With a flurry of new articles in the media over the past few days, it's about time for another one of those diaries wherein I round up news from down under relating to climate change. In this edition:
- Drought threatens Australian electricity supply
- Howard govt spending millions on climate change ad campaign
- Australia finds a nuclear waste dump site
- Coal mining company infiltrating protest groups with spies
Australian stories dominate this edition, which is no great surprise. Terrible drought conditions, water shortages, vicious spats between federal and state politicians over water management, and federal elections to be held by November have all cemented climate change as a regular front page issue for the nation in 2007. There has been some precipitation since my Climate change news down under diary of April 25 reporting Prime Minister John Howard asking Australians to "pray for rain" but the country still needs a lot more.
DROUGHT THREATENS AUSTRALIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
The recent years of low rainfall have brought the Australian electricity supply close to a crisis point - and not only their few hydro stations. Aussie gets most of its supply from coal plants, and you may think burning fossil fuel is less reliant on weather but actually those coal plants require a lot of water:
Coal power faces worrying climate
Sydney Morning Herald, May 27
Rising electricity prices, the prediction of power interruptions and chronic water shortages must force the State Government to stop its reliance on coal-fired power stations.
That's the warning from the NSW Greens, who accused the Government of living in "coal fantasy land" yesterday after proposed changes to water-allocation rules for the Bayswater and Liddell power stations in the Hunter Valley. Premier Morris Iemma announced on Friday that 40 billion litres of water from Glenbawn Dam would be kept as a "strategic reserve" to protect power generators against the drought.
Greens MP John Kaye said the health of the Hunter River was being sacrificed. ... "The hard reality is that coal-fired power stations require large amounts of water," Dr Kaye said. ...
"If yesterday's Ministerial Council on Energy meeting had put the security of supply to consumers ahead of their loyalty to the coal corporations, they would have confronted the realities of fossil-fuel generation," he said. "Building new coal-fired power stations would not only increase our vulnerability to water shortages but also add to greenhouse gas emissions, leading to more frequent and severe droughts."
Drought threatens electricity not only the most populous state New South Wales, but most of the nation:
Bleak power picture for Australia
TVNZ, May 25
Power shortages could hit all areas of Australia except Tasmania if the drought continues, a new report shows.
A report by the National Electricity Market Management Company (NEMMCO) on the drought's impact on bulk electricity supplies was tabled on Friday at a Ministerial Council on Energy meeting in Melbourne.
Under the worst case scenario, NEMMCO said generators would need to seriously cut output to conserve water, taking up to 2,200 megawatts of generation capacity off-line by late 2008. This represents about 5% of generation capacity nationwide. But generators would also have to reduce their periods of operation, taking another three to five per cent out of the system.
Australia has a long way to go to even catch up to the rest of the developed world on climate change action. Decades of environmental neglect and putting industrial profits ahead of sound ecological policy have led to this crisis. It is unclear how costly and painful the Australian transition away from fossil fuels will be, but it is evident that the transition is overdue and urgent.
HOWARD GOVT SPENDING MILLIONS ON CLIMATE CHANGE AD CAMPAIGN
With elections only months away, Aussie Prime Minister John Howard's Bush-supporting federal government is acquiring quite a reputation for all-talk, little-action empty gestures on climate change. From proposing to phase out incandescents to blaming state governments for the water management mess, Howard has continually kept support for the nation's excessive emitters while trying to sound a little green. Now Australians will see and hear A$23m (US $18 million) worth of just how balanced Howard himself thinks his government is:
$23m ad blitz to save planet - and the PM
Brisbane Times, May 25
The Howard Government is planning another huge advertising campaign, spending $23 million to sell its "leadership role" and "balanced voice" on global warming while persuading Australians to cut their power use.
Details of the proposed campaign undercut the Government's repeated assertion that its advertising strategy is designed only to inform the public on important issues. The brief for the climate change campaign lists a chief objective as being to "increase awareness of the Australian Government's leadership role - by building awareness of the Australian Government's climate change strategy".
It would also "position the Government as the primary balanced voice on climate change", showing it as taking a middle path between global warming "sceptics" and those the Prime Minister has called "doomsayers".
...
A booklet of advice on energy saving and how to become "carbon neutral" is proposed to be sent to 7 million homes as part of the first phase of the campaign. The plan will cost nearly $1 million in June, then $23 million from July 2007 through to July 2008.
The government that refused the Kyoto Protocol now wants to be seen as a leader and balanced voice on global warming? With a booklet on becoming carbon neutral in the land that burns 30% more coal per person than even the United States, and three times as much coal per person as China? Oh please, stop, it's too funny. Or it would be, if it wasn't killing the planet.
Howard's opposition has it right on this point:
Govt 'doing nothing on climate change'
Sydney Morning Herald, May 27
Labor has accused the government of doing little more than pedaling propaganda to tackle climate change. This week Prime Minister John Howard is expected to announce details of a carbon emissions trading scheme after years of pressure from Labor and green groups.
Opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett said on Sunday the government had recognised climate change was an election issue but it was still failing to move.
"Significant numbers of Australians are now showing that climate change, for them, is a distinctly important issue... it will influence their vote," Mr Garrett told Network Ten.
Yes, that's the same Peter Garrett who was lead singer of Midnight Oil. On current polling, a center-left coalition Labor-Greens federal government after elections this year should see him appointed the Environment Minister there. It can't come soon enough.
Oh, and for an example of how A$23 million could be better spent than a political ad camapaign, here's one good story out of Australia last week: almost the same amount is being spent to switch a steel manufacturing plant from drinkable to recycled water.
$21m to save drinking water
news.com.au, May 15
MORE than $21 million is to be spent on providing recycled water for a major Victorian manufacturing plant, which will save 660 million litres of drinking water every year.
BlueScope Steel is injecting $8 million into the project and utility South East Water will contribute $9.4 million to upgrade its treatment plant to produce "Class A'' recycled water.
Victoria's acting Premier John Thwaites today announced the government would provide a further $4.1 million. "Through this project, 660 million litres of fresh drinking water will be freed up for use in households each year," Mr Thwaites said today.
Those stories highlight the current situation in Australia: while the state governments are getting active and doing what they can about climate change, the federal government is wasting money on public relations.
AUSTRALIA FINDS A NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP SITE
The Australian federal government has also been accused of putting politics ahead of science in its selection of a nuclear waste dump site:
Nuclear waste plant 'within five years'
The Age, May 25
More steps need to be completed, but Australia could have its first nuclear waste facility within five years, Science Minister Julie Bishop says. A group of Aboriginal landowners in the Northern Territory have offered their land as a site for a nuclear waste dump. ...
"If I'm satisfied that the rules have been complied with, then I can move to approve the nominated land at the potential site." Asked when Australia might have its first facility, Ms Bishop said: "Within the next four or five years, most certainly."
...
Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said the local Aboriginal community had not been properly consulted. "Labor's not surprised but disappointed at this nomination given that there are a number of interested parties, traditional owners, in and around Muckaty Station who are opposed to this radioactive waste dump being located in and around their country, we understand," he told ABC radio.
"Regrettably, the amendments that the government passed to the radioactive waste management legislation in 2006 denied them any procedural rights or appeal rights. It's critical that the rights all interested parties including traditional owners are actually taken into account."
It seems the government strategy was to amend the laws to make the process easier, then find one small group willing to be bought off despite opposition from its neighbors:
Aboriginals offer nuclear dump site
The Age, May 25
A group of Northern Territory Aborigines has agreed to accept $12 million in return for some of their land being the site of Australia's first nuclear waste facility. Part of their proposed deal with the commonwealth is that they will get the land back, but they may have to wait 200 years.
...
The Northern Territory government opposes the waste dump plan but is effectively powerless to stop it.
"The decision to nominate this site is wrong and we'll continue to oppose it," NT Chief Minister Clare Martin said. "The process for the identification of sites for a nuclear waste dump by the federal government is a joke. We understand that Australia needs a nuclear waste repository, but its location needs to be determined through a strict, scientific process, not a political one."
COAL MINING COMPANY INFILTRATING PROTEST GROUPS WITH SPIES
Across "the ditch" (as the thousand mile wide Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand is called) the main coal mining company (Solid Energy, which is also branching out into biodiesel production from canola crops) has been caught infiltrating a protest group with spies, and is unapologetic.
Finding the enemy within
Sunday Star Times, May 27
Private investigators acting for a state-owned enterprise have hired spies to infiltrate and undermine protest groups in what's believed to be a New Zealand first. ...
Ryan is the kind of volunteer community groups dream of: reliable, keen and always offering to help when any jobs need to be done. He came to be relied upon and trusted within the Christchurch Save Happy Valley group - young environmentalists opposing plans for a large government-run open-cast coal mine on the West Coast.
Except, as he has admitted to the Sunday Star-Times, he isn't a volunteer. As he put up posters, sat at a stall outside Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, hosted planning meetings at his house and took part in protests, he was working for a private investigation firm gathering information on the group. ... At a meeting at his home on March 13, he advocated more actions where people would get arrested, assuring the group they could raise the money for court fines.
...
The pay was helpful for a student, but dirt cheap for the private investigators - only $400 a month, plus extra for trips to the West Coast.
"It's capitalism at its worst," Ryan said, adding he was referring to himself. "I was paid to hike into the valley. It seems pretty shallow now." The irony was that he came to believe genuinely in what the group strove for.
This may not sound like a huge deal, even though it's of dubious legality. I'm sure many fossil fuel companies take similar actions. But it's a huge deal in this case precisely because of who owns the company: Solid Energy is 100% government owned. The New Zealand government is taking big steps on climate change and talking about ambitious goals of carbon neutrality, but is clearly doing a poor job getting the environmental message to the energy companies it owns. Some are in line with government policy: Meridian Energy provides 100% renewable electricity and is building more wind farms. But other government companies are acting in direct conflict with their stockholder's aspirations.
The Solid Energy spy revelation is not the first such case. My previous diary a few days ago described how the last electricity company still using coal is taking Greenpeace to court and trying to obtain rulings denying authorities the right to even consider climate change as a relevant factor when granting consents.
So far, politician responses to the spy story have ranged from "we need an explanation" to "heads should roll." But to really walk the walk on its big climate change talk, the government needs to keep the most polluting companies it owns on a much tighter leash and give them a mandate: put the environment ahead of profits.