Thursday, June 28, 2007

Michael Costa an "idiot", says Random Man

Tim Flannery an idiot, says Costa
.
Andrew Clennell
State Political Editor
June 29, 2007
.
The NSW Treasurer, Michael Costa, has called Tim Flannery an "idiot" - just four months after Mr Flannery, the Australian of the Year, launched a climate change forum set up by the Premier.
.
Mr Costa, a renowned climate change sceptic, made his comments in question time in the Legislative Council, saying the environmental campaigner Mr Flannery was wrong to say that dams were going to dry up because of climate change.
.
Mr Costa referred to "idiots like Tim Flannery saying it'll never rain" as he launched into a tirade against the theory of greenhouse gases.
.
More here
.
And the reaction?
.
"My reaction is just lofty disdain," Mr Flannery said.
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment
.
.
Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

BHP Billiton produces 50 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution a year

Here is a story by Don Henry (who was the Australian Director of World Wide Fund for Nature from from 1989-92) about BHP. The biggest shock was that BHP Billiton globally "produces 50 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution a year, equivalent to about 10 per cent of Australia's emissions". WOW !! That is a lot of emissions. Lacking an emissions target does seem a bit poor for such a large company - perhaps it isn't really committed or fails to see the full reality of climate change.

BHP misses the target on climate change emissions
June 21, 2007
The Age


BHP Billiton's climate change policy, released this week, has the giant mining and resources company making a modest commitment to tackling the most pressing issue of our generation.
It is important that this big international business has a policy, but its policy is weak. The company has failed to set any targets for gross reductions in its greenhouse emissions.

Globally, BHP Billiton produces 50 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution a year, equivalent to about 10 per cent of Australia's emissions.

The absence of a reduction target puts BHP Billiton behind many international companies that have committed to absolute cuts by 2010. BP will cut emissions by 10 per cent, Alcoa by 25 per cent and DuPont by 65 per cent — all by 2010.

Duke Energy has committed to reduce its emissions to 5 per cent below 2000 levels for the period 2010 to 2012.

Instead of setting a target to reduce emissions, BHP Billiton has set a target to reduce "energy intensity" by 13 per cent by 2010. This would allow the company's emissions to continue to increase, so long as the company grows. The energy intensity target of 13 per cent by 2010 is weaker than the Chinese Government's target: to reduce energy intensity by 20 per cent by 2010.

On the positive side, BHP's energy intensity target means the company aims to run its operations more efficiently, which is a start.

Many companies, of course, are genuinely trying to ease their impact on the planet. Virgin Blue offers to fly customers "carbon-free" for a small surcharge, the AFL has committed to offset its greenhouse gas emissions through efficiency measures and investment in renewable energy, and Rupert Murdoch recently pledged to make News Corporation carbon neutral by 2010.

None of these initiatives is perfect but the fact that big businesses are tackling the issue is encouraging. There remains a problem with a lack of widely accepted standards and accounting by which to judge the effectiveness of "carbon-neutral" programs. Companies and the public need to know if the schemes are fair dinkum.

Aside from making genuine and significant cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, corporate Australia has another crucial role in all this: furthering the development of climate change policy in this country.

The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change companies — BP, IAG, Origin, Swiss Re, Visy and Westpac — made a valuable contribution to the policy debate at a time when it was pretty lonely out there. In May last year, their report, The Business Case for Early Action, showed Australia could cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, with a strongly growing economy. The companies called for emissions trading and for 2050, and legally binding 2020, reduction targets.

BHP Billiton also knows there are benefits in Australia joining the global move towards a low-carbon economy. The company'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 lucrative CDM emissions trading market is for it to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. BHP Billiton should be publicly calling for bipartisan support for Kyoto ratification, helping take the politics out of a crucial issue.

Shareholders and the public expect corporate Australia to play a lead role in tackling climate change.

First, companies should make genuine and substantial cuts to their greenhouse gas emissions — in absolute terms. Business is a crucial part of the solution. Second, business has a pivotal leadership role in educating employees and the wider community. Third, it is essential that business urge bipartisan support for science-based 2050 and 2020 targets to cut emissions, targets for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and Australian participation in the CDM.

Don Henry is executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/bhp-misses-the-target-on-climate-change-emissions/2007/06/20/1182019202449.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Climate Counts

By Claudia Deutsch
Published: June 19, 2007
NY Times

Climate Counts' Environmental Scorecard

Climate Counts, a new nonprofit group, wants consumers to think about more than taste or service when they make those decisions. It wants them to consider the companies’ records in adding to or curbing climate change.

In a scorecard to be released today, the group will rank 56 consumer companies, grouped by industry, on how they measure greenhouse gas emissions, their plans to reduce them, their support or opposition to regulation and — most important, says Wood Turner, the group’s executive director — how fully they disclose those activities.

“If the information is not in the consumers’ hands, they can’t make informed choices,” Mr. Turner said.

More here
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment
.
.
Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Banking on Climate change's consequences

18 Jun 07
article from Climate Change Corp

Financial services providers are now addressing what climate change means for their businesses and providing risk assessment advice for their clients.

Climate change has taken centre stage in the finance world, as bankers focus on its implications. In a flurry of research, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, UBS and Merrill Lynch have all published major reports on the issue in the last six months. There is a remarkable consensus in the documents – climate change is on the agenda for governments, regulators, consumers and businesses and this is creating some major risks, but also opportunities.

Imboden outlines the concept of the “2,000 Watt Society”, which maintains that a country like Switzerland can survive on energy use of 2,000 watts per capita while still enjoying uninterrupted economic growth and an equivalent quality of life. To put this in context, he says, per capita energy consumption in Africa is 500 watts, in western Europe it is 6,000 watts, and in the US it is 12,000 watts.

Merrill’s Knight concludes, optimistically: “What has changed of late in our view is that the benefits of addressing environmental issues … are beginning to outweigh the costs.” Lehman’s dour conclusion is that if companies do not adapt to climate change, they may well not survive. And ultimately, what is bad for business is bad for their bankers.

More here

** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment
.
.
Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

BHP commits $360m to climate change plan

June 18, 2007
SMH

BHP Billiton is committing $US300 million ($360 million) over the next five years to support emissions technology development.

The world's biggest miner today released a revised climate change policy, stating it believed accelerated action was required to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
.
"BHP Billiton has recognised that our company, as well as society generally, must make real behavioural changes and accelerate technological progress if we are to achieve a meaningful reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions,'' chief executive Chip Goodyear said.

More here
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment
.
.
Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Climate change up for debate at NSW Nationals conference

Sunday, June 17, 2007
ABC online
.
Clear divisions have emerged within the New South Wales Nationals during a debate on climate change. It is the first time the annual state conference has considered the issue. The party invited to the Singleton conference scientist Doctor Graeme Pearman, who for many years headed the CSIRO's division of atmospheric research, but later revealed scientists were gagged under pressure from the Government.
.
More here
.
** If you enjoyed this post please also check out:
.
Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment
.
.
Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.


Climate Change behind Darfur killing

From correspondents in Washington
June 17, 2007
Agence France-Presse

THE slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizo, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says in an article published today.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change,'' Mr Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.

AAP

More here


**If you enjoyed this post please also check out:

Some interesting podcasts on climate change
.
Communicating Climate Change
.
Splitting: 'jobs' versus 'the environment
.
.
Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

The Climate Change Market

by Frank Scott

(Saturday, June 16, 2007)

"In order to affect positive change in the climate, both naturally and politically, a majority democratic force needs to counter the minority anti-democratic force of capitalism. No matter what the weather forecast may be, we will face an extremely stormy future if we don’t face that fact."

The global warming issue has become a bonanza for marketing political products dubbed green, meaning nature, but more realistically, meaning money. While actual dollars are rarely exchanged in electronic financial trading, the markets are thriving on green speak and fear mongering. The problem grows, but the buzzwords and commercials offered, as solutions make no mention of the economics that must be confronted.

Politicians all repeat mantras about future green horizons, but without any change in the system mainly responsible for the problem. Madly creating products for sale in markets, with little concern for either their actual need or the long range damage that process may cause, is the commercial religion which has ruled the planet for centuries. Its name is rarely spoken in serious criticism, for fear that it bring charges of economic hate speech.

Capitalist denial may be the major curse of the 21st century, differing from past denial only in that its impact has grown more deadly. Ecology under assault since the industrial revolution is threatened with even more damage as the spread of global capital brings more of the world into its malls, parking lots, garbage dumps and killing fields.

Growing affluence for a minority, a critical part of this social system, depends on the impoverishment and indebtedness of a majority, and the slow but steady deterioration of the natural foundation on which humanity survives and builds its social structures.

This environmental degradation has been criticized for generations, but now not only specialists and visionaries but ordinary citizens can sense and consciously experience the impact of fossil fuels and imperial wars on a poisoned planet. Though the suffering billions who live in poverty are well aware of the down side of this system, it has taken longer for it to be revealed to the developed world. And it isn't only climate that is sending the foulness we put into the atmosphere right back at us. If we don't change our ways it may not be long before what we flush down our toilet commodes instantly flows out of our kitchen faucets.

Most green-speakers represent the forces that brought us to a point at which natural systems are overwhelmed by the economics of waste and war. Some environmental groups are demanding more conscious treatment of nature, but it is difficult for average citizens to break through the plastic curtain of propaganda in the USA. Much of the world lives under the western gun and can’t be held responsible for the long term, given that its future is often tragically measured in days or hours. The major source of the problem is where the real debate is needed, not only over how serious it has become, but how to confront its source and begin working to assure future survival.

While new age entrepreneurs suggest green product lines, which may slow the pace of deterioration, others are demanding more substantial changes. Local groups calling for efficiency in industry and housing may not yet face the source of the systemic problem, but their proposals will ultimately involve bigger productive shifts than any establishment politician has suggested. That is, once they dig beneath the political surface, and get to the economic substance.

Renewable energy generation, a popular and sensible idea, may make for a revolutionary change, but only if connected to its much more positive use. It makes little sense to switch to windmill or geothermal powered factories that produce weapons, or solar powered sweatshops in the third world, or to use nuclear power to manufacture biodegradable products. Not only the creation, but the use of energy needs to become part of the debate.

There is conflict over whether the climate problem is exaggerated, or even exists at all except in a natural sense. But whether we believe it is man made or ultimately correctable by universe, dualistically speaking, we suffer either way . Until we confront the ever more dangerous system of production and distribution of the earth’s resources, arguing about the origins of a process destroying our future makes as little sense as debating whether death results from mass murders called wars, or mass murders called terrorism. The end result is the same.

Purifying carbon producing industries like coal and aluminum, to name only two, will mean vast social changes that may not be apparent now, but will reveal themselves as we encounter institutional forces that prevent a truly clean mode of production for all life support systems.

And there is no way that so called free market capitalism works other than by turning a profit for private investors in the production and sale of incredible amounts of stuff which becomes un-recyclable garbage, and destroying even more incredible amounts of human and natural resources in the process.

Environmental degradation, whether seen as climate change, desertification, pollution or slaughtering innocent people in commercial race wars, is a foremost and primary example of the normal functioning of that process.

We can’t change the future unless we deal with the political economics of the present, and so far the climate change debate has avoided capitalism completely. While democratic power has been futile, especially regarding the horrible slaughter of Iraq, it must assert itself soon if there is to be any long-term future for humanity. When we stop the war on the environment, we will end other wars as well, and probably see an improvement in all aspects of nature.

In order to affect positive change in the climate, both naturally and politically, a majority democratic force needs to counter the minority anti-democratic force of capitalism. No matter what the weather forecast may be, we will face an extremely stormy future if we don’t face that fact.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/44273