GOODBYE KYOTO, HELLO ASIA-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

Canada changing course

Goodbye Kyoto, hello Asia-Pacific Partnership. They sound alike, charmingly Oriental you might say. But in fact there is a world of difference between the two climate schemes. The Kyoto Protocol is the UN-led initiative designed to reduce man-made greenhouse gases to below their 1990 levels. It has been ratified by 163 nations but only 39 of the most developed countries are currently obliged to cut their emissions by 2012. Canada was one of the prime movers of Kyoto early on. But the new Conservative government says we will never meet our 2012 target (we are apparently almost 35 per cent over at the moment).

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian counterpart John Howard show up in the same limo for a press conference in Ottawa. The leaders of two big energy-producing countries, neither has much time for the Kyoto climate accord, but both see nuclear as being the big energy option of the future. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press) And Ottawa appears to want to join the new Australian-inspired, U.S.-led group called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, also known as the AP6 or, to its critics, Kyoto Lite.

The Harper government approached Washington about becoming a member of the AP6, the U.S. chief climate change negotiator acknowledged the other day. And the prime minister has been talking with his Australian counterpart John Howard, who has been on a three-day visit to Ottawa, reportedly trying to get Australia's backing as well.

At a press conference, Stephen Harper called the Asia-Pacific Partnership "the kind of initiative the world needs" and went on to say that effective climate policies must include the world's largest emitters, by which he was presumably referring to such AP6 nations as China, India, and the U.S. who are not facing Kyoto reduction targets.

The first part of that statement may well be true. But the second part is more problematic. It is often overlooked, but China and India are in fact Kyoto signatories (the U.S. and Australia bowed out for their own reasons). It is just that, as developing nations they were given a by for the first round of reductions.

And it is this aspect of the new AP6 pact - and Canada's interest in it - that has environmentalists and many European nations so worked up: They say if wealthy countries like Canada won't keep to their reduction commitments, and are also trying to lessen their load for the post-2012 period, how will the world convince countries like China and India, who are still crying poor, to shoulder their burden in 2012 as well?

The new kid on the block

In any event, the AP6 is an intriguing concept, even if it's not everyone's cup of tea. Composed of six countries - the U.S., China, India, Australia, South Korea and Japan - the group was conceived just a year ago, had its first working meeting in April and, on the surface at least, expounds a rather noble purpose: To help the developing economies of China and India in particular make their great industrial leap forward by using the best, most environmentally sound technologies the world can offer. The fact that the U.S., China and India are among the top producers of climate-warming greenhouse gases on the planet gives their cause a bit of urgency.

The U.S. and China rank one and two, while the group itself accounts for over one-half of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Australia has been the world's biggest per capita emitter for several years and Canada is right up there as well though our emissions are something in the order of two per cent of the world's total.

Kyoto Lite?

Most environmentalists, however, are not impressed. As a technique for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, the AP6 sets no emission targets, mandates no deadlines and therefore does nothing to create incentives for companies to control emissions and sell surplus quotas.

Even some prominent Republicans, looking at the meagre $57 million US Washington has allotted this project, have called it a largely PR exercise, a face-saver for countries like the U.S. and Australia that chose not to ratify Kyoto and are now facing international heat. Australia, mind you, has said all along it intends to meet what would have been its Kyoto target; it just wasn't prepared to do that formally.

Still, the AP6 is starting to gain momentum. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, though an ardent Kyoto supporter, has voiced his approval. One selling point is the AP6 theory, based on computer modelling, that if China and India were to adopt current best practice techniques for all new power plants, that would reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 1.5 per cent.

Against this can be put more recent computer modelling by The Climate Institute of Australia. It just reported that, even with the most ambitious assumptions under AP6, the best case scenario would see global greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.

Still, a handful of countries have been sniffing around this new partnership, according to news reports. And prominent business groups in Europe and Southeast Asia have been talking up its potential. So the jury is still out. Is it simply PR for the Kyoto-bashers? Or real enviro-politik for the developing world?

The coal pact

That is the other nickname for the AP6 and when you look at the economics of the world's cheapest, most abundant and arguably most polluting energy source - king coal - it is not hard to see why.

China is the world's biggest coal user, for its generating plants and its steel mills. And though it has plenty of its own reserves, its mines are backward and dangerous and, at its current rate of growth, forecasters predict it will need to import much more in coming years.

What's more, the four Asian members of the AP6 account for over half the world's steel production. Steel needs coal, both for electricity and the coking process. And Australia, which reportedly hatched this AP6 idea in the first place, and the U.S. are both big coal exporters looking to expand in the Asian and Indian markets.

It's not hard to connect the dots here. Nor is it difficult to see the attraction in joining the AP6 for someone like Stephen Harper especially. Australia's biggest competitor in Asian steel markets is Alberta-based Fording Coal, the CPR spin off (annual revenues $2.1 billion) that mines one of the purest and hardest metallurgical coals in the world. Joining AP6 gets Canada in on the ground in one of the niftiest buyer-meets-seller-meets-hi-tech-enviro marketplaces for coal extraction, power plant development, steel and aluminum mill construction and cement kilns for the fastest growing economies around. It also allows Harper to showcase - and this is long overdue - the fact that Alberta is in fact one of the more innovative places in the world when it comes to curtailing greenhouse gas pollution and burning what is now being called "clean coal."

In fact, Alberta's Genesee 3 power plant is one of the cleanest in the world and one of the province's biggest greenhouse gas innovators is former EnCana chief Gwyn Morgan, the man who was supposed to have become Harper's new $1 a year guy in Ottawa if only the opposition parties hadn't intervened.

Clean coal?

This is an idea whose time may have come. Even some prominent environmentalists who can't stomach the nuclear option (something Harper and Australia's Howard are also keen to promote) are urging clean coal technologies on a reluctant Ontario government to help with its electricity problems.

Still, clean coal is a concept that has to be taken with a grain of salt. Scientists, particularly in the U.S. where coal production is a big political consideration (read massive Washington investment), have come up with intriguing new ways to cut methane gases (a mine as well as atmospheric hazard), as well as capture CO2, mercury, sulphur oxide and nitrous oxides (these last two acid rain formers) before they are released into the environment.

The problem, though, especially for CO2, the largest and most ubiquitous of the greenhouse gases, is what to do with it once it's caught. It is still a gas. Technically it can be stored in containers or underground caverns. Norway has been injecting about a million tonnes a year of CO2 under the North Sea.

One of the neatest solutions, which EnCana was a big proponent of, is to pump it back into old oil beds deep underground, a process called geosequestration, to help push remaining oil deposits to the surface. But this is really only economically viable if the coal-fired generating plants are within a reasonably short pipeline distance from the oil fields. In other words, only in Western Canada and even then it seems only in exceptional circumstances.

Carrots or sticks?

At this point there are many creative ideas but no truly viable way of stripping the more substantive greenhouse gases from coal, or natural gas for that matter, and storing them easily for any length of time.

The Kyoto approach is to saddle countries with mandatory emission targets, which will force them to apportion these in turn among their major polluters. (Not an easy thing. And in Canada that means picking on Alberta a bit because its energy sector is one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters.)

These industries then have the choice of paying a penalty if they miss their targets, or buying the latest (geosequestration?) technology even if it is something that only adds to their costs.

AP6 wants to be more carrot than stick. Its market-driven proponents seem to feel that China and India in particular will want to use their new economic wealth to buy the latest climate-friendly technology from the West at the same time as they are loading up on boatloads of so-called clean coal.

And maybe they will. Maybe they will see the advantage in staying ahead of the technological curve and avoiding the respiratory and other health costs associated with too much short-sighted growth.

From Canada's point of view, it must be very tempting to join AP6 and be a potential seller of all this high-end environmental technology that we have been experimenting with for many years now. But at some point we are going to have to do our bit and start implementing a lot more of it ourselves.

CBC News Online, 19 May 2006






Australian study: Banning plastic bags 'no real use'



It is believed to be one of the simplest ways people can help the environment, but scrapping the plastic shopping bag might not be worth the effort. The Federal Government's economic advisory body has recommended ditching plans to wipe out more than five billion plastic bags a year, saying the costs may outweigh the benefits.

The plan is supposed to save marine wildlife and reduce litter, but the Productivity Commission argues that not only is the plastic bag not a serious threat to wildlife, but governments have not taken into account the food-safety benefits of plastic bags or their typical re-use as liners for the garbage bin. Instead, the commission argues that tougher anti-litter laws or harsher fines might be a better way of addressing litter.

The plans to rid Australia of plastic bags within two years may already be in trouble. The supermarket chains Woolworths and Coles have failed to meet a 50 per cent reduction target by the end of last year. In the report on waste, due for release today, the commission will find there has been no cost-benefit analysis of a decision taken last July by state, territory and federal governments to phase out high-density polyethylene plastic bags by 2009. It finds the key expected benefits of getting rid of the plastic bag - the reduction in harm to marine wildlife through ingestion or entanglement in litter - is partially nonsense.

"Plastic bags are a highly visible and long-lasting form of litter because they can easily become airborne, are moisture resistant, and take many years to decompose," it says. But it says the extent of harm to Australia's marine wildlife is far from certain, saying the figure in use of 100,000 marine animals killed a year was based on a Canadian study done over four years in the early 1980s. It quotes Australian government research estimating that less than 1 per cent of plastic bags become litter, and that they account for only 2 per cent of litter by number.

Instead, the commission argues plastic bags may actually assist environmental impacts in landfill because of their "stabilising qualities, leachate minimisation and minimising (of) greenhouse gas emissions". As well, they provide "an important task in product and food safety, keeping uncooked meat or cleaning products separate from other foods".

The commission cites research showing that up to 75 per cent of householders re-use plastic bags as garbage bin liners or carry bags. It finds there has been no cost-benefit analysis of the impacts of banning the bags. "It is clear there would be costs that might well outweigh the claimed benefits associated with banning HDPE shopping bags, and such a ban would only address problems associated with the less than 1 per cent of plastic bags that become litter," it finds. The report recommends governments do not proceed with the plan unless they conduct a cost-benefit analysis.

Sydney beauty therapist Lesley Greenwell said she was concerned about the damage her plastic shopping bags might do to the environment, but said this did not stop her ploughing through about 10 a week. Since the 1990s, when plastic bags became an international environmental issue, Ms Greenwell said she had been trying to cut down on the number she threw away. "I do re-use bags, for rubbish or whatever I can around the home," the 27-year-old said. Ms Greenwell said she was relieved to hear about the Productivity Commission's report as it removed some of the guilt surrounding the use of plastic bags.

Planet Ark managing director Jon Dee said major supermarkets had failed to meet their goal of slashing 50 per cent of bags by the end of last year. They had only managed to reduce their use by 45 per cent, although he said the bigger problem was that non-supermarket retailers now give away 55 per cent of plastic bags.

Source






BRITAIN'S "DROUGHT"



So here we are at Chelsea in the middle of a drought, where the rain flumes off the tents and the hats and the noses and the broad-leaved gunnera. People walk past the "drought- tolerant" gardens and laugh. People walk past the Wetlands garden and laugh. The modish "New Zealand" garden sends rivulets of black volcanic New Zealand mud out into the walkways. All of Chelsea is a water feature this year.

Of course, as Chelsea is like a Posh Glastonbury - the British united at an outdoor event; one where getting steamed from midday onwards is mandatory and the rain by no means ruins things. The gardeners look jolly pleased they won't have to spend all evening mucking about with watering cans. The old money - the ones who look like they parked their horses outside, or maybe rode here on their gigantic sit-on lawn-mowers - just splay their legs a little further apart, and laugh their posh, happy laughs ("HAR! HAR!") a little louder. The new money, however, seems to have Chelsea confused with Ascot and, fearing for their floral hats and linen coats, run for the Grand Pavilion, to skulk among the displays of iris and cabbage.

More here






THE AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR DEBATE

Three recent articles below

P.M. calls for debate on uranium



Australia and Canada will consider establishing a "uranium OPEC", using their domination of the global market to influence the spread of nuclear power. The uranium producers group would protect the interests of the two nations, which account for 52 per cent of ore production and 43 per cent of reserves.

Prime Minister John Howard also toughened his language on nuclear power in Australia. He indicated he believed nuclear-fuelled electricity stations were inevitable. "The scene on nuclear energy is going to change significantly in our country," he said. "The pressure for change is driven in part by environmental considerations, it's driven in part by the soaring price of fuel, it's driven in part by a realisation that confronting the problem of high energy pricing is one of the big economic challenges of nations such as Canada and Australia. "I want a full-blooded debate in Australia about this issue and I want all of the options on the table."

In Washington earlier this week, Mr Howard took a softer line, saying "I don't think there is a compelling economic case" for nuclear power in Australia.

Mr Howard ended a two-day visit to Ottawa, that included an address to Parliament and talks with Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Prime Ministers agreed to direct officials to work out the structure of a uranium producers group. It would complement the US proposal for a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership of the big nuclear power users.

Mr Howard said the US proposal had implications for Australia and Canada, who must work to ensure it did not affect "our own interests or the legitimate exploitation of uranium reserves". Mr Harper said Australia and Canada would work "very closely together" to see their interests were protected. The Canadians supported Australia sending a 25-member reconstruction team to Afghanistan, where 2300 Canadian troops are operating. Mr Harper said it was not too early to make reconstruction committments, despite the increasing violence from Taliban attacks.

The above article appeared in the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" on May, 21, 2006






Experts to put nuclear power in spotlight



The viability of a domestic nuclear power industry would be scrutinised by experts set up to advise the Federal Government, the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, said yesterday. But Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane tried to hose down hopes that nuclear power could be the answer to soaring fuel costs and climate change. He said its massive cost meant that it would not be a viable alternative to coal-fired power for at least 15 years.

Australian Workers Union national secretary Bill Shorten, tipped by some to become the next Labor Party leader, accused Prime Minister John Howard of pushing the issue simply to exploit divisions in the Labor Party. Labor was not interested in "running a debate" on nuclear power in Australia, he said. Mr Shorten told Channel Nine's Sunday program that Mr Howard would drop the nuclear power issue as soon as he realised the public was still not comfortable with the idea. But he appeared open to overturning Labor's "three mines policy", which opposes the opening of new uranium mines, describing the capping of mine numbers as akin to being "half-pregnant". He declared himself "very interested" in the views of Labor resources spokesman Martin Ferguson, who has called for the "three mines policy" to be scrapped.

The Northern Territory's Minister for Mines and Energy, Kon Vatskalis, slammed the proposal for a debate on nuclear power. According to ABC Online, he said Australia had nowhere near the infrastructure required to support uranium enrichment.

But Mr Macfarlane said the public's view had moved on significantly in recent years. He said he would have to rethink a proposal for a report into nuclear power which he and former education minister Brendan Nelson put to the Prime Minister more than a year ago, and which the Prime Minister is expected to approve. "What we're going to have to look at is how we get some national debate going on nuclear energy," Mr Macfarlane said. But even if the public backed nuclear energy, it would still be at least 2020 before it became a viable alternative because it could not compete with the price of coal, he said. "At the moment we generate from coal from around $30 a megawatt hour. Nuclear energy is probably $60 plus," he said. Finance Minister Nick Minchin and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer have also raised the high cost of nuclear energy as a potential obstacle.

A spokesman for Ms Bishop said she was optimistic about the potential for a nuclear power industry in Australia. The spokesman said she was working on setting up a panel of experts to put together the evidence for the feasibility of a nuclear power industry.

But Labor's spokesman on arts and reconciliation, Peter Garrett, accused Mr Howard of calling for a debate when he had already made up his mind in favour of a domestic nuclear industry. Mr Howard lacked the imagination or environmental knowledge to recognise there were better alternatives, he said. Mr Garrett said some countries were using nuclear power as "a short-term bridge" to alternative energy, but that was something Australia did not need.

Source






The Australian Left is being nuked

The report below is all the more amusing for being largely correct. The Left of the Labor party have horrors at anything nuclear while the more pragmatic majority are much less religious about it all. And by putting the matter up for serious debate, John Howard is putting the two factions at one another's throats. The report below of remarks by Peter Garrett is a cry of pain about that. It is also quite true that the Australian government is reducing its support for Greenie nuttiness -- which pains aging rock-star Garrett. The "fat boy" in the cartoon below is Kim Beazley, the overweight Federal Parliamentary leader of the Labor Party. The hairless one is Mr Garrett





Prime Minister John Howard is creating a false nuclear debate to deflect attention from a lack of action on climate change, Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett says. Mr Howard is flagging a full-scale nuclear debate when he returns from an overseas trip later this week, as momentum builds within his own party to develop nuclear power and uranium enrichment programs. Mr Garrett, a one-time Senate candidate for the Nuclear Disarmament Party, said the prime minister had left the United States a "born-again nuclear warrior".

The nuclear debate was a false one, he said. "The prime minister's creating one his great false debates, flying kites, making mischief, and covering up for the fact that he's done absolutely zip on climate change - nothing in the budget for it," Mr Garrett told ABC radio. "(He) abolishes the Australian Greenhouse Office. We've seen half a billion dollars worth of investment in wind farms and alternative technologies go overseas because of this government's lack of action. "The prime minister comes back from America as a nukes enthusiast, but he's just clouding the debate and covering his own deficiencies."

Mr Garrett said he was also concerned about senior government ministers, including Alexander Downer and Ian Macfarlane, flagging a uranium enrichment program for Australia. "I'm astonished that the government wants to push ahead with enrichment given the huge issues around safety, around proliferation, the sort of debates that we're seeing in the Middle East about rogue states. "But more importantly, why isn't this government investing in technologies that are good for the country?"

After 40 years with nuclear power, the US had not yet dealt with its own waste, Mr Garrett said. "They still haven't, after 40 years, got a successfully approved radioactive waste safe repository." The nuclear debate was a farce, he said. "It's more than hypocritical, it's a farce for the prime minister to come back from America and suddenly become born-again for nukes." Mr Garrett said his personal conviction that nuclear power was the wrong way to go was even greater now than when he was a member of the Nuclear Disarmament Party.

More here

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************