop with its people a plan for responding to the challenge of climate change.

It would be much easier to ignore these difficult issues, to enjoy our material comforts, the natural beauty of Australia and our wonderful lifestyle – but your presence here today means you are prepared to think about these important questions. A sustainable future is clearly a better future. It is better morally, it is better socially, it is better environmentally, and it is also better economically. But fundamentally, working for it is simply our moral duty to the countless millions of other species that we share this planet with, and the future generations for whom we hold it in trust.

Source: acfonline.org.au

Monday, May 21, 2007

Food Footprints?

[q url="http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/askpablo-foodmiles-002478.php"]AskPablo: Foodmiles

foodmiles.jpgPerhaps spawned by the immense popularity of Michael Pollan's book The Omnivore's Dilemma or just the recent explosion of interest in both food safety and climate change, people are demanding locally grown. Such "locavores" are participating in the 100 Mile Diet and are making the local farmers' market the place to be. In March 2005 the BBC published an article entitled "Local food 'greener than organic'" in which they quoted a report in the journal Food Policy that states "Food miles are more significant than we previously thought, and much now needs to be done to encourage local production and consumption of food." Foodmiles is a term coined by Tim Lang, professor of food policy at London's City University, that refers to the distance that a given amount of food travels from farm to plate.

In a recent (April 27th) Financial Times article Sarah Murray wrote "the 'question of transportation' has become caught up in worries about the quantities of carbon dioxide being generated by an increasingly mobile food supply. The further our food travels, so the theory goes, the more damage it does to the climate through transport-related carbon dioxide emissions. In short, globetrotting food stands accused of helping destroy the planet." But is all of this worry about foodmiles justified? Some think not, so I will explore the topic a bit further. Ms. Murray goes on to write "In a study published last year, New Zealand's Lincoln University measured everything from electric fences to farm sheds, tractors and animal feed, and found that dairy and lamb production in New Zealand was more energy efficient than the British equivalent, even when the 12,000-mile trip to the UK was included."

The macroeconomic concepts that drive globalization state that production of goods should occur in the country or region best suited to maximize the economic efficiency. This is why most bananas come from Central America and not a greenhouse in Central Park and why Silicon Valley is the home of high-tech rather than the Gobi Desert. But do these economic concepts take into account the impact of transportation? Probably not. The impact of transportation, primarily the climate change effects of the resulting greenhouses and security issues surrounding petroleum fuel, is typically externalized to society. That is, society pays for the poor environmental decision-making of the market.

According to a 2005 report by DERFA "The rise in food miles has led to increases in the environmental, social and economic burdens associated with transport. These include carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, congestion, accidents and noise." Additionally they presented several findings:

1. A single indicator based on total food kilometers is an inadequate

indicator of sustainability.

2. Data is available to provide and update a meaningful set of indicators on

an annual basis.

3. Food transport has significant and growing impacts.

* Food transport accounts for 25% of all HGV vehicle kilometres in the UK.

* Transport of food by air has the highest CO2 emissions per tonne, and

is the fastest growing mode.

But my readers demand numbers, so let's look at an example. I am very confident about some calculations that I made on the production of Cherries. I used a cost study from UC Davis to determine the energy input versus the yield. I arrived at roughly 4.85 kg of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent units) for each kg of cherries. If we assume 500 km of transportation by semi we add 0.06 kg CO2e, or about 1.2%. If the same cherries are grown in Argentina and flown to the US (21,000 km) the emissions jump to 16.82 kg CO2e per kg of cherries, or 71.1%. Quite a difference! It is possible that the cherries would be shipped by container ship in a refrigerated compartment but then we would have to account for the refrigeration as well.

What if the cherries are dehydrated first and the transported by ship? Removing moisture from agricultural products is one way to cut back on transportation costs and emissions. Dried cherries have about 15% moisture content (vs. 75% in fresh cherries) so the CO2e from cultivation per kg of dried cherries will be higher, around 12.14 kg CO2e per kg of dried cherries. Trucking over 500 km would again add 0.06 kg CO2e, or 0.5%, but shipping by container ship over 25,000 km (more than air cargo because you can't ship point-to-point) contributes only 0.42 kg, or 3.3%.

So, the impact of foodmiles depends on several factors:

* The distance transported.

* The transport mode.

* The concentration of the agricultural product (dehydrated or concentrated is better).

* The relative agricultural productivity and the amount of fertilizer required in each location.

To get an idea of the relative impact of different transit modes here are several emissions factors that I use:

* Air Cargo - 570 g CO2e / tkm

* Truck - 102 g CO2e / tkm

* Train - 56 g CO2e / tkm

* Container Ship - 17 g CO2e / tkm

Transportation%20Emission.jpg

Emissions factors vary widely from source to source. My emissions factors include the emissions between the resource extraction and the fuel tank (including transportation and refining), they also include all greenhouse gases, not just CO2. But until there is an internationally recognized standard for greenhouse gas accounting all you can do is just state the assumptions as clearly as possible.

For more information on how to calculate food miles, see the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture (Iowa State University) paper entitled Calculating Food Miles for a Multiple Ingredient Food Product.

Special thanks to Andre for giving me the idea for this week's column topic and for sending me some of the articles quoted.

Pablo Päster, MBA

Sustainability Engineer

» Pablo Paste[/q]

Mc Mansions Wasting water

[q url="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21746430-2,00.html"]McMansions 'wasting water'

By Mary Bolling

May 17, 2007 12:00am

Article from: Herald-Sun

* Minister says large homes soak up scarce resources

* Wants smaller homes built on new estates

* Says consituents' homes suffer "housing obesity"

VICTORIA'S Planning Minister has said McMansion-style homes are water wasters suffering from "housing obesity".

Justin Madden, an architect who lives in a two-storey heritage-protected home, has said he wants more small homes on new housing estates.

Are McMansion ugly water wasters? Should there be a push for smaller estate housing? Or does size matter?

He has said big houses found in suburbs such as Caroline Springs and Tarneit often suffer from "housing obesity".

"Melbourne's household growth – and by that I mean dwellings – is twice the population growth," Mr Madden has said.

"Our increasing affluence has led to bigger houses, and I'm sure you're familiar with the description McMansions, and one of my favourites, 'housing obesity'."

But residents in Caroline Springs, Mr Madden's electorate, have said he is attacking their Australian dreams.

Peter Attard, who lives in the suburb with his wife and three children, has said the chance to have a big home is "what makes Australia the best country in the world".

While the state Government delays ordering stage 4 water restrictions, Mr Madden has branded bigger houses water wasters.

"When we need to minimise our consumption of things like energy and water, many of us are living in houses that consume more water and more energy than we need," he has said.

But Mr Attard has said home-owners take environmental responsibilities seriously.

"I've got a whole grey water system hooked up through my house. It was designed with energy-saving measures," he has said.

"The size of our house is none of the minister's business – we've worked hard, we can afford a big place, and we've got a family that fills it!"

Speaking at a planning summit yesterday, Mr Madden has flagged a competition to design smaller, more energy efficient new housing.

He has said large designs and extravagant lifestyles were undermining Victoria's environmental requirements for new homes.

"We've put in place five-star energy rating into new housing and that's making housing more efficient," Mr Madden said.

"(But) to counter that, what people are doing is building bigger housing . . . four bedrooms, a study, the entertainment room, and as well as that they're filling it with electronic equipment."

But Caroline Springs residents Mick and Jasmina Fazlic have said Mr Madden has got it wrong.

With daughter Melissa, 12, the couple say all the space in the house is used, and Mr Fazlic runs his business from home.

"If you work hard, you make money. You want to enjoy that," he said.

Neville Rodger, a six-year Caroline Springs resident, has agreed size does not govern the efficiency of the house.

"We've got 5000-litre water tanks that take in all the water off the roof," Mr Rodger has said. "We're not wasting water at all."

Mr Madden has since softened his stance, assuring residents the state did not dictate house size.

"We do not want to tell Victorians how big their houses should be. That is up to them," he has said.

Mr Madden, who recently applied to Heritage Victoria to add a family room and two bedrooms to the back of his own home, has said housing obesity is defined by the size of the household relative to the house size.

"We want to ensure these houses are built as sustainably as possible, both to limit their impact on the environment, and to keep down the costs of running a household."

The size of an average new detached home in Victoria has risen by 50 per cent in the two decades to 2005, reaching 255 square metres.

[/q]

Monday, May 14, 2007

Does Business Get It?

Does Business get It?!

by cazwaz | May 4, 2007 at 12:11 pm | 11 views | add comment

TCAT Press Conference Nov 1 - Glen Murray

by martinKoob Added by cazwaz
1 hr ago | 1 view

The 12 Steps to Sustainability

by jonardern Added by cazwaz
1 hr ago | 1 view

Our Aim

The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change was formed to advance the understanding of business risks and opportunities associated with climate change and to help develop effective policy frameworks and market conditions for our low carbon future.

Why We Need To Act Now

Climate change poses serious threats to Australia’s economy. Uncertainty about future climate policy heightens the risks associated with investment.

The Roundtable's report shows that delaying action will increase the impact climate change has on the community and the likelihood of a disruptive shock to the Australian economy.

Our Research

The Roundtable commissioned CSIRO to determine climate impacts on Australia, and the Allen Consulting Group to model the economic effects of producing a 60% reduction on year 2000 emissions by 2050, for its report The Business Case for Early Action.

The Roundtable's report shows, for the first time, that it is possible for Australia to deliver significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at an affordable cost, whilst maintaining strong economic growth.

Site by Hunter Online

Source: businessroundtable.com.au