The whole point of introducing an emissions trading scheme is to make sure that polluting industries phase out and are replaced with cleaner alternatives, renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes. [1]

While the Australian Federal opposition dithers on passing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) legislation which would enable carbon trading, Australia’s weather gets hotter and hotter.

The Bureau of Meteorology’s Annual Australian Climate Statement for 2009 noted last year was Australia’s second warmest year since high-quality records began in 1910 and the past decade was the warmest on record.

In Australia, each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the preceding decade. In contrast, decadal temperature variations during the first few decades of Australia’s climate record do not display any specific trend. This suggests an apparent shift in Australia’s climate from one characterised by natural variability to one increasingly characterised by a trend to warmer temperatures.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) stated 2009 was the globe’s fifth warmest year on record.

Increasing global mean temperatures derived from instrumental measurements are consistent with other independent indicators of climate change, such as reductions in sea-ice and snow cover, and record high global sea levels.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett says this means the opposition is wrong about climate change, thus they should pass the CPRS legislation. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott disagrees,

The Bureau is entitled to say what is happening with the weather, but that does not mean an emissions trading scheme is the best way to combat climate change. My argument is against the Government’s great big new tax. If we are going to tackle climate change, let’s take direct action, let’s not raise the price of ordinary daily life. That’s why I think the Government is dead wrong on this. [2]

While I’m not aware what direct action Abbott has in mind (I doubt even he knows) the CPRS is dismal in its potential to actually reduce carbon emissions. Last year I blogged about Guy Pearse’s Quarry Vision in which he outlined the reasons the current Federal Labor government, like its predecessor, is enthralled by

the deep pockets of the Australian carbon lobby. [3]

In the spring issue of Dissent magazine David Spratt discussed the flaws in the CPRS, including the specifics of the proposed legislation and also broader strategy.

Both major political parties have bound themselves to the fossil fuel lobby and preserving a brown economy, so it is hard to imagine an effective carbon-pricing scheme that would close down the coal industry and provide the investment incentives to build a clean-energy economy being passed by parliament in the next period. [4]

Spratt wrote this before the leadership change of the Federal opposition caused by the legislation, but he was prescient in his views. While the politicians bicker, Spratt outlined approaches which could be effective in reducing carbon emissions:

• A gross feed-in tariff for renewable energy produced at all scales
• Mandatory renewable energy targets
• Energy efficiency targets
• Education and behavioural change programs

In California and Germany carbon emissions were reduced using such methods, without any recourse to carbon pricing or trading [4]. Spratt mentions two strategies which would be far more effective than the CPRS:

• Plan B: An Agenda for Immediate Action on Climate Change by a coalition of environment and climate organisations (Simon Butler provided a summary in Green Left Weekly)
• The Emerging Climate Consensus: Global Warming Policy in a Post-Environmental World by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

It’s the greatest challenge we have ever faced, and requires innovation, careful planning and coordination. [4]

=^.^=

References

1. Hepburn, John (2008) “Emissions trading jobs” Rooted blog, 12 October
2. ABC News (2010) Warmest decade proves Abbott ‘got it wrong’, 5 January
3. Pearse, Guy (2009) “Quarry Vision: Coal, Climate Change and the End of the Resources Boom” Quarterly Essay, no.32, p.37
4. Spratt, David (2009) “Time for a Plan B on climate?” Dissent, no.30, p.34-39

Delicious

I just read Quarry Vision by Guy Pearse. I’m a bit slow because it’s no longer the most recent issue of Quarterly Essay. When it came out I wasn’t sure if I wanted to read it. I assumed it was more of Pearse’s results from his PhD thesis on Australia’s greenhouse mafia, otherwise known as the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network (AIGN),

an alliance representing almost all of Australia’s biggest fossil-energy producers and consumers, either directly or through their industry associations. [1] p.38

Not that I wasn’t interested in his research. He wrote High & Dry [2] a couple of years ago and I thought I’d heard all there was to tell, but I was wrong.

As I read the first few pages of Quarry Vision I thought, don’t we all know CCS is a pipedream of the coal industry and something drastic needs to be done about greenhouse gas emissions, but no government wants to. I kept reading and now I know why nothing much has changed in terms of Australia’s climate change policy. Rudd et al would like us to think otherwise, but while a different political party is in power,

the deep pockets of the Australian carbon lobby have made its members ubiquitous. [1] p.37

Since 1998 both major political parties in Australia received donations from organisations represented by AIGN. While companies are more likely to donate to the Liberal Party, Labor receives donations from all the associated unions. The Mining and Energy Division of the CFMEU annually donates large sums.

In 2007-08 its $700 000 donation was the largest external contribution made to the national secretariat of the Labor Party. [1] p.39

As with Liberal candidates, Labor candidates are recruited from the industries making up the carbon lobby. Jason Clare was elected in 2007 and subsequently joined the House of Representatives Committee on Infrastructure and Transport. He’s probably not championing public transport because he’s the

long time manager of corporate relations for Transurban, the biggest owner of Sydney and Melbourne toll roads. [1] p.40

I’ve never thought much of political parties supposed “differences,” but in the lead up to the 2007 election this somehow slipped my mind. When I was seventeen and naive I got all excited about joining the electoral roll. Then I spent the next decade going to a polling place on election day to get my name crossed off – exercising my right not to vote. It’s not illegal not to vote, it’s illegal not to get your name crossed off. I was very happy the day I moved house and “forgot” to change my address on the electoral roll and also devised a cunning strategy to the convince the Australian Electoral Commission there was someone living in my house who did not have to be on the electoral roll (he did live with me for a few months, so it wasn’t a total lie). My life was perfect until people started telling me I had to vote in 2007, otherwise the world would end. I put myself back on the electoral roll, voted, my vote made no difference to the outcome of the election (while Labor won, the Liberal candidate in my electorate won his seat. I did vote Green in the senate, but whatever). Now I’m stuck on the stupid roll again and Guy Pearse detailed for me all the ways the participants change from year to year, but the ideology never does.

In the lead up to the 2007 election I read articles in The Australian newspaper by Matthew Warren, their environment reporter. (Obviously my brain was addled in more ways than one – environment articles in the Australian newspaper!?) Now I discover Warren was a former PR person in the coal industry and after the election became CEO of the Clean Energy Council (p.42). The Clean Energy Council membership includes companies which deal in solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, bioenergy, and gas (LNG) electricity generation. This is evident on their website, but Pearse notes membership is dominated by “companies whose focus is oil or the unfettered expansion of coal mining and burning,” with “relatively small stakes in cleaner energy” (p.38), not so clearly displayed online.

The Clean Energy Council recently released the Carbon and Renewable Energy Markets Report which includes information on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). I can’t read the report to find out what they said because I’m not a member. Last November Dr Richard Denniss from The Australia Institute brought to light the flaw in the CPRS which means as well as carbon emissions not rising above a certain level, they cannot fall below that level. In Pearse’s critique of the CPRS he focused on the huge compensation provided to industries which produce the biggest carbon emissions (p.63), including coal mining, coal fired power stations and Woodside’s LNG production (p.69). When used to generate electricity LNG emits 60% less greenhouse gases than equivalent coal fired plants [3], but how does this necessitate handing them free permits? Woodside’s LNG production in WA’s north decimates pristine wilderness and Aboriginal rock art. I always thought the point of a CPRS was to put a price on carbon emissions so less were produced, the Australian government obviously doesn’t agree (p.70) and the industries receiving the government’s handouts want even more!? (p.72)

Like his predecessor, Rudd’s government is enamoured of CCS (clean coal) and Pearse examined why it’s not a solution to climate change. That part bored me, but I guess there are a few people who haven’t got it.

The spectacular growth industry is not clean coal, but clean coal PR. [1] p.79

Because I took so long to read Quarry Vision, I had the next Quarterly Essay and I could read the correspondence [4] immediately. I was surprised at the lack of dissenting voices. Surely someone in Penny Wong’s office noticed a publication of such importance to her portfolio. If so they didn’t care about it, probably about as much as they care about climate change. Pearse provided the solution of ending coal mining and export, and the main critique from correspondents was this was about as likely to happen as CCS fixing climate change. (Some correspondents said this wouldn’t be feasible/helpful/”good”. I just think the carbon lobby wouldn’t allow it). In concluding Quarry Vision Pearse noted,

It is up to governments to make hard policy decisions like this one, not BHP Billiton or Rio Tinto. [1] p.92

Unfortunately Rudd’s government enjoys making hay while the sun shines. It’s a shame most of the people making these decisions (and donating the huge sums of money) might not be around to experience the full impact of our carbon addiction, or perhaps it’ll happen sooner rather than later and they will be.

=^.^=

Note:

If you’re wondering what relevance the photo of a jabiru (black necked stork) has to this story, the way we’re going the rise in oceans which will occur due to climate change is likely to inundate the wetlands of Kakadu and there might be a few upset residents, jabirus being one of many.

References

1. Pearse, Guy (2009) “Quarry Vision: Coal, Climate Change and the End of the Resources Boom” Quarterly Essay, no.32.
2. Pearse, Guy (2007) High & Dry: John Howard, Climate Change and the Selling of Australia’s Future. Camberwell, Vic: Penguin.
3. McNeil, Ben (2007) “An addiction that fouls the air” The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 January.
4. “Quarry Vision: Correspondence” (2009) in Stop at Nothing Quarterly Essay, no.33, pp.101-126.

Delicious

…use less electricity.

The daily Perth newspaper has been running lots of articles about the projected rise in electricity prices in the next few years. At the start of April the price increase was thought to be

10% in 2009-10, with similar annual increases to be phased in over the following six to eight years. [1]

In mid April it was reported that a future emissions trading scheme would increase the price of coal fired electricity generation by about 15%, still cheaper than the current high export price of natural gas (LNG) [2]. This wouldn’t change coal as the fuel of choice for future electricity generation.

Last week the price rise was predicted to be 25%, calculated from an estimate of $30 a tonne for carbon (lower than the current $37 a tonne in the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme) [3]. One of WA’s electricity companies, Verve (which is losing money even before a carbon tax), wants

the federal government to compensate power generators or to provide an upfront allocation of permits to cover 30% of emissions. [3]

Economist Ross Garnaut has been commissioned by the federal government to report on how an emissions trading scheme would work. Fortunately he will not be recommending compensation or free permits [3]. Either of these would counteract the point of a tax on emissions. An emissions trading scheme is necessary so that conventional electricity generation which emits the most greenhouse gases becomes more expensive and people will look to other options such natural gas (with 60% less emissions than coal [4]), renewable energy sources, and currently prohibitively expensive carbon capture and storage [5].

At current prices NaturalPower, Perth’s (only) renewable energy option, is 16.67 cents per kilowatt hour for residential customers. Coal/natural gas generated electricity is about 13.9c/kwh, a difference of 20%. Wow, renewable energy cheaper than coal/natural gas generated electricity? If this happened it would mean success from an emissions trading scheme.

Of course these price increases could be avoided by increased energy efficiency, recommended by the Australian Conservation Foundation as the first step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions [6]. The added bonus of reduced monetary costs from energy efficiency doesn’t seem to occur to many. As a student it’s the first thing I think of. The main environmental benefit of going from full-time work to living on a scholarship was I can’t afford all that stuff I used to buy, and sometimes I still miss wanton spending :)

People on lower incomes would be worse off under an emissions trading scheme, they can’t afford renewable energy now, so they won’t be able to in the future. The solution to this is the government reimburse the increase in the cost of electricity to those on lower incomes. A wholesale concession that covers everyone, people on high and middle incomes and business/industry, is not equitable. We need to start paying for the damage we do to the environment, otherwise there will be no environment left.

=^.^=

References

1. Hodge, Karen (2008) “Price hikes to see cost of power skyrocket” The West Australian, 4 April.
2. Jerrard & Drummond (2008) “Plan to build more coal power stations” The West Australian, 17 April, p.1.
3. MacDonald, Kim (2008) “Carbon tax will add 25pc to electricity bills: Verve” The West Australian, 30 April, p.1.
4. McNeil, Ben (2007) “An addiction that fouls the air” The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 January.
5. Warren, Matthew (2007) “BP eyes $2bn clean coal plant” The Australian, 21 May.
6. Australian Conservation Foundation (2007) Consumers’ Guide to Going Carbon Neutral. Melbourne: ACF.

I know I should try to write shorter posts, but once I get started, I can’t seem to stop. So make a cuppa before you start reading.

The New South Wales state government is about to privatise NSW’s electricity generation and the retail electricity market. Former Executive Director of The Australia Institute Clive Hamilton, investigated the problems of future emissions trading schemes for investors in NSW’s coal fired generators [1]. I read his report as WA’s state government is experiencing problems two years after privatising our electricity generation. To sweeten the deal for the WA public, electricity prices for small business and households were capped until 2009. I doubt the NSW government will take any notice of what’s happening in WA, but it might help them if they did.

In October last year the only electricity provider in Perth (from government monopoly to private monopoly) increased the unit price of NaturalPower, their renewable energy option, from 15.40 to 16.67 cents per kilowatt hour, an increase of 8.25%. That month Go Greener blogged about Eloise Dortch and Jasmine Horobin’s grass roots letter-writing campaign on the renewable energy price increase. The campaign was unsuccessful in changing the price rise because residential customers currently pay about 13c/kwh for coal/natural gas generated electricity until 2009, 72% below the production cost. In the next six to eight years the WA government will phase in a price increase in order to sell electricity at its true cost [2].

In 2005/2006 60% of WA’s electricity was generated from liquefied natural gas (LNG). I can’t find the percentage for Perth’s electricity generation. There are many regional gas turbine power stations and some which operate on a combination of diesel oil and natural gas, but facilities are still being built to run solely on diesel. The Kwinana Power Station (900MW capacity), which supplies Perth’s electricity, is able to use oil, coal or natural gas and change as needed [3]. The smaller Cockburn One Power Station (240MW) operates solely on natural gas and another 320MW natural gas fired power station will open in Kwinana this year. This station will supply electricity to Perth and regional areas in the south west of WA [3].

Natural gas is locally extracted (mined) from the North West Shelf and when used to generate electricity emits 60% less greenhouse gases than equivalent coal fired plants [4]. Woodside Energy is a major LNG producer and proudly states LNG is “clean energy,” but this is relative and LNG is not a renewable energy source. Woodside’s Pluto LNG project is currently under construction on the Burrup Peninsula, an amazing, pristine wilderness 1,500km north of Perth.

The region is home to some of the most ancient and comprehensive rock art or petroglyphs in the world, carved by the land’s first inhabitants over 20,000 years ago. [5]

In July 2007, after much debate and protest, Malcolm Turnbull, then Federal Environment Minister announced,

the renowned rock art of Western Australia’s Dampier Archipelago (including the Burrup Peninsula) would be included in the National Heritage List. The 241 square kilometre listed area is 99% of the land area where National Heritage values occur. Rock art on the remaining 1% will continue to be protected under WA legislation and the companies whose leases cover this rock art are committed to working around the sites of high heritage value. Where that is not possible rock art will be relocated in consultation with the indigenous communities. [6]

Of course, the 1% fell in the area of Woodside’s Pluto LNG processing plant, now known as the Burrup LNG Park. The tragedy is that this area has the highest concentration of rock art. In March 2007 Woodside was yet to decide whether they would invest $6 to $10 billion in the project. Just in time for Woodside’s August Board meeting, Turnbull announced the National Heritage Listing and the investment was approved. Big business breathed a sigh of relief. Now Woodside has to deal with the pesky little problem of what to do with over 200 pieces of rock art in Burrup LNG Park. The WA government is slightly interested in the Burrup and have commissioned CSIRO to investigate the possible effects of industrial emissions (from industry like Burrup LNG Park) on Aboriginal rock art on the Burrup Peninsula.

The other problem with natural gas in WA is the Greater Gorgon gas fields on Barrow Island, a Class A Nature Reserve (supposedly). The second largest island in WA is home to internationally significant biodiversity values, including twenty four known animal species (five of them marsupials) that live nowhere else, and Flatback turtle (Natator depressus) nesting sites, a threatened species [7]. Being an island means feral animals and weeds have not had such a chance to take hold, but the increased human access and activities of the Gorgon gas project will change this. Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Shell will have up to 25 offshore wells and gas processing facilities submerged in 200m of water [3]. A port will be built in an area previously earmarked for inclusion in the surrounding marine reserve [8]. The carbon dioxide extracted from the gas is to be re-injected into a saline reservoir 2.5km beneath Barrow Island [9], but Barrow Island and its surrounding waters will never be the same. After government approval to begin construction last year, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Shell now say they won’t make enough money and want to increase annual LNG production by 50%, to 15 million tonnes [10].

Close to 40% of electricity in WA is generated from coal (or diesel in regional areas) and coal fired power stations are still being built. Griffin Energy is very proud to be constructing Bluewaters Power Station,

the first privately owned, coal fired power station in Western Australia and a key contributor to Western Australia’s energy mix.

I still haven’t worked out how a company in the process of constructing a coal fired power station is able to say they are,

committed to sustainability and minimising greenhouse gas emissions in order to provide a sustainable future for the state’s energy supply.

Coal mined in Collie is low in sulphur and has zero methane content, does that make everything ok? I think it’s because the power station is in Collie, where the coal is mined, so there won’t be too many greenhouse gas emissions transporting all that coal just down the road. Griffin Energy forgot to mention that coal fired power plants release about one tonne of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour (1000 kilowatt hours) of electricity produced [11].

Griffin Energy isn’t content to stop at just one power plant, three more are planned for Collie, to be powered with the coal Griffin mines [12]. They’re also planning another 130MW wind farm (good!) near their existing 80MW Emu Downs facility. Part of the electricity from Emu Downs desalinates sea water for Perth consumption (necessary because we waste so much water). In 2004 the WA government signed a 20 year deal with Woodside to provide natural gas for current gas turbine power stations [3]. The export price for LNG is so high that future WA power stations are more likely to be powered by much cheaper coal (even when the future emissions trading scheme increase of about 15% is factored in) [12]. The government thinks we need more and more power stations, but here’s an idea, if we stopped wasting electricity and we won’t need them. ACF recommends increased energy efficiency as the first step in reducing carbon emissions [13].

Companies like Griffin Energy with an interest in maintaining the status quo and continuing their mining, selling and burning of coal are affiliated with the Australian Coal Association and/or the World Coal Institute. In 2003 Coal21 was developed to investigate ways to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired electricity generation in Australia, ie. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) – the best way to sell more coal. The commercial use of CCS in electricity generation would enable “clean coal” to become the solution to all that ails us. Dr Ben McNeil, a research fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW isn’t optimistic in this regard.

Even if the technology [CCS] becomes commercially proven, it would need to be fitted to existing coal power stations to have any hope of reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from today’s levels. [4]

BP and Rio Tinto have no interest in existing power stations and are looking into building a $2 billion coal fired power station at Kwinana in outer suburban Perth. This would capture 90% of the carbon dioxide produced and store it permanently in a saline formation under the seabed off the Perth coast [14] (similar to the proposed CCS under Barrow Island). The final decision whether to go ahead may be made in 2011 and construction would take three years. It could be operational in 2014, but this is contingent on the technology working as hoped and quite a few government incentives because it would be enormously expensive.

=^.^=

photo credits

Just one gorge in the Burrup by Alan Thompson
Rock carving of a speared kangaroo in the Burrup by Alan Thompson
Magpies on power lines by Clare Snow

references

1. Hamilton, Clive (2008) Carbon Liabilities of NSW Electricity Generators, Research paper 51.
2. Drummond, Mark (2008) “Gas prices to join list of soaring house bills” The West Australian, 10 April, p.1.
3. Western Power (2007) “The facts about natural gas” World of Energy.
4. McNeil, Ben (2007) “An addiction that fouls the air” The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 January.
5. Fitzsimmons, Hamish (2006) “Unique carvings cause debate on Burrup Peninsula” The 7:30 Report. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
6. Turnbull, Malcolm (2007) Burrup Peninsula.
7. Conservation Council of WA (2005) “About the Gorgon Gas project” Rescue Barrow Island: Australia’s Ark.
8. WWF Australia (2006) Gas weighs heavily on Barrow wildlife.
9. AAP (2007) “Geosequestration part of Gorgon project” The Age, 7 September.
10. ABC News (2008) Gorgon wants production ramped up at LNG project, 4 January.
11. Western Power (2007) “The facts about coal: The environment” World of Energy.
12. Jerrard & Drummond (2008) “Plan to build more coal power stations” The West Australian, 17 April, p.1.
13. Australian Conservation Foundation (2007) Consumers’ Guide to Going Carbon Neutral. Melbourne: ACF.
14. Warren, Matthew (2007) “BP eyes $2bn clean coal plant” The Australian, 21 May.

I recently looked closer at the ingredients of my dish washing detergent and found Sodium Laureth Sulphate (SLES) listed, not to be confused with SLS* (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate). They are both used to produce the nice soapy bubbles in cleaning and washing products.

SLES can become contaminated with (extremely small amounts of) 1,4-Dioxane [1] because 1,4-Dioxane is a by-product of the manufacture process (ethoxylation) by which SLS becomes SLES [2]. As it’s a by-product of manufacture and not intentionally added, 1,4-Dioxane isn’t listed in ingredients. The US Environmental Protection Agency considers 1,4-Dioxane to be a probable carcinogen, because it’s a known carcinogen in animals [3]. But the US Food and Drug Administration says the levels present in beauty and cleaning products aren’t hazardous (and they have been decreasing since the 1970s because of improved manufacturing processes) [2].

I wasn’t so worried about 1,4-Dioxane in my dish washing detergent (although I’m not sure if small amounts, adding up to larger amounts over time, going down the drain is a good idea). What I don’t like is SLES derived from petroleum products. I’m trying to avoid petroleum derivatives because I want to lessen my fossil fuel dependence.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics recommends avoiding these ingredients, if you’re trying to avoid 1,4-Dioxane:

• PEG
• polyethylene
• polyethylene glycol
• polyoxyethylene
• -eth eg. ceteareth, myreth, oleth, sodium laureth sulphate (SLES)
• oxynol

The above site says all of these are petroleum derived ingredients. I thought SLS must also be a petroleum derivative, but Tom’s of Main says SLS can be naturally derived from coconut and/or palm kernel oil. The petroleum derived SLS and SLES is cheaper and thus more likely to be used in most products, unless the label states otherwise.

Recently the Organic Consumer’s Association conducted tests on some well known organic and natural brands of soap and detergents to determine levels of 1,4-Dioxane [4]. They’re all North American brands (so I don’t use any of them) but Alba, Kiss My Face, Giovanni Organic Cosmetics, Jason Pure Natural & Organic, and Nature’s Gate all contained 1,4-Dioxane. All tested products certified under the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program, such as TerrEssentials, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Avalon Organics, and Sensibility Soaps (Nourish), contained no 1,4-Dioxane [5].

Back to my dish washing detergent, I assumed Earth Choice dishwashing liquid uses petroleum derived SLES because I’m sure they would promote the fact if it was naturally derived. I’m working at making my own detergent using Crazy Mumma’s Dishwashing Liquid #3 recipe. My first batch didn’t survive the hot weather so I’ll blog about it when I try the recipe again.

=^.^=

*note on SLS

Treehugger says Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) isn’t as bad an ingredient as others have said. Tom’s of Main discusses the specific concerns with SLS and the American Cancer Society answers the concern of SLS being carcinogenic. SLS is an irritant. That’s why you don’t want to get shampoo in your eyes, or eat it and why you don’t want to swallow too much toothpaste (although that’s also because of the fluoride and sorbitol).

Sources

1. Black, Hurley & Havery (2001) Occurrence of 1,4-Dioxane in Cosmetic Raw Materials and Finished Cosmetic Products. Journal of AOAC International. 84(3), pp.666-670.
2. FDA CFSAN/Office of Cosmetics and Colors (2007) 1,4-Dioxane.
3. US Environmental Protection Agency (2000) 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide) Hazard Summary. Created in April 1992; Revised in January 2000.
4. Cone, Maria (2008) “Popular ‘green’ products test positive for toxicant” Los Angeles Times, 14 March.
5. Organic Consumer’s Association (2008) Carcinogenic 1,4-Dioxane Found in Leading “Organic” Brand Personal Care Products.

Hot water accounts for more than 30% of energy used in the home. [1]

I’ve had solar water heating for a year. I wanted a gas booster, rather than the electric booster which was installed. My dad (who is my landlord) has had bad experiences with a gas booster, so he didn’t get one. He also told me that the person who installed the system said electric boosters are better, but I wonder if that’s just what the installer likes, or something.

A brochure from the gas company said (admittedly this may be biased because gas it what they sell)

Solar power systems are the most energy efficient if you choose a gas-boosted system. Electric boosted solar systems emit nearly the same amount of CO2 as hot water systems which run [solely] on gas. [1]

From February last year when the system was installed, the booster wasn’t turned on until winter. The weather usually breaks in May in Perth, but April last year was very wet, so the booster was probably used then. June was very dry, so I think it would have been turned off for a lot of that month.

During winter we didn’t use the electric booster in the same way other people might, so the electricity use wasn’t so much (and it is electricity from renewable sources). The booster was only turned on for half an hour before use and if the day was sunny it wasn’t turned on (Perth’s winter has quite a few sunny days). When we first started doing this last winter we would often forget to turn it off afterwards, but it became a habit after a while. Showering and dish washing are the only uses we have for hot water (washing clothes in cold water works well). I do mop the floor with hot water, but that’s something that doesn’t happen as much as it should. Last time I mopped, the dog drool marks didn’t come off (Sheeba the dog drools a lot in hot weather). I decided I had to scrub them. That still hasn’t happened.

Since October 2007 the booster’s been turned off and the sun is heating all the water. I’m hoping the booster won’t be needed until May. With the very hot weather of the last couple of months this means the water is burning hot, but you just have to make sure you add cold and it’s ok. The very hot weather also means I’ve been having cold showers, so even the solar heater is not getting much of a work out. But it’s not like the energy is being wasted – the sun will shine no matter what (and I’m looking forward to it shining a little less sometime soon). There’s an outlet valve for when the hot water tank gets too hot from that shining sun, but it drips into a bucket and I water the plants out the back with the cooled water every morning.

=^.^=

Reference

1. “Hot Water Systems” (2007) Advantages magazine, Summer, p.2.

If you’ve had enough of the consumerism of Valentine’s Day (so maybe Hallmark didn’t invent this celebration or even Mother’s Day, but they certainly enjoy the profits) you can celebrate Library Lover’s Day on 14 February. Libraries have always been eco-minded because they lend books, CDs, DVDs, etc, with many people using the same item over and over, decreasing the need for each person to buy their own copy. Consumption uses finite resources and produces greenhouse gas emissions.

I’m particularly enamoured of libraries because I’m a librarian. I don’t work in a library right now so I visit my local library once a week to get my reading and movie viewing fix. And my research on teenagers’ reading habits means I also frequent Curtin University Library. Remember to visit a nearby library to celebrate Library Lover’s Day.

To improve the eco-friendliness of libraries even more, some newly built libraries have incorporated sustainable building practices in their design. I read about two such libraries in the November 2007 issue of Incite, the magazine of ALIA, my professional association.

The Wallsend District Library in Newcastle (New South Wales) opened in May 2006 and includes ecologically sustainable design principles [1]. It looks like any other library building, but it also has

• a north-south orientation
• AAA basin taps and 3L/6L dual flush toilets
• extensive use of natural light
• energy smart light fittings. A Building Management System (BMS) controls lighting and air handling systems. Automation means systems are only operational when required
• heating and cooling through a displacement air handling system which is adequate for half the year. When outside air temperatures are higher or lower than a specified range, the econo-cycle of the air conditioning system is used and power consumption is reduced by up to 80%
• hot water from an instantaneous gas system
• paper and waste recycling facilities provided throughout the building
• water harvest and reuse through on-site storm water retention that provides water for toilet flushing and nature strip irrigation [2]

The library building has been rated with six stars as part of Newcastle City Council’s ECOSTAR program. This is the highest rating a building can achieve. I was interested to see that the building doesn’t have any on-site electricity generation such as solar panels. I guess they thought the building’s increased energy efficiency was sufficient.

In Queensland, the building which houses the new library at Toowoomba’s Southern Queensland Institute of TAFE was awarded the Harry Marks Award for Sustainable Architecture [2]. It was also shortlisted for the RAIA’s national awards which were announced 25 October 2007.

From a UK perspective, Fiona Harrington recently wrote A vision for Libraries, an inspiring piece on the importance of libraries and the multitude of resources they provide,

bring on the Internet, provide the DVDs, the CDs, the coffee, the sofas, the Tai-Chi and language classes – oh and books too, lots of them! [4]

=^.^=

References

1. Nelson, Noelle (2007) “A fantastic new Wallsend Library after 60 years” Incite magazine, vol.28, no.11, p.25.
2. City of Newcastle (2006) Our Green Library.
3. “Making news” (2007) Incite magazine, vol.28, no.11, p.42.
4. Harrington, Fiona (2008) “A vision for Libraries” A World to Win, 9 Jan.

It is no good just talking, writing or reading about sustainability. It requires us to do something toward that critical and vital end point – a sustainable world – so that we can all look our grandchildren in the eye with something like a clear conscience – Derek Wrigley [1]

For a number of years I’ve been interested in sustainable building design and I have a long term plan to build my own sustainable designed house. The first real-life example I visited was the Subiaco Sustainable Demonstration Home in suburban Perth. It was built by Subiaco Council, but is now privately owned. I’ve often wondered why more newly built houses aren’t designed using sustainable principles. I realise most such houses are individually designed by architects and this increases their cost, but some design aspects, such as passive solar principles, seem to me to be just common sense.

Whoever built my house, or rather renovated it, didn’t bring their brain to work that day. My house faces east west, something you want to avoid when designing with passive solar principles in mind. But some streets are laid out so that the front will face east or west, you just have to deal with it. This can be fixed by putting few windows facing east and west or when neighbours are in your way, using blinds, awnings, trees or other shading. The back of my house was once a verandah, but before my time it was enclosed to make another room. This was done with glass walls, which face west. Every summer afternoon this back room bakes, and lightly toasts the rest of the house. It’s a nice place to pass the time on a sunny winter afternoon, but during summer the blinds are permanently closed and still my house cooks. I know there are special solar blinds that could be installed, but I rent so I’ve never looked into it.

These days sustainable building design is becoming more popular. Before this current popularity, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) needed a new building. In the late 1990s they investigated sustainable design and the Green Building Partnership was formed to design and build 60L Green Building in Melbourne [2]. ACF was the first tenant of this four-storey commercial office building. All tenants have to sign a unique leasing agreement which encourages decreased energy, water and materials use [3]. This is made easier by the building’s design which

incorporates an abundance of natural light, solar panels and a passive heating and cooling system that reduces energy use. [4]

Environment Solutions recently blogged about the shortlisting of The Green Building Bible for this year’s RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) International Book Awards. The UK government has a 2016 target, by which it wants all new homes to be zero carbon emitters. One example of this is a prototype Sigma house designed by the Stuart Milne Group.

The Houses of the Future exhibition was held in 2005 at Sydney Olympic Park. The website discusses why sustainable housing should be built. Last March The West Australian newspaper reported the winners of the regional WA HIA GreenSmart Awards. These winners competed in the HIA GreenSmart National Awards, awarded in August 2007.

TV show Living with Ed chronicles Ed Begley’s green lifestyle and the conflicts he has with his family over his green choices. Crunchy Chicken interviewed Ed Begley last August. Ed said,

the TV show has gotten a lot of my home projects on track – the wind turbine, the skylights, the new Energy Star appliances, the new cotton insulation, the Green Switch energy management system [allows us to have a master shut off to all of the programmed outlets, so we can shut down TVs and other things that draw power even when they’re not in use] – these are all projects that I focused on getting done knowing that people would want to see how to do it.

Even my electricity company is getting in on the act. They include a mini-magazine with their bill. I’m sure most people just throw it out as another piece of junk mail, but I usually flick through it, looking at the pictures. This time I actually read one of the articles, “Eco Dream Home,” complete with pictures of the beautifully designed house [5]. I want to live in the house of Garry Baverstock and Julia Hayes, perhaps they would rent me a cupboard.

There’s no air-conditioning in summer or heating in winter. This is achieved through passive solar design principles. Australian architect Derek Wrigley has designed and built several passive solar designed houses in Sydney and Canberrra [1]. He’s also written Making your home sustainable which includes many simple modifications to make existing houses more solar passive [6].

While the building’s orientation, shape and internal layout were aimed at taking advantage of the northern winter sun, all doors and windows were positioned to capture cooling summer breezes. The building materials (heavy weight rammed limestone and rendered brickwork) were also selected for their thermal mass as they store warmth in winter and keep the home cool in summer. [5]

When days are hot, the blinds are drawn. At night the ceiling fans are turned on, the blinds and windows are opened and this allows cooler air to circulate (above). This is similar to what Derek Wrigley has done, but he used vents in the ceiling and roof [1]. I’m able to do the former in my current house, although I have to make do with floor fans, a ceiling fan would probably pull down my ceiling. The sustainable (dream) house also has:

• Energy efficient appliances including induction hot plates, which operate using electro-magnetic radiation.
• Skylights in the main living areas and low energy lights with dimmers throughout the home.
• Water efficient garden with native plant selection [very important in Perth’s dry climate].
• Storm water collected by subsurface irrigation soaks for watering the gardens.
• Laundry grey water recycled for use on gardens.
• Photovoltaic solar panels on the roof generate electricity and send excess power back to the main power grid. [5]

The electricity company ends the article with the requisite promo telling you to go to their interactive home design tool. I have a list of architects that design sustainable houses and now I can add Garry Baverstock, who designed his house. I continue to dream.

=^.^=

Offline sources

1. Coote, Cathy (2007) “Supporter spotlight: Derek Wrigley” Habitat Australia vol.35, no.1, p.29.
2. Krockenberger, Mike (2003) Building our Hopes and Dreams supplement in Habitat Australia vol.31, no.1, p.11.
3. Millicer, Helen (2003) “Acting accordingly” Building our Hopes and Dreams supplement in Habitat Australia vol.31, no.1, p.11.
4. Noble, Kate (2003) “DIY green office programs” Habitat Australia vol.31, no.6, p.10-11.
5. “Eco dream home” (2007) Synergy Life. Summer, p.2-5.
6. Wrigley, Derek (2005) Making your home sustainable. Melbourne: Scribe.

Australia’s newly elected government has ratified the Kyoto Protocol [1], as the next stage is discussed in Bali, where the United Nations Climate Change Conference opened yesterday. [2]

Australia will now enjoy full participation in negotiations for a post-Kyoto treaty to fight global warming. [3]

ACF has previously said ratification will:

1. strengthen Australia’s ability to urge China and the US to commit to reducing greenhouse pollution.
2. give Australian businesses access to the Kyoto Protocol’s emissions trading mechanisms, worth an estimated $3.8 billion per year for Australia.
3. give Australia voting rights at the crucial meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol at Bali in December. [4]

Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said,

the federal government would do everything in its power to help Australia meet its Kyoto obligations, including setting a target to reduce emissions by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050. It also would establish a national emissions trading scheme by 2010 and set a 20 per cent target for renewable energy by 2020. [5]

The new government is currently reviewing the content of the Australian Greenhouse Office website, because many of the past policies of this department will change. The new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts is Peter Garrett, former President of the Australian Conservation Foundation. Although he may have lost his way in becoming a politician [6], he’s better than his predecessor. Penny Wong is the Minister for Climate Change and Water.

The ratification won’t achieve much in the short term [7] in lessening Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions because of past government inaction. The specially pleaded (embarrassingly so) target allows 8% over 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Institute stated earlier in the year,

Even with Government projected trends, total emissions in 2010 will be more than 110% of 1990 emissions and it is looking increasing unlikely that Australia will meet its goal of meeting its Kyoto target of 108% of 1990 emissions.

Hopefully from now on, government policies will improve and contribute to decreasing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

=^.^=

References

1. Australia ‘back on the map’ with Kyoto decision (2007) ABC News, 4 Dec.
2. Climate change summit to open in Bali (2007) ABC News, 3 Dec.
3. AAP (2007) Applause for Australia over Kyoto shift The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 Dec.
4. Australian Conservation Foundation (2007) The Kyoto Protocol is alive and well.
5. AAP (2007) Australia ratifies Kyoto Protocol The West Australian, 3 Dec.
6. Brown accuses Garrett of deserting environment (2007) ABC News, 5 Oct.
7. Ratifying Kyoto Protocol takes time: law expert (2007) ABC News, 27 Nov.

Sometimes I quite like the concrete jungle because I skateboard and I wouldn’t be able to without smooth concrete surfaces, although I’ve seen a skate video where someone is skating boulders in the US desert and it looks like fun. Other times I hate all the concrete and asphalt of our cities.

Scottish crofter Stonehead mentioned that

the airline industry is a major producer of carbon emissions and we’re urged to either not fly or only fly if genuinely necessary.

But he notes there’s an industry that’s trying to keep as low a profile as the airline industry, but may be a bigger producer of greenhouse gas emissions.

Production of just one tonne of cement results in the emission of 900kg of carbon dioxide, which means global carbon emissions by the cement industry total 1.44 billion tonnes.

Stonehead suggests decreasing our demand for cement.

Ask yourself if you really need a bigger, new-build conventional house with a concrete foundation and concrete block walls. Ask yourself if you really need that extension, that patio or that conservatory. Ask if your shed really does need a foundation made of poured concrete or concrete slabs.

My dream is to build a straw bale house, but this isn’t for everyone. A much easier way to decrease demand for cement is to live in a house that was built in the past and thus negate the need to build yet another dwelling, with all the resources this entails.

I live in a suburb that has a lot of older houses on large blocks. My house is one of these older houses, although the previously paddock-sized back garden has been fenced off, cleared and sold for future development (and it’s been growing weeds for at least five years). My house is weatherboard with east-west facing windows, but despite its problems, it’s a cosy little cottage which I love. Every time I see an older house up for sale I cringe. More than likely it will soon be knocked down and new houses built on the land. I’ve recently watched a few demolitions; the digger swinging its destruction through roofs and walls and memories. It feels like a death in the neighbourhood. It’s not quite as bad as the whine of a chainsaw massacring the trees on a cleared block – that really is death.

The land ends up being more densely utilised, but so many resources go into this redevelopment. And the resulting new houses often have two stories with four bedrooms and two bathrooms. I guess an expansive abode shows the neighbourhood you’ve made it. This building frenzy is helped along by state government incentives to build rather than move into an already constructed house. This leads to some blocks being left empty for months and even years because of a shortage of labour and materials (most recently bricks, which probably have similar emissions to cement) for all the construction. The cement that’s poured into this economic craze could build mountains (and one big greenhouse).

=^.^=

Further reading

• Macintosh & Downie (2007) A Flight Risk? Aviation and climate change in Australia. Canberra: The Australia Institute.