War for Oil

Here is a story about the real reason the Australaian government went to war in Iraq - to keep its oil supply safe. Hmmm.

.

War for Oil

.

The Australian government has added oil supply security to its list of justifications for keeping Australian troops in Iraq.

The defence minister, Brendan Nelson, says humanitarian grounds, clamping down on terrorism and standing by allies are all reasons for staying in Iraq, but he says there should not be any surprise that securing oil supplies is also on the list.

"It is in the interests of Iraqis to protect and support energy security as much as it is for those that actually buy that oil from Iraq,"

Mr Nelson said. The minister argues instability in the Middle East could affect many nations that rely on the region's oil supplies.

The opposition Labor party's Joel Fitzgibbon says the government has been dishonest with the public from the start of the Iraq war.

"People have suspected oil has been a consideration for some long time now," he said. The prime minister has warned that globalisation could lead to increasing rivalry over oil.

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1970555.htm

.

Please also check out:

.

Peak Oil Debate
.
More Peak Oil Debate
.
World Energy Outlook 2008
.

Global oil supply crunch looming

Here is a worrying story about the possibility of a global oil supply crunch (as demand outstrips supply) - Peak oil debate anyone??

Global oil supply crunch looming

July 10, 2007
Reuters

Record petrol prices are inevitable with global oil demand outstripping supply over the next 5 years leading to a supply crunch, the International Energy Agency said.

In its Medium-Term Oil Market Report, the adviser to 26 industrialised countries said demand will rise by an average 2.2 percent a year between 2007 and 2012, up from a previous medium-term forecast of 2 percent.

"Despite four years of high oil prices, this report sees increasing market tightness beyond 2010," the IEA said.

"It is possible that the supply crunch could be deferred - but not by much."

The IEA's previous Medium-Term report called for world demand growth of 2 percent a year between 2006 and 2011.

It now expects global demand to reach 95.8 million barrels per day (bpd) from 86.1 million bpd in 2007. The forecast assumes average global GDP growth of 4.5 percent annually.

"The results of our analysis are quite strong," said Lawrence Eagles, head of the IEA's Oil Industry and Markets Division. "Something needs to happen."

"Either we need to have more supplies coming on stream or we need to have lower demand growth."

The Paris-based IEA also said additional global refining capacity over the next five years will lag earlier expectations as rising costs and a shortage of engineers delay construction.

It said world production of biofuels would reach 1.75 million bpd by 2012, more than double 2006 levels, but the fuel will remain marginal as economics hobble further growth.

More here
.
**Please also check out:

.

Peak Oil Debate

.

More Peak Oil Debate

.

World Energy Outlook 2008

Climate Change Protest

Photo by Glen Mccurtayne

Climate Change Ski Team member Josh Brown of Bega is led away after his protest.

He shouted: "What are you doing about global warming? There is no snow, there is no snow"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/assault-charge-for-protestor/2007/07/04/1183351262290.html

Human greed takes lion's share of solar energy

July 3, 2007
SMH

HUMANS are just one of the millions of species on Earth, but we use up almost a quarter of the sun's energy captured by plants - the most of any species.

The human dominance of this natural resource is affecting other species, reducing the amount of energy available to them by almost 10 per cent, scientists report.

Researchers said the findings showed humans were using "a remarkable share" of the earth's plant productivity "to meet the needs and wants of one species".

They also warned that the increased use of biofuels - such as ethanol and canola - should be viewed cautiously, given the potential for further pressure on ecosystems.

The scientists, from Austria and Germany, who publish their results today in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analysed data on land use, agriculture and forestry from 161 countries, representing 97 per cent of the world's land mass.

This showed humans used 24 per cent of the energy that was captured by plants. More than half of this was due to the harvesting of crops or other plants.

The human use of the natural resource varied across the globe, ranging from 11 per cent in Oceania and Australia, to 63 per cent in southern Asia.

An agriculture professor at the University of Melbourne, Snow Barlow, said the paper showed humans were taking up too much of an important natural resource.

"Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources … we're probably being a bit greedy."

Chee Chee Leung

"Mass incidents" on the rise as environment deteriorates

2007-07-05
China Daily

Chinese people's refusal to accept an ever deteriorating environmental situation has resulted in a rising number of "mass incidents", the country's chief environment official said on Wednesday.

Zhou Shengxian, director of the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), did not give detailed figures or examples when addressing a national environment meeting on Wednesday.

But Zhou did reveal that his agency received 1,814 petitions in the first five months of the year appealing for a better environment, an 8 percent increase over the same period of last year.

"As people's living standards rise, they are focusing more on the environment and on quality of life," said Zhou, acknowledging that repeated environmental incidents have undermined public confidence.

Since May, blue-green algae outbreaks have been reported in eastern Taihu Lake, Chaohu Lake and southwestern Dianchi Lake, endangering local tap water supply.

The local government said on Wednesday water supplies to 200,000 people in Shuyang county in east China's Jiangsu Province had been halted for more than 40 hours after ammonia and azote polluted a local river.

An unending series of water pollution incidents has prompted environmental officials to suddenly become very outspoken.

"In China the environment is facing extremely difficult conditions," Zhou said.

Zhou also revealed that the administration would treat the prevention of pollution in the main rivers and lakes as the priority task in the last six months of the year.

"We will give all the polluted rivers and lakes a rest," he said, admitting that northern China's Liaohe River and Haihe River had been seriously contaminated.

There is still a possibility of a pollution outbreak in Chaohu Lake, Dianchi Lake and drainage area of the Three Gorges offshoot, he added.

Frequent water pollution incidents also increased the Cabinet's concern, as a State Council executive meeting presided over by Premier Wen Jiabao on Wednesday stressed the need to amend the existing law on handling of water pollution, allowing for harsher punishment for illegal practices.

The growth of China's high energy-consuming and polluting industries in the first five months of 2007 far exceeded that of the national economy, "posing great difficulties for environmental protection," said Zhou.

SEPA vice-director Pan Yue said on Tuesday that "traditional ways of development have caused the near breakdown of China's resources and environment and people's lives are in great danger."

Local authorities in six cities, two counties and five industrial zones - all in the vicinity of the Yellow River, the Yangtze River, the Huaihe River and the Haihe River - only have three months to fix their "environmental problems", according to Pan.

He set in motion a plan to tackle water pollution in China's four major rivers, mainly targeting illegal pollution discharge.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-07/05/content_910216.htm

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

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

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

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

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

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

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

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

Climate Change Game
.
COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOME !!
.
So please, tell us what you think.

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

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

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

.

Combating Climate Change and Boosting Growth Are Natural Allies

.

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

RUPERT MURDOCK: CO2 challenge

11May07

I'm here to tell you about a new initiative we're undertaking at News, one that will affect us all. As many of you know, I grew up in Melbourne, Australia and the last few months and years have brought some changes there: In Melbourne, 2006 was the 10th consecutive year with below average rainfall. And 2005 was the hottest year on record throughout Australia. Australia is suffering its worst drought in 100 years. Now, I realize we can't take just one year in one city or even one continent as proof that something unusual is happening. And I am no scientist. But I do know how to assess a risk-- and this one is clear. Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction. We must transform the way we use energy, and of course not only because of climate change... When I look around the world today, I see continued dependence on oil from vulnerable regions... and oil money going to leaders of countries hostile to us. Then there's accelerating development in China, India and other developing economies that are reliant on fossil fuels. But there are promising new technologies-- bio-fuels, solar and wind power, cleaner coal. And we all hear a demand from the public-- our audiences-- for governments and businesses to involve them in solving our energy challenge. Climate change and energy use are global problems-- News Corp is a global company. Our operations affect the environment all over the world. Our audiences-- hundreds of millions of people on five continents-- care about this issue. Three quarters of the American public believes climate change is a serious problem, and in many other countries, developed and developing, the numbers are even higher. And as many companies have already learned, acting on this issue is simply good business. Reducing our use of energy reduces costs. Inviting our employees to be active on this issue helps us recruit and retain the world's best. For us, as a media company-- this is a chance to deepen our relationships with our viewers, readers, and web users. The initiative we are launching today will involve every business, every function. It's not only for our facilities managers or our fleet directors-- it's about how we recruit new employees, how we develop relationships with advertisers and how we design movie sets. This is about changing the DNA of our business to re-imagine how we look at energy. This is all new for us. We have much to learn from others. We studied the example of BSkyB, and we met with non-governmental organizations, with other companies, and with scientific experts. If we are to connect with our audiences on this issue, we learned that we must first get our own house in order... We're not a manufacturer, or an airline, but we do use energy. Printing and publishing newspapers, producing films and television programs, operating 24-hour newsrooms. It all adds carbon to the atmosphere. Our first step was to measure our emissions of greenhouse gases-- our carbon footprint. Our carbon footprint last year was 641,150 tons. It includes the electricity used in all our operations globally, and any fuels we burn. Our analysis was independently verified and, today, we are reporting these figures to the public. We could make a difference just by holding our emissions steady as our businesses continue to grow. But that doesn't seem to be enough: we want to go all the way to zero. Today, I am announcing our intention to be carbon neutral, across all our businesses, by 2010. BSkyB has already done this. When all of News Corporation becomes carbon neutral it will have the same impact as turning off the electricity in the city of London for five full days. Some of our businesses use more energy than others, but our strategy everywhere is the same... first, reduce our use of energy as much as possible. Then, switch to renewable sources of power where it makes economic sense... And, over time, as a last resort, offset the emissions we can't avoid. This will take time, but we have already started: On the Fox lot in Los Angeles, we have completed three separate reviews of energy use, and we found some areas to address immediately... even just switching the bulbs in our exit signs, will reduce carbon emissions by 200 tons. That's equal to 200 flights from New York to LA. We're also experimenting with solar-powered golf carts on the Lot... We've broken ground on the new Fox studios building that will be our first U.S. building officially certified as achieving excellence in environmental design. The New York Post has begun replacing lighting at their plant... and we'll do the same at our headquarters. Our new Fox Networks Center in Houston will utilize the latest LED lighting technology in all of its master control rooms. And at News America Marketing in the U.S. and at News Digital Media in Australia, we've begun replacing the companies' fleet cars with hybrid vehicles. The award-winning Keith Murdoch House in Adelaide, opened two years ago, uses 40% less energy than a typical office building. It uses solar panels to heat water, and collects rainwater from the roof to be re-used in the building. As we upgrade and expand everywhere, building new data centers and office buildings, from Bulgaria to India, from Chicago to Milan, we will always take energy into account... As we reduce our energy consumption, we are also buying electricity from sources that use less carbon... Today, I am proud to announce that both News International and HarperCollins in the UK have entered arrangements to buy renewable energy... 70% of News International's electricity will now come from hydroelectric power plants in Scotland... saving over 36,000 tons of carbon next year alone - enough to fill 650 railroad cars with coal. These two businesses have made such rapid progress that they will be carbon neutral by the end of this year. While we handle our own emissions, we can also work with our business partners to reduce emissions together.... Sky, working with NDS, redesigned their set-top boxes to go to a power-saving mode automatically. Fox Home Entertainment was recently recognized by Wal-Mart for reducing the environmental impacts of our DVDs and-- just yesterday-- we completed an analysis of the carbon footprint of a DVD from the first moment of its production-- all the way to the retailer's shelf. In London, we have done a similar analysis of one issue of the Times-- from the tree to disposal-- looking for ways to reduce carbon up and down our supply chain. While we reduce our own carbon footprint we will encourage the companies who truck our DVDs and newspapers, sell us paper, and provide an enormous range of products and services-- to all contribute. Today, we are joining the Climate Group, a coalition of businesses and governments working together to solve the climate problem. But some emissions will be unavoidable. As a last resort, we will offset these emissions. A carbon offset is a financial tool to support projects that prevent carbon from being released into the atmosphere. Done right, they will widen the implementation of carbonsaving technologies, and give an incentive to create new solutions. We have entered into an agreement to begin purchasing carbon offsets this year, from projects that provide wind power in India. When our net emissions reach zero-- through a combination of operational changes and carbon offsets-- we will be carbon neutral. We need to push ourselves to make as many reductions as possible in our own energy use first-- and that takes time. But we must do this quickly-- the climate will not wait for us. But becoming carbon neutral is only the beginning. The climate problem will not be solved by one company reducing its emissions to zero, and it won't be solved by one government acting alone. The climate problem will not be solved without mass participation by the general public in countries around the globe. And that's where we come in. We're starting with our own carbon footprint. Not nothing. But much of what we're doing is already, or soon will be, little more than the standard way of doing business. We can do something that's unique, different from just any other company. We can set an example, and we can reach our audiences. Our audience's carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than ours... That's the carbon footprint we want to conquer. We cannot do it with gimmicks. We need to reach them in a sustained way. To weave this issue into our content-- make it dramatic, make it vivid, even sometimes make it fun. We want to inspire people to change their behavior. Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just one percent. That would be like turning the State of California off for almost two months. And imagine if... we were able to take on the carbon footprint of our audience in Asia. Many of the most serious impacts of climate change will be felt there, and China and India's emissions are rising rapidly. STAR is the number one Hindi-language network in the world. In India alone, we reach 100 million people. The challenge is to revolutionise the message. For too long, the threats of climate change have been presented as doom and gloom-- because the consequences are so serious. We need to do what our company does best: make this issue exciting. Tell the story in a new way. And, as you saw in our opening video, this is already happening... news coverage of this issue is increasing, but we can also do some things that are unexpected: SPEED, the network devoted to cars and motorcycles, is working on a project that will peek into the future as transportation, fuels, and motorsports go green... Our advertisers are asking us for ways to reach audiences on this issue. FOX is developing a solutions-based campaign which will offer advertisers the opportunity to partner with us to engage the general public. 24 is committing to change the way the show is produced... using biodiesel generators, and powering the studio with renewable energy... FOX has plans underway for the All-Star Game this summer. The National Geographic Channel is launching a new effort, called Preserve Our Planet, to offer programming related to climate change... On July 7, a series of concerts around the world, the LiveEarth concerts, will draw further attention to this issue... and Foxtel will be the exclusive Australian broadcast partner for this event. And then there's what we can do online. I'm proud to announce that MySpace has launched a channel dedicated to climate change. MySpace.com-- slash-- OurPlanet. What better way to enable young people to connect with each other and engage on this issue. Now... there are limits to how far we can push this issue in our content. Not every hero on television can drive a hybrid car. Often times it just won't fit. We must avoid preaching. And there has to be substance behind the glitz. But if we are genuine, we can change the way the public thinks about these issues. Now there will always be journalists... including some of ours... who are skeptical, which is natural and healthy. But the debate is shifting from whether climate change is really happening to how to solve it. And when so many of the solutions make sense for us as a business, it is clear that we should take action not only as a matter of public responsibility, but because we stand to benefit. This all begins with you, our employees. As we reduce our company's carbon footprint, we will help you to reduce your own. I've started myself-- I bought a hybrid car a few months ago-- and of course for each of us there will be some changes we can make, and other changes we can't. But we shouldn't let what we can't do stop us from doing what we can. We have launched Cool Change, our campaign to communicate with you on this issue, including a website where you can contribute ideas, and be rewarded for your efforts. Fox has recently announced a new benefit it is offering its employees: a financial incentive to buy a hybrid car. We plan to roll this out to other News Corporation businesses. I ask each of you to think about how this effort affects your own job, because I am certain it does. As you discover new ways to save money or connect with your audiences or business partners, you will realize: finding a way to act on climate change is not only good for the planet, and not only good for our business, it will be good for your career. And it will be great for attracting new talent-- dynamic, creative, engaged people who think about the future, not one year ahead, but a generation ahead-- exactly the kind of people we need for our company to thrive. Our company has always been about imagining the future and then making that vision a reality. News was once a small publisher of newspapers in one region of Australia... There have always been those who doubted us... Who doubted us when we expanded to Great Britain... When we launched a fourth broadcast network in the United States... When we launched a cable news network... When we bought MySpace... And they have been proven wrong. At each step, we took a risk, and re-invented ourselves. News Corporation, today, reaches people at home and at work... when they're thinking... when they're laughing... and when they are making choices that have enormous impact. The unique potential-- and duty-- of a media company are to help its audiences connect to the issues that define our time. We are only at the beginning of this mission, and we have a long way to go. As we imagine the future, our responsibility now is to make that future our own. I hope that each of you will continue to be inspired by that challenge, just as I am. We have much to do.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/05/11/3612_opinion.html

Brundtland 20 years on

A Conversation With Gro Harlem Brundtland
20 Years Later, Again Assigned to Fight Climate Change

by Andrew Revkin
Published: May 8, 2007

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
Reaching out even to competitors like China, where coal-powered plants continue to rise, is crucial, she said.

Twenty years ago, the former Norwegian prime minister and public health doctor directed a United Nations commission seeking ways to balance the human enterprise and the planet’s limits.

The human population was then spiking toward five billion. Scientists were raising early concerns about a buildup of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. The Amazon was ablaze. The latest African famine had struck. The eco-disasters of Bhopal and Chernobyl still resonated.

What became known as the Brundtland Commission concluded in a report titled “Our Common Future” that a global goal should be to make social and economic development sustainable, meaning that it “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Today, the human population is more than 6.5 billion, and nearly half the people in the world live on less than $2 a day. Emissions are rising relentlessly in established and emerging economic powers, and economic expansion is still the prime goal around the world.

And at 68, after a stint directing the World Health Organization, Dr. Brundtland is being asked to attack global environmental problems once more.
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon chose her as one of three special envoys with the job of prodding world leaders to act on at least one environmental front: cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Brundtland’s focus will be getting countries to commit to new actions under the Kyoto Protocol, under which only a few dozen countries are required to make cuts in emissions, and the underlying 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, which committed nearly all the world’s countries to avoiding dangerous human interference with the climate system but did not mandate any steps.

In a telephone interview from her home in Nice, France, Dr. Brundtland reflected on the need for leaders to shape national priorities for the future and for the sake of people on the other side of the globe.

Q. There seem to be many people who haven’t accepted that humans are influencing the environment on a planetary scale, particularly the climate. Does it surprise you that it’s taken such a long time for us to absorb the idea that we’ve gone global?

A. At the time of our report in 1987, the messages we gave were very clear about the issue. And they were explained in relatively simple, readable terms. The message certainly spread to environmental groups, to the scientific and research community, to the universities and to the political environment in many countries. But then, when you go from that level to the average person, it probably is a different question. These are complicated issues. So it has taken a long time for public opinion to put pressure on politicians.

Not in all countries. In Norway we had elections in 1989, and the environment was so high on the agenda that it really overshadowed most other issues. In 1990, my government instituted a carbon dioxide tax. I had all the oil-producing countries of the world lining up against me. I explained there is no other way to deal with climate change than to do something about the price of carbon.

You have to do things that hurt. It hurt certainly industry and the oil industry when this happened. Today, 20 years later, this has affected Norway’s continental shelf. It is the cleanest oil technology anywhere, because they’ve had a tax and regulations that inspired or forced them to do the right thing. Now more and more political leaders understand that things need to be done, and we cannot accept politicians who are not taking this seriously.

Q. This sustainability concept as you laid it out 20 years ago goes against one of the foundations of established economic theory, which is that the future will always be richer and smarter than the present generation, so we shouldn’t sacrifice today for their sake.

A. For people in their 50s or 40s today, if you look back in history that has always been the case. Everything they’ve learned or experienced has led in this direction, and they haven’t had to listen that there are some problems that are not integrated with that economic theory. Now, as more and more economists are aware, these environmental costs cannot be externalized, the environment has to be integrated and taken account of. Now economists are not taken seriously anymore if they disregard this new reality.

Q. So does protecting the global environment require a new economics in a way?

A. You have to put it into the equation. That is what has been done in the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (www.ipcc.ch) Actions in the next two or three decades will determine if it is possible to get to no more than 2 or 2.4 degrees temperature increase (3.5 to 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit). They find it is possible, using existing technologies and developing technologies that are now realistic. And they find it is a very small cost involved. It is not as if what needs to happen is plainly impossible for economic or other reasons. The challenge is political — it’s whether political decision makers around the world can act quickly enough to make a difference.

Q. How much does the rich world owe countries that haven’t contributed to the greenhouse gas buildup so far?

A. We were very clear in 1987 that the responsibility for dealing with these problems building up in the atmosphere, that responsibility belongs to the industrialized world. We have to clean up our problems, and at the same time we have to help the developing world have new technologies to make it possible for them to jump over the polluting stages that we have been through.

Q. There are many in the United States, and Europe to some extent, who say that fast-growing countries like China are already our fierce competitors, so why should we be helping them?

A. These are some of the reasons progress is slow. Somehow, though, you have to reach out your hand to those countries that really need investment support to avoid the coal-fired plants that come up every week in China with no cleaning technology. This cannot continue.

That kind of reluctance is an illustration of underestimating the reality that we are in this together. What kind of world is it if we think in traditional terms of competitive advantage, or being overrun by countries that are developing and competing with each of us, and at same time we lose the future for our children due to our lack of action in a situation that is irreversible? I think now that more people understand that there is no way around this. I believe it, but I choose to be optimistic.

Q. What message will you be carrying on your climate mission?

A. We have no time to lose. The data are now clearly presented and have very high confidence levels. There is no question anymore about scientific disagreement. So many things are easily done and lead to improved energy efficiency and a number of other benefits.

Unless we start immediately fulfilling the Kyoto Protocol and then continuing with a broader basis with all countries involved, this is going to get completely out of control and we will not be able to cap carbon dioxide levels. It’s a drama playing itself out in front of us, where we are still able to change a very dangerous scenario but we cannot wait for another 5 or 10 years. We must be active now.