SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
About this website

SydWalker.Info is a personal website. I live in tropical Australia near Cairns. I oppose war, plutocracy, injustice, sectarian supremacism and apartheid. I support urgent action to achieve genuine sustainability and a fair and prosperous society for all. I rely upon - and support - free speech as defined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see below).

with the dawg

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"

Blog Issues

Unless otherwise indicated, material on this website is written by Syd Walker.

Anyone is welcome to re-publish material sourced from this site, as long as the source is acknowledged with a hyperlink.

Material from other sources reproduced here is presented on a 'Fair Use' basis. I try to cite references accurately. Please contact me if you have queries, comments, broken link reports, complaints - or just to say hello.

Boycott Apartheid!
Boycott
Misc Menu
 
May 2012
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Search this website
Rudd’s $2 Billion Coal Deodorizer
May 13th, 2009 by Syd Walker

The basic idea behind “Carbon Capture and Storage” is enticing: remove carbon-dioxide emissions when coal is burnt and store them safely – so we can enjoy cheap, abundant fossil-fuel energy with no negative greenhouse impact. Fantastic!

False Hope

The Greenpeace perspective on CCS

And there’s the problem… while a nice idea in principle, the proposal remains, in effect, a fantasy. It’s possible future technological breakthroughs will eventually make the fantasy reality. Such things have happened before. Even so, our boffins haven’t had 100% success in making science fiction come true.

Yes, we now have supersonic aircraft – even spacecraft – things Jules Verne and H.G. Wells could only dream about. But we still don’t have time machines. Some things are imaginable – but very hard, if not impossible, to achieve.

“Carbon Capture and Storage” is of that type. It’s clearly not easy. After all, the incentive to make it work is enormous. CCS would assure the coal industry a secure future in a world compelled reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, the coal industry worldwide – with all its vast resources – has failed to develop large scale, affordable CCS. The most optimistic estimates for when CCS may become a working reality stretch out decades in the future. By any standards, it’s a long shot.

The case for spending public monies on CCS research and development is therefore very slim. Why should the public fund research that’s so strongly in the coal industry’s own interests? Coal is big business, after all.

Most legitimate environment groups in Australia have long opposed CCS, seeing it as a distraction at best. But a handful of influential conservationists have given it measured support. The Climate Institute, a relatively new lobby group, is one of organizations that has been supportive.

John Connor

John Connor, Climate Institute CEO: wants to clear the air

Yesterday’s Australian budget promised a national taxpayer investment of $2 billion for CCS. The Climate Institute’s CEO, John Connor cautiously welcomed the expenditure on CCS R & D, saying: “We can’t let it hang around like a bad smell”. He means we must quickly resolve the issue of whether CCS  can be achieved on a commerical scale. (Clearly, if it can’t be done, coal has little future as a mass energy source in a greenhouse-constrained world.)

The problem with this strategy is that it can take a long time to prove a negative. Eternity, to be precise. If, meanwhile, we continue to export and burn coal at record levels, Australia remains a continuing (and worsening) part of the global greenhouse problem. Surely that’s not what the Climate Institute wants?

I suggest Mr Connor’s analogy is somewhat misleading. It’s not CCS that’s “hanging around like a bad smell”. Greenhouse gas pollution – much of it caused by coal emissions – is the ‘bad smell’.  CCS is more like a deodorizer.

The prospect that CCS technology will work in the future has a vital current use – for the coal industry. It helps rationalize its continuing expansion in countries such as Australia. It helps justify building more coal-fire energy plants, even in countries that claim to be  ‘greenhouse conscious’ such as Britain. It helps to cover up the bad smell about what’s really happening: growth of an emissions-intensive energy source at the very time irt should be constrained and wound down.

Vattenfall CCS Pilot Plant

Vattenfall Pilot Plant: progress but no solution

I hope I’m wrong. I hope CCS will work. Some optimists point to power plants such as the new Vattenfall pilot plant in Germany. But it’s only a pilot – and the CO2 storage problems are as yet unsolved: “Vattenfall is currently searching for a suitable storage site to be connected to the pilot plant..”

Some folk hope we’ll invent a perpetual motion machine – but we don’t usually let zany optimists manage our national budget. Hope alone is not a sufficient basis for the deployment of enormous public investments.

As things stand, CCS is primarily a deodorizer for the coal industry. It’s PR. What’s more, it’s PR that coal industry lobbyists have pursuaded our government to fund, with billions of taxpayer dollars.

To my way of thinking, that really stinks.

Clean Carbon: Rudd, Lotto and the Improbability Drive
Apr 17th, 2009 by Syd Walker

Yesterday Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd launched a new ‘Clean Coal’ Institute – backed with the injection of an initial $100 million in taxpayer funds.

James Wolfensohn

James Wolfensohn: loves a challenge

The full title of Mr Rudd’s new initiative is the ‘Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute’. The Institute will have an advisory panel chaired by James Wolfensohn, formerly Head of the World Bank. It’s a nice touch; suitable employment for out-of-work investment bankers is hard to find these days. Wolfensohn’s last two much-feted public roles were ending world poverty and brokering a just deal for the Palestinians. ‘Clean coal’ gives him a go at the hat-trick.

Environmentalists and other nay-sayers have suggested the Government’s infatuation with ‘Clean Coal’ is merely a fig leaf for its pro-coal agenda. They claim ‘Clean Coal’ research is essentially a PR exercise that helps rationalize the continuing expansion of Australia’s coal production and exports at a time of escalating concern over climate change.

That’s an uncharitable view. Better to see the policy as a bold experiment in science fiction. Mr Rudd seems to be trying out the Improbability Drive described by Douglas Adams in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Lotto

Real Games, Real Easy

$100 million is $5 per person for every man, woman and child in the country. Launching the new Institute is like forcing everyone in Australia to buy a Lottery ticket. It has about as much chance of paying out. Of course, the priesthood who will work on this obscure branch of improbable technology at public expense are all odds-on winners.

Will Kevin Rudd now launch a ‘Perpetual Motion Machine Institute’ to help round-out Australia’s credentials in wacky science? How about a ‘Time Machine Institute’? Does Afghanistan need a new Research Institute in Kabul, devoted to research into non-addictive opium?

After 18 months in office, the Rudd Government’s track record on climate change policy has disappointed even the pessimists. It has:

  1. Failed even to maintain market continuity for household solar installation projects subsidized by the previous Government
  2. Developed an Emission Trading Scheme proposal that’s already widely discredited and viewed as a scam favouring the nation’s worst polluting industries (fortunately – but no thanks to the Government – a Senate Committee has begun dissecting the proposed ETS in public).
  3. Failed to introduce decisive new policies favouring renewable energy
  4. Offset the benefits of stimulus package expenditure on roof insulation and other emissions-reducing investments by misdirecting public funds into old-style infrastructure conducive to emissions growth.
False Hope

Rudd's Clean Coal Policy: $100 million of False Hope?

Now Mr Rudd and his colleagues have lavished $100 million on a technological experiment that the coal industry itself considers too risky. After all, if the industry believed Carbon Capture and Storage was feasible within a realistic time frame, surely it would have done the research itself and proved the case, years ago? Yet again, we see socialization of loss on behalf of profitable big business. In this case, the ‘loss’ is a large public relations bill, masquerading as science.

Human-induced climate change is a critical policy issue and these are perilous times. We real leaders – not spivs – to chart the course towards a sustainable future.

_________________________

See also the critque of ‘Clean Carbon’ technology in the May 2008 Greenpeace report:  False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate

Perpetual Motion Machine

The NeoClassical Perpetual Motion Machine

Cartoon with thanks to the brilliant toothpastefordinner.com team.

Rudd’s Greenhouse Target: Disaster for our Grandchildren?
Dec 17th, 2008 by Syd Walker

As our mainstream politicians and major polluting industries are apt to remind us often, Australia is only a bit player when it comes to global greenhouse emissions. We contribute a relatively small proportion of the global total, overshadowed by the USA, Europe, China and other more populous regions of the planet.

haxelwood_power_station

Hazelwood power plant: Australia's dirtiest power plant? Not due to close until 2030

On the other hand, Australia’s per capita CO2 emissions are among the highest in the world. Australia’s ‘historical responsibility’ for the increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since industrialization began is also disproportionately high.

Climate Action Network Australia issued a Position Paper called Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction for Australia in August 2008. It mounted a case for a 40% emissions reduction target for Australia by 2020.

Here’s the nub of CANA’s argument:

The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report concluded that, for 2° to 2.4°C warming scenarios, global emission reductions in the range of 50 percent to 85 percent by 2050 (compared to 2000 levels) are required36. To keep global warming well below 2°C, the global community must aim for the upper end of this range. This was confirmed more recently by Martin Parry, Co-Chair of the Working Group II of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, who also highlighted the need for global cuts of 80% by 205037.

Within the global community, the wealthy and developed Annex I countries must respond to these scientific projections with ambitious emission reduction targets. Their combined efforts must result in collective emission reductions by at least the upper end of the 25 to 40% range by 2020, based on 1990 emission levels38. The current international climate negotiations are at a crucial stage, where governments must agree on a comprehensive deal that will prevent dangerous climate change. This agreement will be one of the most complicated ever agreed to at an international level. Australia is in a strong position to play a positive role in influencing these negotiations that will include an agreement on the emission reduction targets.

If Australia is to demonstrate its leadership on climate change, it must set Australian targets that contribute to maintaining global warming as far below 2°C as possible. To achieve this, the Federal Government should adopt the following emission reduction targets, with the majority of emission reductions being delivered domestically:

  • 2010 peak emissions, to decline thereafter
  • 2020 at least 40 % emission reductions below 1990 levels
  • 2050 at least 95 % emission reductions below 1990 levels

Note that even achieving these very ambitious targets, if the IPPC is correct, will still lead to a significant increase in global temperatures (around 2 degrees centigrade by 2050).

However, it would achieve stabilization of the atmospheric. Later generations could then, if they wish, go further to reduce greenhouse gas levels back towards pre-industrial levels.

iceberg_melting

If global average temperature rises more than 2 degrees C, polar ice-caps may melt completely, triggering huge rises in sea level.

If the average global temperature increase does exceed 2 degrees centigrade, the probable consequences will be dire. Survival of human civilization in its current form becomes uncertain. The risk of catastrophic ecosystem and social collapse is high.

On Monday, Australian Prime Minister Rudd announced his government’s 2020 targets. His government has chosen the very wide – and VERY low – range of a 5% to 15% reduction based on 2000 levels.

IF the latest IPPC analysis is correct – and IF other developed countries are equally timid – it spells disaster for humanity within a couple of generations.

That’s why, to environmentalists and many scientists, yesterday’s target announcement from the Rudd Government was a disaster.

There is, however, a considerable body of public opinion – within Australia and elsewhere – that rejects the IPCC’s key conclusions and believes human-induced climate change is little more than a media beat-up.

The existence of such a large body of opinion in Australia makes it:

  1. hard for Governments to ‘sell’ stronger emissions targets and
  2. easy for Governments to get away with targets that, according the mainstream IPCC view, are grossly inadequate (this week’s announcement by the Australian Government being a case in point).

Conducting constructive dialogue with the body of sceptical public opinion is an urgent priority for those of us who believe that climate change IS a serious threat that requires strong worldwide action now.

Are the sceptics right? If they’re wrong, why is it proving so hard to persuade them? Are those of us concerned about climate change using the most effective arguments to break through?

I’ve written another essay with the provisional title ‘Letter to a Climate Change Sceptic: Not Far from Consensus for Action?

agmates

Agmates

I hope to publish the article simultaneously on this blog and on an Australian, rural community-oriented site.

At present, Agmates’ editorial line is sceptical about environmentalists’ perspective on climate change and questions the need for urgent action.

I look forward to a ‘robust’ debate :-)

My article will take a rather unusual approach to countering ‘climate change scepticism’. I hope at least some people find it persuasive.

Watch this space.

“I wouldn’t hire them to clean my toilet”
Dec 3rd, 2008 by Syd Walker

The most memorable one-liner of the week surely goes to Runar Birgisson, an Icelandic Marketing manager. Runar feels disillusioned with politicians he helped elect.

Demo in ReykavikMany around the world share similar sentiments, but Icelanders currently believe they have more reason than most.

Following the widely-reported financial meltdown in Iceland, a winter chill has set in. Moods are turning ugly. The hunt is on for perpetrators. Where did all the money go? Some blame politicians. Politicians blame bankers. Artists have begun invoking ancient Norse techniques for cursing enemies.

The whiff of revolution is in the air. Perhaps Marx and Mao were both wrong. Maybe the real revolution will start in Reykavik?

According to an Associated Press report by Jill Lawless and Valur Gunnarsson (emphases added):

Thousands of Icelanders marked the 90th anniversary of their nation’s sovereignty with angry protest Monday, and several hundred stormed the central bank to demand the ouster of bankers they blame for the country’s spectacular economic meltdown.

Tiny Iceland has seen its banks and currency collapse in just a few weeks while prices and unemployment soar — leaving a country regarded as a model of Scandinavian prosperity in a state of shock.

“The government played roulette and the whole nation has lost,” writer Einar Mar Gudmundsson told a noisy but peaceful anti-government rally of several thousand people in downtown Reykjavik.

After the rally, hundreds of protesters stormed the headquarters of Sedlabanki, Iceland’s central bank, demanding the sacking of its chief, David Oddsson.

The demonstrators staged an hour-long standoff with shield-wielding riot police inside the bank’s lobby, singing songs and chanting “Out with David” and “Power to the People.” The protest ended peacefully when both police and demonstrators agreed to withdraw.

Anti-government protests have been growing larger and angrier since Iceland’s three main banks collapsed in October under the weight of huge debts amassed during years of rapid economic growth.

Since then the value of the country’s currency, the krona, has plummeted. Icelanders who grew used to buying houses and cars with easily available foreign-currency loans now struggle to repay them. The cost of everyday goods is skyrocketing — furniture retailer Ikea hiked its prices by 25 percent last month.

Iceland has been forced to seek $10 billion in aid from the International Monetary Fund and individual countries.

Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde told The Associated Press on Saturday that Iceland’s economy would get even worse next year, with a “severe drop” in GDP and purchasing power and rising unemployment.

Haarde said he does not accept personal responsibility for the crisis. He blames commercial bankers who expanded recklessly in the wake of a mid-1990s stock market boom.

But the protest organizers and many other Icelanders say government oversight of the banks was too weak. They want Haarde’s coalition government to resign and hold new elections by next spring. By law, Haarde does not have to call a vote until 2011.

Settled by Vikings more than 1,000 years ago and later colonized by Denmark, Iceland became a self-governing country under the Danish crown on Dec. 1, 1918. The volcanic island gained full independence in 1944.

Throughout the anniversary Monday, Icelanders threw taunts, the occasional egg and acts of political theater at a government many now hold in contempt.

Much of the protest — held on a wind-swept hill overlooked by a statue of Iceland’s first Viking settler, Ingolfur Arnarson — had a distinctively Nordic flavor. One protester threw meat and cheese onto the lawn of nearby Government House, encouraging the ravens to come and whisk the government away.

Artist Hildur Margretadottir came to the demonstration holding an artificial horse’s head on a stick — her version of an old Norse technique for putting a curse on an enemy.

“I am turning it toward the central bank,” she said.

She said Iceland’s bankers and politicians “were gambling with our money, and they still are.”

Across Icelandic society, political disillusionment runs deep.

Marketing manager Runar Birgisson said he helped vote Haarde’s government into power.

“Today, I wouldn’t elect any of them,” he said. “I wouldn’t hire them to clean my toilet.”

I’ve always admired Icelanders and feel sympathy for their plight. There but for the Grace of God go the rest of us!

Iceland has my respect, among other things, because it stood up to the might of British Imperial power on three occasions during the so-called Cod Wars, which raged between the late 1950s and mid-1970s. I have vague childhood memories of the fuss, from a British perspective.

Demo in ReykavikAs far I can recall, there were only very half-hearted attempts in Britain to stir up war-fever and tranform Icelanders into reviled national enemies, people who merited full-scale punishment.

That was an unparalleled moment in British history, when the art of diplomacy was permitted to outdo the war mongers’ urge to bomb, sink and pillage. Icelanders, perhaps, were just too likeable. It was the era of John Lennon and miniskirts. Nobody could be bothered to fight another war. Even the MI6 dirty tricks department mysteriously failed to do a job on the Icelanders.

Consequently, there was an outbreak of peace, intelligent negotiation and ultimately good will. Partly as a result, we now have much more advanced international legal agreements governing use of the seas and oceans – laws that don’t only reflect the interests of a handful of imperial powers.

A Canadian academic explains: “The Law of the Sea was a long time coming… Negotiations began in the 1950′s when it became clear for the first time that coastal resources needed protection. Aggressive action by countries such as Iceland, Chile, Peru and eventually Canada helped to push the process along, and in 1982, 159 nations, including Canada, signed the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea”.

Beneficiaries such as Australia might consider a whip-round to help out the wily nordic folk in their hour of need. Apart from generating a little Christmas cheer close to Santa’s home, it could be a good long-term investment for other reasons.

Iceland has valuable expertise that will stand it in good stead in a world of oil scarcity and greenhouse emission targets. See the chart below of its energy mix, excerpted from a European Energy Forum paper on the prospects for greater us of geothermal power in Europe.

If only Australia, by now, was like Iceland: three quarters of the way to satisfying its entire energy requirements through renewable, non-nuclear, emissions-free energy sources!

Iceland's Energy Mix

»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa