World Bank finally moves on from coal

World Bank Coal power stations will be a thing of the past

The World Bank's recent bold decision to stop funding development projects of coal fired power stations has been welcomed by most.  Since President Jim Yong Kim's took the helm, environmental policy has become a key issue for the World Bank. He has commissioned several reports into the dangers of rising temperatures and the impact reaching the critical four degrees celsius mark would have on the poor. While it is now official policy of the World Bank not to fund the construction of any more coal power stations, there is an exception. In circumstances where there is no alternative to coal, a coal power station may be built. The success of this policy will be shown by how many 'exceptions' are granted.

The World Banks movement to become more environmentally friendly in its development projects has been slow. In the past five years the World Bank has spent over $5 billion in coal power stations alone. Though within that same five years, it has doubled financial support to the renewable energy sector. Despite it long being known that coal is the worst form of electricity production for the environment, the World Bank has continued to use it. It has been slow to implement environmentally friendly policies due to the US's historic position of denying the existence of climate change. Though times are changing and there is a big cultural shift within the World Bank to be more conscious about the environment. The last coal fired power station to be built by the World Bank was in South Africa in 2010. There is one in development in Kosovo at the moment, though at the rate they are being constructed, it's not overwhelming. This official policy shift should cement the direction the World Bank is taking, and should hopefully also influence other World Bank development projects to be more carbon conscious.

As always, there have been critics of this policy. It has been argued by Aid Watch that a ban on coal fired power stations will lead to more damning and hydro electricity production. It is important when hydroelectric dams are built that the environment (and people living) downstream are considered. Many livelihoods depend on the flowing of rivers and the produce that comes from them. Yet as with any development project, there are always some costs. Some land and resources must be used in return for development. The World Bank has been keen to promote decentralised electricity production through solar panels and small wind farms. This allows for electricity to reach rural populations and doesn't require large facilities and cable networks. This off grid renewable energy appears to be the best option for supplying electricity to poor households in developing nations, while not causing severe disruption to the environment. 835 people die a year in Kosovo because of exposure to coal pollution, so it too is not a safer alternative to hydro electricity. The future for World Bank electrification projects looks to be in decentralised, local renewable technologies. Let's hope they stick to it!


Sources: 
World Bank to stop funding coal-fired power stations in developing countries - ABC Online
Can Jim Yong Kim end World Bank backing for coal-fired power? - The Guardian

Rudd's ETS - a dead horse with whiplash

As much as I wanted to believe the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (ETS) would save Australia from the "climate change doesn't exist" idea of bygone days, it didn't. And it could never have. The policy was dead from the start. This 'dead horse' of a policy has been hung, drawn, quartered, minced through the media and whipped into a frenzy by Canberra. The outcome? A dead horse with whiplash, and a public being primed for an election. Considering the ETS policy's imminent death (or "delay", call it what you like), let us all revel in the bittersweet hindsight of what could have been.

It was the Kevin07 election that really got Australia governmentally, acting against climate change. With the years gone by of the Howard government still refusing to sign Kyoto, let alone admit that carbon pollution and climate change was a problem, Australia wanted change. Enter Kevin Rudd and his new government. First act by Mr Rudd, flying over to Bali and ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Finally, an Australia leader who took climate change seriously and was proactive! Next, Ross Garnaut was commissioned to produce the Garnaut report, outlining the best system that Australia could implement to reduce our carbon emissions and impact on the environment. From this, the report found an emissions trading scheme (ETS) was the best method. From within a year, there was action, vision, and a plan to tackle climate change. Everyone, including the media, was aghast at the pace the Rudd government was taking to solve climate change. Comments were even made that things were progressing too quickly. Oh, the irony now! 

As soon as the Rudd government started planning out the policy, Penny Wong (the climate change minister) was bombarded with lobby groups, the coal industry, the Liberals and Nationals, all attempting to water down the policy. The Greens, environmental lobby groups, along with the majority of the scientific and international community, were trying to set the policy to be inline with internationally accepted targets. The outcome? The coal industry, energy sector and Andrew Bolt won. A very weak, emissions target wise,  CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme), was produced. It was here the vision, action and policy died. The once galloping horse was now dead. But this aside, there was the challenge of passing the bill. The Greens wanted higher targets, the Liberals and Nationals lower targets, or no ETS, CPRS or any policy at all. Squabbling, name calling, numerous amendments, an economic crisis, 3 Liberal leadership changes, angry letters to the editor and many 7.30 report appearances later, an even more watered down, delayed, yet still un-passed ETS bill, hovered somewhat like a plague in Canberra. 

Ultimately Rudd could have called a double dissolution to try and pass the bill. Even though he didn't sell it to the public that well, he still would (most likely) have remained in government to be able to call a joint sitting of parliament if need be. From all opinion polls, public support was strong enough to carry the government through to another term if a double dissolution was called. But Copenhagen loomed and we waited to see what came of it. Nothing. Big surprise. Australia took nothing to the table but empty rhetoric, and so did everyone else. From here more squabbling, name calling, amendments etc, etc, etc, were made, until recently. The clocked turned over and it was 2010, an election year. With too much controversy and failings surrounding the Rudd government on numerous policies, including the CPRS, political salvation was needed. Hence the government has come out and "delayed" (scrapped) the CPRS bill, but on the bright side $2.5 billion has been saved. Rejoice! $2.5 billion is figure more easily represented on a graph than Australia's moral obligation to act on climate change. 

And here, the poor dead horse, which had now been flogged, whipped, damned, herald and abused, is used as fertiliser for this years budget. So, still reveling in the beauty of hindsight, what should have dear Rudd have done right from the start. 

First, be tough. A first term government with large reserves of political capital and public support should not be beaten around by a (then) fragmented and cannibalistic opposition, or wealthy and morally bankrupt coal and energy sector lobby groups. The policy would have had the Greens support, and a few progressive Liberals may have crossed the floor in the Senate, enabling the bill to pass. Even if not enough support in the Senate was reached, an early double dissolution would have easily seen the Rudd government back in office, and a double sitting of parliament would have easily passed the bill. Though even if all of this hadn't been done; an ETS, despite being watered down, should have passed to ensure that Australia is continually taking action, but mainly, to motivate the main emitters like the US and China to take action. New Zealand rapidly passed an ETS scheme hours before Copenhagen, just to prove that they too are taking action and that they will hold the larger emitters to account. This form of environmental foreign policy is something that is sadly missed across this side of the Tasman Sea. 

Even as Rudd said himself, "inaction costs more than action". So shake that sauce bottle again and take a bit of your own advice. Despite the unlikelihood of the Rudd government loosing office in the next election due to the major CPRS policy and election promise backflip, continuing on the historical path of inaction, will lead only to regret.

Links:

Poor political skills doomed Rudd's climate policy - The Australian (opinion and blogs)

PM left to stew in his own juices - The Age

Government admits failing to sell ETS - The ABC online 

Greatest moral challenge turns out to be Rudd's dearest folly - National Times

Abbott in - more than just the ETS put out!

It's not often I find myself detesting a particular politician. The one Australian politician that really grinds my gears would have to be Tony Abbott. So while my jaw hit the ground when the news broke that he became "leader" (and I do use the term very loosely) of the opposition, it's now firmly back up in its place, grinding away at my teeth.


With Tony Abbott winning the position as Liberal Party leader, the conservative faction of the Liberal Party has taken over again. But at least they have stopped pining the Howard years (I hope). This is in line with his view not to implement the Emissions Trading Scheme within Australia, claiming that it was a pointless tax that was only going to ruin the economy and not cut carbon emissions. However he also takes the position "we won't be having a tax as part of our policy going to the next election". Instead, Abbott has taken the stance of supporting nuclear power for Australia, and is wishing to start up the nuclear debate. 


Firstly, (and also strangely), I support his view that we should reverse the current policy of not selling uranium to India. As one of the fastest growing economies in the world and an equally growing contributor to climate change, having access now to a low carbon energy source is a necessity for environmentally friendly growth. Because without it, growth will still continue but with more emissions!
Secondly, as discussed in Nuclear the way, but not for Australia on this blog, with Australia having such a relatively small impact on climate change, more long term solutions, such as investment in renewables that thus far can not deliver base load power, is a responsible (and less costly) option. 
But thirdly, Tony Abbott, playing politics as he does, is just muddying the waters around the debate of Australia's responsibility for action and the implementation of the ETS. This magical alternative, is also not to be "rushed into". Methodical debate and planning is necessary for a plan to reduce Australia's carbon emissions, though that's occurred with the ETS. I'd point out an example that didn't have scrutiny or debate, like 'Work Choices', but as John Cleese eloquently put it, "Don't mention the war!"


And even despite the current stance for inaction and a challenge to a verbal joust on nuclear power, a clause for further inaction has been revealed by Abbott - "The right time, if ever, to have an ETS is if and when it becomes part of the international trading system and that is not going to happen prior to its adoption in America." While it may sound like a good stance on environmental policy, the 'Pope of the Parliament' knows that the blocking of the ETS only further cements in the likelihood of an unsuccessful international agreement at Copenhagen. Here's how.

China is the worlds largest emitter, followed by the US. If both come to an agreement to cut emissions, other countries will most likely follow suit (or be made to). However the US and China haven't come to an agreement (despite small cuts and agreements, signalling some hope) , and instead insist on the other a) taking the blame and b) making cuts. When they get tired of this, they look to the rest of the world, claiming no one else is doing something. Those who take the first steps to cutting emissions are leading, are making a difference and most importantly, setting a precedence and signal for the rest of the world to act. This is why the EU trading scheme has been successful. It has had the most impact in forcing China and the US to engage and act! By Australia acting and making cuts, it encourages other countries to do the same, to stick to rules of the "international community". Actions will speak louder than words


But with the recent rhetoric from Tony Abbott and the more outspoken right wing of the Liberal Party, the hot air will continue to flow. So while Abbot may believe "to become leader, you make a new start" and have a "clean break", yesterdays Abbot wasn't good, today he's OK, and tomorrow he'll be gone, and that day, will be "good". (apologies for the very bad religious reference)


Note:
The Copenhagen conference will run from the 7th to the 18th December
The Government plans to reintroduce the ETS on February 2nd, the first sitting of Parliament.

Links
Tony Abbott backs nuclear talks after senate block Labor's ETS scheme - The Australian
Liberals get "one last chance" on climate laws - ABC online
Dead ETS to rise again - SMH online

How China is going green

Barack Obama's recent trip to China has set the tone for the upcoming Copenhagen conference, cue depressing funeral music! Both countries want each other to cut carbon emissions by setting binding targets, yet each don't want to do so themselves. With both countries accounting for over 40% of the worlds emissions, an agreement between these two superpowers is necessary, if any action of climate change is going to seriously occur.

Though despite the depressing tone from the APEC summit and Obama's visit to China in the lead up to Copenhagen, China appears to be making serious inroads into the fight against climate change, which may help push the US into taking a more proactive stance.

Due to the GFC (Global Financial Crisis), the world has seen a reduction in carbon emissions caused by a reduction in global production of goods. Though while stimulus packages have tried to kick start failing economies and boost up production, China has spent the largest percentage (approximately 5%) and amount, on renewable energy and environmental protection as part of its stimulus measures. For in a time in 2008 where the economy dominated the global agenda, China had the foresight to implement environmentally responsible projects and initiatives. This money, while boosting growth and assisting the environment (though to questionable measures), is a positive sign that China is willing to put the environment ahead of its economy. Though from Obama's visit, it only appears that China will do so if the rest of the world (and mainly the US) also takes a proactive stance against climate change, and just doesn't blame the largest emitter and growing emitter, China.

Even from 2008, China has continued to take steps to reduce its emissions and be a more responsible global environmental citizen. Here are just a few of the steps China is taking to reduce its emission.

• Cutting of energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20% by 2010 -reduction linked with economic growth. China appears to just be making it.
• Increase renewable energy to 10% of China's energy production by 2010. 
• "Great Green Wall of China", a wall of 35 Billion trees to stop the encroaching desertification around Beijing 
• An agreement with India to work cooperatively about reducing carbon emissions
• Electrification of 64 000 stoves in homes, to stop dirty coal stoves with health and local environmental implications - however this can just hide the problem, as 70% of China's energy comes from coal fired power stations
• $150 million Sino-America clean energy research centre - however this appears to be more of a token gesture than a real step forward.  

However while China has been making steps towards protecting the climate, the effectiveness of these steps, combined with its continued growth of around 10% appears to be limited. Though with more international support and recognition that China may not just be the problem, but it is the solution, will be step that needs to be taken along with cooperation and engagement, especially from the US. So while the US has a responsibility to cut its per capita emissions (25 tonnes), China also has a responsibility to "grow green" and decrease its overall emissions (its per capita emissions stand at only 5.8 tonnes, despite China being the worlds largest polluter).

So while leadership, initiative, and promises may be called upon or made by other countries like Australia at Copenhagen, proactive action and engagement  from China, and between China and the US will be the worlds greatest hope of creating effective global action against climate change. Otherwise cue Handel's Dead March.

Links

China calls for 'serious soul searching' on climate - Times Online

Hope of  cleaner skies as Beijing Residents switch from coal to electricity - Times Online

Not-so-wonderful Copenhagen - The Economist

Nuclear the way, but not for Australia

With all this hype recently in the media about how Australia should go nuclear to help clean the world of carbon emission, taking a global perspective and stance at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be the most effective way of combating climate change.

The proposal and renewed focus on nuclear power in Australia has come from an opinion poll stating that 49% of Australian's would accept nuclear power. Possibly not enough of a swing to change the Labour government's mind on the subject, as they directly oppose it. However public support for nuclear energy falls like a lemming off a cliff when the subject of location for the plants arise. This is because the Australian public doesn't fully support the science of nuclear fusion, and changes in the way nuclear reactors operate in order to prevent another disaster.

Though developing countries are quite comfortable with the science of nuclear fusion, because their insatiable demand for energy outstrips public or government concerns, and also because these poorer nations would prefer to have electricity than nothing. Nations such as China and India are soon to become the worlds largest emitters because of their tremendous growth. Ironically Australia produces less than 2% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, though we are trying to stop climate change by enacting policy (CPRS) to reduce our emission. If Australia really wants to make a difference, we need to help tackle other developing countries, like China and India's emissions not ours.

The main source of greenhouse gas emissions from Australia come from the burning of brown or black coal. However 80% of the coal we mine is exported, hence exporting and covering up our true effect on the climate. Instead of Australia becoming a nuclear nation, we should be encouraging through all avenues possible for developing nations to only built nuclear power stations. Because nuclear power is low in carbon emissions and is a proven technology that is effective in supplying power for the next hundred years or more, and it is perfectly suited to their situation. But because Australia has the worlds largest source of uranium, it also means we don't loose, but economically gain from such a pollution reduction deal. Furthermore from this, it also frees up financial and political capital which can be spent on renewable energies, to which Australia's climate and location is well suited.

For Australia to transform its energy industry from coal to nuclear power is a mistake. We can continue burning coal in the interim, because stopping it is not going to save the world. However Australia lobbying and supplying uranium to nuclear reactors in developing nations (hint hint Rudd, India), will be key to reducing global emissions as quickly as possible...not to mention avoiding Copenhagen at the end of this year. 

Perception is reality

I read a book awhile back called Syrup by Maxx Barry, which highlighted one of the most important rules for advertising, "perception is reality". That being that if something appears to be clean, or good, then it must be good or clean. The very power of advertising is enormous. It's what makes a Mercedes different from a Ford. One is perceived to be a better car than the other, despite sometimes their similar construction and driving ability. Advertising however, is entering into the political sphere more profoundly these days.

Barrack Obama created and marketed his catchphrase, and turned it into a powerful icon: "yes we can". His campaign symbol was cleverly marketed and designed, to the point where it has been trade marked and other people were trying to scamp off on the 'Obama high/craze' that swept the US at the very start of his presidency. Kevin Rudd was elected under the banner "Kevin 07", and his whole political advertising campaign was run by a professional advertising company (who are now running the latter mentioned). This is nothing especially new, but both these campaigns were the largest ever run (by size and monetary value). Thus the connection between large expensive and successful advertising campaigns and changed public perceptions (which creates a new reality).

Hence someone else who has a lot of money to spend, and a dirty public image is now going to great lengths to turn their perceptions, into the public's new reality. We're talking about the Coal Industry. They have spent millions across the globe advertising how they're investing in carbon capture and storage (even though it is a far off, untested science that only a handful of small scientific plants are actually doing), making the world a greener place (by putting up green posters, replanting the lawn around the power plant etc), but now they're running a campaign claiming that an ETS in Australia could risk thousands of jobs, cost $14 Billion in lost revenue and not cut emissions. The coal industry is running this advertising campaign in marginal Labour seats to try and force the government to disband the ETS (despite the coal industry already getting massive concessions)

Despite the overwhelming economic, engineering and scientific evidence to prove that a) emissions will be reduced (from marginal to dramatic, depending on who you ask), b) the lost revenue will be minimal, followed by increased revenue from a lowering emissions economy and c) more jobs will be created over 10 years than will be lost, through the creation of new jobs (like building new power plants)

So will this new advertising campaign "Let's cut emissions, not jobs" be powerful and effective enough to change public perceptions about the ETS and coal industry?  Or will it be like McDonald's trying to change its ever sticking image that it is an obesity factory outlet? My personal belief is with enough advertising and money, little public knowledge (and interest), plus mentioning 'jobs', the 'economy', and 'bad' at this time will change enough of the public's perceptions, to change reality. That is the sad power of advertising.

Links
Coal industry launches charm offensive - The Age
Coal firms advertisements hit emissions plan

You can't win a war if you can't win a battle.

It may be a common saying in popular culture "you may have won the battle but you've lost the war", but the irony of applying that same logic to the fight against global warming, is far from funny.

In Australia at the moment, we are struggling to put in place an ETS (emissions trading scheme) to combat climate change. It has been delayed for a year, the chief supporter and contributor, Ross Garnaut, is see-sawing between accepting and rejecting the proposal plus there have also been large concessions granted to heavy polluters, such as the coal and aluminum industry. Green groups have criticised the Australian government for not doing enough. The proposed CO2 reduction target is a binding 5% on 1999 levels, with a provision to increase that to 20% if there is a global consensus. The proposal for instituting an ETS was suffering many setback, even before the financial crisis hit.

The thing is, if we can't get up a national plan that actively fights climate change, then what hope to we have to get a global agreement up, let alone actual results! If we can't win any battles (nationally or internationally) against climate change, then there is no way we can win a war.

Developing nations see the economic and social prosperity of the developed west, and so they
try to emulate it. What the West have just realised over the last decade, is that it's actions are causing climate change. Because these West nations are more likely to have stable governments and a knowledgeable populous, it would seem that an agreement and a course of actions could be taken. However, short sighted economic prosperity are hindering these efforts. Emerging nations can't be convinced by powerful nations to take economic 'hits' to protect the environment, especially when the West are a) already developed and b) not taking a course of actions themselves. So while diplomatic fingers point at "who is and who's going" to cause climate change, overall CO2 emissions continue to rise.

But despite this pessimistic outlook, there is still hope. In Copenhagen towards the end of this year, we may come to a global agreement and start to see some action. What we must do until then, is keep pushing the 'green bandwagon' and hope that we get where we want to go. Because if no one pushes, the cart won't push itself.