The Parsons Report (2)

phill Parsons

The Budget offers its largest slice [$2B] to CCS, as yet unproved and as the above shows not the only solution to reducing GHG emissions from coal.

Contrast this with the offer to solar power stations of $1.5B. Now we know solar works and we don’t have a proven system with CCS. Then its installation will be ages away, allowing emissions to send us into the dangerous climate level of atmospheric CO2.

Only a government in denial of reality could think of supporting an unproven system to such a degree.

Parsons Report 2

WELL the budget will take a up a part of this report but lest have a look at a phenomenon in the animal world first.

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507142230.htm]

Normally periodical cicadas have a 17 year life cycle. The expert in early emergence of cicadas believes there is a feedback between early emergence and increased temperature [mild winters].

Former Victorian Labor MP Evan Thorley, invited in from the corporate world by Steve Bracks recently resigned from the Brumby government.

In a recent speech he revealed he left government to promote electric car recharging stations in Austrlaia, what he perceives as an emerging business.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25476953-2702,00.html

A new model of emerging business entrepreneur, one promoting green technologies, Thorley has some understanding of government and the solutions to the major issue, carbon pollution.

Criticizing Victoria for its ineptitude in not gassifying brown coal and burning the gas, thus reducing the amount of carbon emitted he drew attention to the failure of the coal industry and government in not proceeding with available technologies to reduce carbon GHG emissions now.

The New York Times reports that this and other methods are being used in new coal fired power plants in China. It is no longer acceptable to wait. We should be building these plants.

Indeed, Britain has decided that any new coal fired plants will have to sequester 25% of their carbon if they are built now and within a decade new plants will have to sequester 100% when built.

If Britain can demand technological improvements and China can do them what is wrong with government here. Is it still in denier mode just wearing a green cloak?.

For those living in the denial world cop this.

The Chacaltaya glacier is extinct. Bolivia’s only glacier, it had a ski resort built there in 1939 and now the people dependent on the meltwater have lost one summer supply source, the ski lodge standing as an anachronism.

People dependent on meltwater from Andean glaciers number in their millions.

In 1998 the glacier was 15M thick, in 2007 down to 3m and now gone.

The glaciers high on the mountains in the tropical zone of South America are expected to be no more by 2040.

The Budget

The Budget offers its largest slice [$2B] to CCS, as yet unproved and as the above shows not the only solution to reducing GHG emissions from coal.

Contrast this with the offer to solar power stations of $1.5B. Now we know solar works and we don’t have a proven system with CCS. Then its installation will be ages away, allowing emissions to send us into the dangerous climate level of atmospheric CO2.

Only a government in denial of reality could think of supporting an unproven system to such a degree.

Still it’s the path of the UK, the US and China, who no doubt will spend enormous sums making CCS work when the alternatives already exist and could be scaled up and invested in

Why not let these other countries do this development work and if renewables are not able to affect the change necessary import the CCS technology from elsewhere. Putting money on both

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25470966-11949,00.html

Home owners get a small slice to become energy efficient when a feed in tariff would have driven photovoltaics and made huge inroads into coal fired power demand and driving industry development as it did in Germany. You know, Labor’s jobs, jobs, jobs.

The ETS legislation has been introduced to Parlaiment. Scientists comment here http://www.theage.com.au/national/scientists-back-climate-bill-despite-target-doubts-20090513-b3a0.html?page=-1

Saying that whilst it may be insufficient its better to start now than wait, hoping that as the impacts of climate instability deepen the rate of change will hasten.

The key is the outcome in Copenhagen. Signals about the sufficiency of the agreement should start in July. Can the government be believed that its low 5% target with a possible 25% if the world agrees to strong measure is an incentive for such an agreement?

Or is it simply another coal industry gambit to continue global carbon terror. If the coal industry was serious it would be falling over itself to spend to reduce carbon emissions. CCS, coal mine methane and gassifying coal would be in place or under construction.

Instead its delay after delay awaiting handouts to develop or to support continued carbon pollution. If the coal industry showed willing it would do their image no end of good and may even see their survival in a profitable business.

Of course the coal industry believes itself so essential they are untouchable. Today that is so and it explains why it acts to limit the growth of alternative energy sources through its lobbying. When climate instability grows and the impacts come home to the developed countries this status will not remain enshrined.

Managers with society’s interest at heart would not delay, they would manage the changes necessary.

Peru – Woodchips are only one way

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0513-peru.html

Bartlett needs to make the forests return as carbon sinks or he continues to suppress the income potential of these public assets even if it is simply a price competition between emissions and fibre.

In a state that cannot afford a dedicated Environment department assets cannot be undersold to prop up outdated practices.

phill Parsons