An open letter to The Age on "financial terrorism"

Dear Mr Holden,

As bushfires rage around Australia, let me suggest an alternative to yesterday's editorial, shriekingly headlined, "Sharemarket damaged by financial terrorism".

You might have instead considered "Climate damaged by carbon terrorism" - it gets you much closer to the truth.

A vastly larger group of "shareholders" is hurt by the exploitation of fossil fuels and routinely deceived by lies and misinformation denying the impacts of the resulting carbon emissions - including more frequent and severe bushfires.

That tragic fraud affects the global population, far beyond those affected by market changes following a media release purporting to announce ANZ's withdrawal of funds from a coal project.

Jonathan Moylan's corrective activism certainly has The Age fired up. More urgently, the reckless pursuit of fossil fuels such as coal is, quite literally, setting the world on fire. Where's your moral outrage at that?

Sincerely,


Darren Lewin-Hill

P.S. Your editorial follows recent excellent coverage by Tom Arup of projected increased insurance costs for State assets in Victoria based on climate change and resulting bushfires.

Earlier this week, Peter Hannam reported that money for bushfire research is running out. In his piece today on Meekatharra, he quotes Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology, regarding new record temperatures set for Australia in the present heatwave.

In terms of climate change trends, the rising mean temperatures provide a clearer "finger-print", not to mention the rate and scale of the new records being set, Dr Jones said.

Unfortunately, as "A Nation Burns" - in the words of yesterday's page one headline - your editorial tips the "balance" of your coverage towards a perspective that values the market over damage to the climate, and those who live with the impacts of climate change - or die from them.

Ferguson fuels the need for emergency climate action

Dangerous climate change starkly underscores the connection between the local and the global - when emissions-intensive brown coal burns in the Latrobe Valley to produce more than 90 per cent of the State's electricity supply, it fuels global warming and disastrous impacts that are felt around the world.

In the same way, a local politician can contribute to climate destruction through a broader role in government policy and the promotion of fossil fuels. That's the connection the residents of the federal seat of Batman need to make between their local federal MP, Martin Ferguson, and his role as energy and resources minister in the Rudd Labor Government.

Ferguson supports the continuing exploitation of brown coal even though he knows it is destructive to the climate. Claims that coal-fired electricity can be made cleaner are belied by the billions of dollars of compensation promised by the Government's so-called climate measures. Why would coal-fired electricity generators need to be compensated under carbon trading if they could cleanly exploit their vast coal reserves?

The answer is that they can't, so they claim the need to be compensated for a carbon price, even though they should have long known a change was in the wind. As well as continuing to exploit coal, they want to exploit taxpayers and monetise climate damage for their own profit and the world's detriment.

As Environment Victoria's Mark Wakeham pointed out on tonight's edition of Stateline Victoria, the priority seems to be to dig the brown coal out of the ground and burn it, or export it to India, before the 'social licence' to do so expires with the realisation of just how damaging the fossil fuel is to our safe climate future. For Ferguson, coal is simply too commercially valuable to be left in the ground.

Often there's an appeal about job losses in this context. It's a diversion. Not only are green jobs to be had in renewables, but the coal lobby is asking us to believe they want to protect workers, when in normal circumstances they'd be trying to cut their workforce to the bone. Surely it is possible to compensate and retrain workers rather than their polluting, profit-taking employers?

Fortunately, with tomorrow's international day of climate action, the local can also impact upon the global - albeit in a far more hopeful way. At Darebin Parklands, in Ferguson's Batman electorate, Darebin Climate Action Now will be holding a picnic from 3.00-3.50pm as its 350.org event, and will be asking participants to send a postcard to Martin Ferguson.

Unfortunately, the fossil fuel lobby is much more likely to be heard by Martin than his local constituents' valid concerns about the consequences of his short-sighted quarry vision.

As the champion of fossil fuels, and the defender of massive oil slicks, it's no wonder Ferguson likes to ride on the coat-tails of local green initiatives, is it? They're good PR.

Ferguson's double-standard on renewables and coal

After reading energy and resources minister Martin Ferguson's 7 October letter in response to an article about the Solar Systems collapse in The Melbourne Times, the less well informed might take home the message that solar just can't cut the commercial mustard, that it's failing to achieve milestone after milestone, and that the Australian Government is bending over backwards to help the industry get off the ground to help tackle climate change.

To quote Ferguson, the financial state of Solar Systems 'is unfortunate but is wholly linked to the commercial viability of this company and not a reflection on government policy related to renewable energy'. Well, according to Paddy Manning writing in The Age, this is not the kind of tough-minded, financially accountable commercialism that is being applied to the coal industry.

Manning points out that up to $10 billion could be destined for the coffers of our dirtiest coal-fired power generators if we add to the $3.5 billion compensation under the existing CPRS the Opposition push for a further $6.5 billion in its bid to amend the scheme to make it even more coal-friendly.

And while - unlike renewables - coal-fired power makes a monstrous contribution to carbon emissions and therefore to climate change, in no way can it be said that so-called 'clean coal' technologies are anywhere near implementation on a commercial scale anywhere in the world.

This was recently highlighted by the Four Corners program, 'The Coal Nightmare', and one can only conclude that the sheer scale of the Australian Government's proposed compensation to the industry is a huge vote of no confidence in the viability of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. If CCS were viable and allowed low-emission commercial exploitation of coal even with an appropriate price on carbon, why would compensation be considered?

As Manning points out in his most recent column, the viability of combined wind and solar is a different story according to a recent Deakin lecture by Dr David Mills, Chief Scientific Officer with US solar thermal developer Ausra, whom he quotes as follows:

We are finding that solar and wind are a beautiful match for each other and together can carry almost the entire electrical load of a large economy

Ferguson is fond of referring to 'energy security', but this argument for dirty fossil fuels is rapidly disappearing, and in any case has always ignored the pressing need to secure our global climate. It is in fact viable to provide baseload power supply by combining wind and technologies such as molten salt storage for solar thermal generation, and thereby secure our energy and climate at the same time.

As the development of truly clean renewable technologies increasingly outpaces the empty promises of 'clean' coal, Ferguson will be forced to admit that he's not really talking about energy security at all, but instead protecting the profits of the coal industry. As I've said before, if the coal barons owned the sun and the wind, it would be a different story, but they can't stand to leave their dirty coal in the ground when there's profit to be had. Too bad for the global climate.

Further commentary on the Solar Systems collapse at the ABC and David, a worker from the plant, is interviewed onsite here.

Read more about Martin Ferguson on this blog.

Bury any ideas of carbon capture

I haven't caught up with last night's Four Corners program on carbon capture and storage as yet, but the synopsis seems to indicate it views the problem as a lack of investment in what is, in my view, a speculative and slow technology that won't solve our emissions emergency any time soon (see update, below).

With Victoria's marginally lower winter emissions receiving positive courage, I thought I'd make a point about coal and why we've been able to leave our heaters off. Today The Age has kindly run my letter:

OUR small reduction in winter carbon emissions would be a positive sign were it not for the fact that we've been able to leave our heaters off just a little bit more only because the global heater has been turned on high ('Emissions fall as states heat up', The Age, 7/9).

In large part that's due to the burning of fossil fuels, a huge industry in Victoria. The solution of federal Energy and Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, is carbon capture and storage Mark II. Why Mark II? The current version is to capture carbon-rich coal in the shovel of an excavator, burn it, then store the resulting carbon dioxide in our steadily warming atmosphere. Both versions are fatally flawed, and it's time we forgot about 'shovel-ready' coal and switched to a mix of renewables that can readily combine to give us a green power supply.

At the moment I'm reading Diesendorf's Climate Action, which makes a clear and powerful case for replacing coal-fired power with renewables. While CCS may in time be developed, it won't be anywhere soon enough, brings the risks related to large-scale underground storage of carbon dioxide, and government investment in the technology is a distraction from much-needed support for renewable sources that are ready to go.

A good reason to Switch off Hazelwood, don't you think?

Update: Monday's Four Corners edition, 'The Coal Nightmare', turned out to be an excellent program that made clear that the coal industry itself isn't coming to the party in funding potential solutions to its own heavy emissions. At the same time it is undermining moves to put a price on carbon that would increase the pressure for it to do so. Martin Ferguson was, as expected, unconvincing in justifying the billions of dollars of public funds being directed to so-called clean coal development when the industry itself should be footing the bill.

It was good to see Mark Diesendorf interviewed, and I would like to have seen more of him, especially putting the strong case he makes in his book to move ahead with existing and maturing renewable energy technologies rather than speculating on CCS just so we can dig it out of the ground and flog it - we're the world's biggest exporter, as well as getting 82% of our energy from coal (thanks for the latter statistic, Mr Ferguson).

The ABC has extended interviews and lots of resources via the link above.

Comments welcome.

Professor Karoly offers more than 'advice'

A report by Adam Morton in Saturday's edition of The Age shows Professor David Karoly beginning his appointment to the state's climate change reference group with an admirably plain-spoken stance against the compartmentalised thinking that continues to damage our climate.

Professor Karoly is right to propose that all state government policies be assessed through the lens of climate change, where now they too often dwell in disconnected silos. New road tunnels, a new coal-fired power proposal and poor public transport all sit strangely alongside government advertising campaigns depicting our household emissions as black balloons bubbling from our appliances.

Professor Karoly's influence may yet lead to a greater acknowledgment that large-scale activities have their own massive balloons looming darkly above us.

In Saturday's report, Professor Karoly asks, 'How can you tell people climate change is important and then say "we're going to have this new black-coal-equivalent power station and we're going to put lots of money into it"?'

The question has international relevance to the fight against climate change as China continues to build coal-fired power stations at a rapid rate, and concerned citizens in the UK protest over a proposal to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, near Kent.

What governments, including the Victorian State Government, spin as projects necessary for the development of elusive clean coal technology, climate campaigners correctly see as the encouragement of further exploitation of emissions-intensive fossil fuels. Victoria will, for example, pump $50 million into the proposed new LaTrobe power station on top of $100 million of Federal funds committed last year.

Writing recently on the UK's Kingsnorth proposal, George Monbiot provides a telling analysis of the economics of carbon capture and storage, touted as the magic bullet solution to emissions from coal-fired power proposals such as that slated for the LaTrobe valley.

Returning to other suggested climate measures reported on Saturday, a key proposal put forward by Professor Karoly would see a 5:1 funding ratio to favour public transport over roads.

This is just one example of a large-scale measure to cut emissions that would encourage benefits from widespread personal change. Faster, affordable and more frequent public transport would only encourage us to make our own small, but cumulative savings in emissions by ditching our cars.

Conversely, each small step we take - each crowded train we board - should not be viewed as an isolated and futile contribution in the face of large-scale emissions, but as part of a collective signal to our leaders that we want the kind of broad, sustainable change that would see significant investment in public transport infrastructure.

The first, deserved victim of Professor Karoly's clear-sightedness should be the Eddington road tunnel proposal, which is a traffic and revenue growth strategy that fails to address identified transport needs, but promises to contribute massively to emissions.

Yet Victorian Premier, John Brumby, echoes Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's position on Garnaut in relegating Karoly to the level of mere 'advice' among a throng of competing lobbies vying for influence. What our state and national leaders are getting from the professors is better than that - it's a dose of reality.

Deakin climate debate at Online Opinion

Online Opinion has today kindly published a piece I wrote following the 14 June Deakin debate contesting the motion that 'climate change is the only issue'. The debate was part of the 2008 Deakin Lectures (full audio) and was also broadcast as an edition of ABC Radio National's The National Interest on Friday 20 June (includes edited audio).

In the piece I essentially agree with the motion, since the science is conclusive and false competition between the issues of climate change and, for example, global poverty cannot be sustained. In fact, climate change action, while a precondition of the survival of the planet, is also demonstrably a social justice project, calling on the world to fairly share global reductions in CO2 emissions and to avoid climate change impacts that will be felt disproportionately by the world's poor.

Speakers for the motion included Don Henry, Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Larissa Brown, Executive Director of the Centre for Sustainability Leadership, and Chris Turner, Canadian writer and author of The Geography of Hope: A Tour of the World We Need.

Speakers against the motion were Austin Williams, Director of the Future Cities Program, Dr Leela Ghandi, Professor of English at the University of Chicago, and Dr Norman Lewis, Chief Strategy Officer of Wireless Grids Corporation (USA).

Priya Carey interview at YouDecide2007

Last weekend I interviewed Priya Carey, Greens candidate for Batman in the 2007 Federal election. I began with the challenge of running against Martin Ferguson in the safest ALP seat in Australia...

Priya Carey has the toughest gig of any Greens candidate running against an ALP incumbent this election. Martin Ferguson, the Labor MHR for Batman, holds the seat with a 21.3 per cent margin (two-party-preferred) from the 2004 election, making Batman the safest ALP federal seat in Australia. The Greens' hopes for the seat were challenged on this very basis by a local journalist when Bob Brown spoke on the Tasmanian pulp mill at the Northcote Town Hall back in July. I therefore began my interview by asking Carey what claim to relevance the Greens could have in such a safe seat.

Read the full interview at YouDecide2007