Councillor Chris Harris

A sad state of affairs has descended over Australian politics in recent months. What went from a mad rush by both the Labor and Liberal parties to prove their climate change credentials in the lead up to the 2007 Federal election has degenerated into a mass of inaction.  Prominent Liberals say that climate change is a left wing post-communist conspiracy to deindustrialise the world while Labor still talks tough on the “biggest moral challenge of our time” but is staunchly committed to doing nothing about it.  Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme, which paid polluters to continue polluting and only attempted to reduce emissions by a pathetic 5%, was bad enough but has now been replaced by a policy of doing nothing for at least three years, akin to hiding under the blankets and hoping all the problems will magically go away while you aren’t looking.

With so much shameful inaction by our supposed leaders it has come down to individuals, local Councils and companies to make up the shortfall of action on climate change.  City of Sydney, for example, is engaging in an ambitious program to use cogeneration and energy efficiency measures to cover 70% of its energy needs by 2030. In addition to this the City will be investing in renewable energy projects througout its facilities to generate another 25% of its power by diverting the $2 million currently spent of Green Power into a specific Renewable Energy Fund.  

Cogeneration is the production of multiple forms of useable energy via a single process.  The City’s plan is to use gas fired miniature power plants to produce electricity, heating and cooling.  While natural gas is still a fossil fuel and produces CO2 when burnt, producing power through small, locally situated cogeneration plants has several environmental and economic benefits over the huge coal fired power stations that currently produce the vast majority of electricity in NSW.

Firstly, cogeneration is a much more efficient process.  In a coal fired power station around two thirds of the energy that comes from the burning coal is lost straight away as heat that escapes up the massive chimneys of the power plant.  In cogeneration this heat is not lost but is channelled to where it is needed – the City plans to install it’s first cogeneration unit at Prince Alfred Park Pool and the “waste” heat will go into warming the pool, thus resulting in a significant energy saving.  Cogeneration units can also, counter-intuitively, use the excess heat to generate cooling by the adition of an adsorption chiller. These configurations are known as trigeneration units that produce electricity, heating and cooling simultaneously.

Additional energy savings are achieved by cogeneration through the elimination of “transmission losses”.When electricity is transmitted long distances from big coal fired power stations along high tension wires 8-10% is lost along the way.  When you add this loss to the loss of energy as heat at the power plant you end up with a total waste of 70-75% - only around 25% of the energy extracted from the coal ever gets used!  In an age where the effects of climate change are already starting to be felt it verges on criminally negligent that such an inefficient system remains our primary means of producing electricity.

While the City is focusing on installing medium sized cogeneration units, with outputs of 5-30 kilowatts (kW), in large public buildings and facilities such as swimming pools I am also working to encourage a second style of cogeneration – using smaller units (with outputs of around 2kW) to provide energy to private homes and social housing units.  I feel this application has a much broader scope for uptake as there are many more private homes than large public buildings in Sydney.  Using small units in individual homes has the benefit over using a large unit for many homes in that, while electricity is easy to transfer from place to place, heat is not, meaning that domestic generation can be much more efficient.

An Australian company called Ceramic Fuel Cells has created a 2kW cogeneration unit called the Bluegen that they plan to have on the market in 6-12 months.  Rather than burning natural gas the Bluegen is a fuel cell that converts the gas via an electrochemical reaction to produce electricity and heat.  The units are the size of a dishwasher and produce enough electricity to power two houses and enough heat to meet the hot water needs of one (water heating accounts for 27% of the average household’s energy usage).  The company estimates that the Bluegen will produce only around 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions of a coal fired power station in order to generate the same amount of energy and at around 60% of the price per kilowatt hour. 

The Victorian government agency for sustainable development, Vicurban, has recently purchased a Bluegen unit for use in the Aurora sustainable living community in outer Melbourne.  A further 30 have been purchased by the Victorian housing department to provide cheap, clean power to public housing developments throughout the state.  This month Council staff and myself will be meeting with representatives of Ceramic Fuel Cells to investigate the possibility of installing Bluegen units in a number of Council properties.

The work by City of Sydney and Ceramic Fuel Cells (which receives no government subsidies) are two examples of how of how Councils and private companies are working to fill the void in climate change action that has been left by our governments and oppositions, both state and federal.  My Greens colleagues at all levels of government will continue to push for effective action on this most important of issues but in the meantime it is up to us as individuals to act where our governments refuse to.

Disclaimer: Cr Chis Harris owns shares in Ceramic Fuel Cells, an Australian listed company, via his self managed superannuation fund.        

Climate change impacts become more obvious every day, meaning that any government that cares about the future of the planet should be looking at ways to replace existing coal fired power stations with renewable energy sources as soon as possible.  However Kristina Keneally’s NSW Labor Government has done the exact opposite of this by announcing concept approval for another two fossil fuel burning power stations to be built at Bayswater in the Hunter Valley and Mt Piper near Lithgow.  I find it shocking that the government can even consider a project like this, let alone approve it.  Building new pollution belching stacks is the last thing a government supposedly concerned about the future should be doing. The government’s actions are totally irresponsible, bordering on criminal negligence.

These two new plants, if powered by coal, will increase NSW greenhouse gas emissions by around 15% (the equivalent of doubling the number of cars on our roads), which means an increase in the emissions of Australia as a whole of just under 5%.  At the same time, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tells us he wants to decrease  Australia’s Greenhouse gas emissions by 5%, a very weak target far below what the science tells us is necessary to avoid a climate catastrophe.  However any small benefits that this pitiful target may have had will be completely wiped out by these two new power plants being built by Rudd’s mates in the NSW Labor party.

Planning Minister Tony Kelly has said that the plants may be powered by natural gas instead of coal.  Natural gas burns cleaner than coal which means the negative impacts of the project would be a little less severe.  However the Minister says the decision on whether to use coal or gas will be determined based on “the market”.  Given the distance of the Mt Piper site from the nearest gas pipeline and the proximity of the Bayswater site to the Hunter Valley’s many coal mines, it seems highly unlikely that these plants will be powered with gas. In any event gas is a fossil fuel and therefore non renewable and should only be considered for refitting existing coal fired plants to achieve a short term improvement whilst renewable technology is developing.

The NSW Government claims that these plants will be needed over the next decade to “keep the lights from going out” – to meet the state’s increasing demand for electricity. However this claim comes from the Owen Report – commissioned by former Premier Morris Iemma to justify his plans to sell the state’s electricity assets to private companies – which exaggerated shortfalls in electricity supply in order to build support for Iemma’s ambitions.  NSW is not running low on electricity generation capacity and if it was there are much better ways of solving the problem.

In his paper How to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% Dr Mark Diesendorf, lecturer in environmental studies at the University of NSW, explains how there are no technical or economic barriers to Australia adopting widespread renewable energy technology and that the only barrier is a lack of political will.  He points out that a combination of improved energy efficiency and greater reliance on renewables could see Australia reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in the next few decades, even with a population and an economy that continues to grow.  It is to these measures, rather than ones that lock us into decades more of coal dependence, that governments should be looking for the answers to our energy needs.

    
It is a sad state of affairs that in 2010 governments are still so in the thrall of the fossil fuel industries that they ignore the needs of the planet and the demands of the people for clean energy and green jobs.  My Greens colleagues and I will be doing all we can to make sure the government doesn’t get away with this, but we need your help.  Write to your local MP, whether government, opposition or crossbencher and ask them where they stand on these new power plants.  Tell them you won’t vote for anyone who is irresponsible enough to support new coal fired power stations, then spread the message to your community.  If governments won’t make the right decisions on their own, it’s up to us to force them to.  

For more information on solar energy, see my earlier post on this topic.

Recently, many of my Greens colleagues and myself have received an email that appears to be circulating widely which makes a number of arguments disputing the science of climate change.  The arguments are the same ones that climate change deniers have been using for many years and though they can be easily countered with basic scientific facts, the arguments keep coming.  In the interest of not shying away from debate, below is my response to these all too common but false arguments.  Most numerical data on climate change used here comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th assessment report (2007), available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm#1.

• False Argument “CO2 does not hold any more heat than any other gas”

The Truth - This is a statement that is flawed in a number of ways and can be countered with basic high school level chemistry.  A wide range of gases, liquids and solids absorb, re-emit and store heat in different amounts, depending on a wide range of properties. 

An easy to understand example of one of these properties is colour – place a black stone and a white stone in the sun and the black stone will very soon be hotter than the white one as black objects absorb more heat than white objects.  Although carbon dioxide is the same colour as other atmospheric gases, it has other properties not detectable with the naked eye that means it absorbs and holds large amounts of heat, unlike other gases such as oxygen and nitrogen (the main two gases in the earth’s atmosphere).  Skeptics will not be able to present any evidence to dispute this basic chemical fact.

With that bit of basic chemistry and the undisputed fact that human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels, are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the reality of climate change falls very simply into place.

• False argument “CO2 is not a pollutant, it is essential to life”

The Truth- CO2 is both a pollutant and essential to life, the same as many other chemicals.  Iron is essential to humans, yet a person with the disease haemochromatosis builds up excess iron in their bodies and this has severe negative health effects.  On an even more fundamental level water is essential to life, yet no one argues that floods or tsunamis are not destructive because of this.  The argument that because CO2 is essential to life it can’t be harmful is just as ridiculous.

• False argument “CO2 makes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere so it can’t be harmful”

The Truth - while it is true that CO2 is only 0.0387% of the atmosphere by volume its effect is disproportionate to its quantity.  Like many other substances big increases in CO2 can induce large negative effects even if the overall increased amount is still a small proportion.  Another example of such a substance is fluoride. Fatal fluoride poisoning can occur in a person who only takes in an amount of fluoride salts equal to only 0.0125% of their body weight yet fluoride in the water supply in even smaller amounts has yielded improved dental health in the population.

• False argument “Atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher in the past”

The Truth - current atmospheric levels of CO2 are higher than they have been any time in at least the last 650 000 years, a period far longer than that in which human civilisation has existed.  It is true that millions of years ago CO2 concentrations were higher than they are now, but they had a dramatic effect on the world.  Living organisms thrived under these conditions because they were vastly different to the organisms alive today and had specific adaptations to deal with these conditions.  However organisms not adapted to live in those high CO2 conditions, such as humans and most other life of today, would have a much harder time of surviving because of massive climatic differences and other effects, just as a lion adapted to live in the African savannah would have a very hard time surviving in Antarctica.  Likewise penguins survive in Antarctic environments because of specific adaptations, but these adaptations leave them most unsuited to the African savannah.

• False argument “Ocean levels have only risen 30mm since 1870”

The Truth - this figure is way off.  According to the IPCC, sea levels have risen by over 80mm since the 1960s.  Since 1993 sea levels have risen on average 3.1mm/year representing an acceleration of the 1.8mm/year average rise since 1963.

• False argument “Ice caps are expanding”

The Truth - while there has been expansion of some Antarctic ice sheets in the last few decades, due to the reductions in ozone depleting gases in the atmosphere and changed weather patterns around the Southern Ocean, overall global ice coverage is shrinking.

• False argument “The planet is not warming, it is cooling”

The Truth - global temperatures on average have risen 0.74 degrees C since 1905.The image below, produced by NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, shows the changes in surface temperature in 2001 relative to the average for 1951-1980.  11 of the 12 years from 1995-2006 (inclusive) were among the warmest 12 years since records began in the 1850s (this data only goes to 2006 because it is from the IPCCs 2007 report, there has been nothing to indicate that the trend stopped in 2006).  It is often said that because 1998 was the warmest year on record the world has cooled since then.  However there has always been year to year variation, the same as there is day to day variation – one does not deny temperatures will be warmer in summer if the 15th of November is a few degrees cooler than the 14th.  The record of 1998 as warmest year ever will without doubt be broken soon.

•  False argument “Solar power cannot produce large amounts of energy”

The Truth - this argument is out of date, and becomes more out of date every year as technology advances.  Throughout the world solar thermal power plants, which produce steam that drives conventional turbines, with capacities measured in the hundreds of megawatts (MW) currently exist and plans for many more are on the drawing board.  Energy can be stored cheaply (eg in vats of molten salt) so that solar thermal plants can run overnight or at other times when the sun isn’t shining.  For a recent article on the state of this industry, see http://www.smh.com.au/business/handicapped-by-19thcentury-technology-20100202-nb3t.html. 

• False argument “The maximum size for a wind turbine is 3MW”

The Truth Wind turbines with outputs of up to 5MW currently exist.

• False argument “Climategate shows that the science of climate change is fraudulent”

The Truth – “Climategate” was not the falsifying of figures by the IPCC.  Rather it involved staff at a single British university who had their computer systems illegally hacked and a variety of emails taken out of context.  These emails were used to try to show that the researchers had been selective about what data they used in order to support their research on climate change.  Even if those allegations proved correct, this is one single isolated case – it does not invalidate the mass of other research (2500 scientists on the IPCC report alone) that has shown overwhelmingly that climate change is occurring.

• False argument “The IPCC admitted to lying about Himalayan glaciers”

The Truth - the IPCC have admitted that one paragraph in a 938 page report was inaccurate.  Most documents of that size, exposed to as much scrutiny as IPCC reports are, would come up with many more errors.

I hope this information might come in useful next time you need to counter uninformed statements denying the science of climate change. Feel free to send it on to your networks.  It is also worth remembering that there are many vested interests (by fossil fuel and mining companies amongst many others) in pretending that climate change isn’t real when it is.  On the other hand there are far fewer organisations, with far less resources, who have an interest in pretending climate change is real when it isn’t.  Some organisations, such as renewable energy companies, stand to make money as a result of action on climate change but these sort of enterprises only emerged after the science of climate change became well accepted.  To imply that climate change is a conspiracy, started decades ago to create a market for what was at the time fringe technology, is simply ludicrous.

We constantly hear the mantra that has been scripted by the coal and nuclear lobbies. It’s a simple message and it goes like this: ”only coal or nuclear can provide base load power”. (Base load is the ability to supply electricity 24/7)

Is this true? No - it is nonsense. What is really required is to build enough wind turbines and solar thermal power installations all around Australia so that we have sufficient capacity to supply the electricity needs of households and industry. We have more sun for longer periods than anyone else on the planet and on top of that we have enough windy places to supply around 20% of our potential needs. Then we need enough transmission lines to join them up so that when there is no wind or sun in one place there will be in another.

But you ask - how can solar provide base load when it is only sunny during the day? Well, thermal storage capacity is now well developed and proven. This allows the storage of excess heat during the day to run turbines overnight. And, this can be backed up even further by hooking up to natural gas if all else fails. It’s really not rocket science - it’s just about producing steam to turn a turbine. There are other ways of producing steam beside using environmentally damaging coal or nuclear. And we haven’t even talked about the possibilities ahead of us with geo-thermal and tidal power. There is some very eciting research being done with these technologies both here in Australia and in other countries.

Our governments should be pouring billions of dollars into research and development of these renewable technologies rather than continuing to subsidise the fossil fuel industries with our taxes. It is just a matter of political will.

But you don’t have to believe me - have a look at what is happening in a large and prosperous technologically advanced economy in Europe - Germany.

This story is courtesy of the Institute of Science in Society (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/germanyRenewable2050.php)

The UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan [1] (see UK’s Lacklustre Low Carbon Transition Plan, SiS 44) falls well short of the challenges that face us. Fortunately, we need look no further than across the North Sea to Germany for inspiration. Germany is a large, prosperous, industrialised country rather like the UK in many ways. It has traditionally relied heavily on coal for electricity generation, and has a number of nuclear power plants. But there the similarities end.

Renewable energies exclude nuclear

While the UK’s White Paper envisages the Great Britain of 2020 or 2050 as much the same as today, Germany is looking forward to a quite different future in which Germany will guarantee for itself a secure energy supply and maintain its position as a world leader in new technology.  It is forging ahead in the development and use of renewable energy; and nuclear power - seen in the UK as a major component of the future energy mix - is being phased out altogether.
The nearest equivalent in Germany to the British White Paper is a document issued by the German government in January 2009, with the title New Thinking – New Energy. Ten Guiding Principles for a Sustainable Energy Supply [2].
The document sets out the following objectives:
· By 2020, greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced by 40 per cent from their 1990 levels – double the UK target. (By the end of 2007 emissions had already been reduced by 21.3 per cent.)
· Energy productivity should be increased by 3 per cent every year, so that in 2020 energy will be used twice as efficiently as in 1990
· The proportion of energy that comes from renewables should be increased. By 2050, half of primary energy consumption should come from renewable sources. By 2020, the proportions of final energy consumption, gross electricity consumption and energy used for heating that come from renewables should be double their current levels (which are 9 per cent, 15 per cent and 7 per cent, respectively).
· By 2020, a quarter of energy production should come from combined heat and power generation (CHP), again double the present level.
· The use of biofuels should be increased so that by 2020, 7 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions due to fossil fuels are eliminated.

100 percent renewables by 2050

But speaking to the press [3] David Wortmann, Director of Renewable Energy and Resources at Germany Trade and Invest, a government body supporting the country’s renewable energy sector, expressed the view that Germany could be 100 percent renewables-powered by 2050. “It’s ambitious, but Germany can be running on renewable energy by 2050 if there is the political will,” he said.
In 2008, Germany’s primary energy consumed was 7.3 percent renewable, and that figure is predicted to increase to 33 percent by 2020. At that rate of increase, it could well be 100 percent renewable by 2050.
Part of what makes that possible is to use less energy by increasing energy efficiency. The Roadmap lays out a raft of new energy efficiency measures including the construction of a smart grid that should reduce consumption by 28 percent in the next two decades: from 13 842 PJ in 2007 to 12 000 PJ in 2020 and 10 000 PJ in 2030. This will mean enormous savings on costly energy imports.
Another strategy is to make full use of German’s natural wind resources concentrated along the northern coastlines, where huge offshore wind parks in the North Sea could generate as much as 10 GW or more (see later), feeding electricity into a smart national grid connecting the north and east of the country and south and west with optimal efficiency using high voltage direct current.
Solar energy will be imported via Italy from the solar thermal plants to be built in the sun soaked deserts of North Africa (but see Chapter 12 of [4] Green Energies - 100% Renewable by 2050, ISIS publication).
Electric powered cars rechargeable from renewable energy sources will be racing down Germany’s Autobahns and cut greenhouse emissions substantially.
“The technical capacity is available for the country to switch over to green energy, so it is a question of political will and the right regulatory framework,” Wortman said. Germany plans to use all the renewable energy sources at its disposal, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower and biomass in an optimum mix.
Wortman praised the government for its plans to invest more into research. “Germany has been a centre of innovation in renewable energy technologies for years. There is a real desire to see it continue to be a place where new central renewable energy technologies are development. Not only the government, but also companies are focussing more resources on research.” Wortman said.
He predicted that bio-energy will play a key role, but only where it is sustainable and did not compete with food crops or supplies. In 2008, biomass supplied 3.7 percent of the electricity in Germany, up from 3.1 percent in 2007; while wind power’s share increased by 0.1 percent from 6.4 to 6.5 percent.
He singled out a biogas electricity plant developed by Dr. Michael Stelter of the Fraunhofer Institute for Ceramic Technologies and Systems in Dresden that use compost and waste.  A new procedure that uses enzymes to break down cellulose in compost waste means that the plant produces 30 percent more biogas and does this in 30 days, rather than the current 80 days.
To optimize efficiency, the biogas is pumped into fuel cells that operate at 850 ˚C, allowing the plant to convert biogas methane to electricity at 40 to 55 percent efficiency. Taking into account the heat produced, the fuel cell has a conversion rate of 85 percent.

Strong government support for renewables

Germany has stolen a march on other member states of the European Union and most of the rest of the world in launching its low carbon transition in earnest more than a decade ago. Germany’s renewable energy policy really began in 1974 after the first oil crisis, and consisted almost exclusively in promoting research for the first 15 years [5]. Market creation measures only came after 1988; of these the most important was the Feed-in Law.  From 1991 to 1995, under the 1 000 roof programme, applicants received 50 percent of investment costs from the federal government plus 20 percent from the Land government. Eventually 2 250 roofs were equipped with photovoltaic (PV) modules, producing a total of about 5 MW.
For wind energy, the government introduced a programme for subsidising 100 MW – later 250 MW – by a payment of €0.04/kWh (later reduced to €0.03). This was accompanied by the Feed-in Law that obliges national electricity utilities to buy electricity generated from renewable sources at above-market rates set by the government. As a result, newly installed wind capacity shot up from about 20 MW in 1989 to over 1 100 MW in 1995. In subsequent years, these subsidies declined rapidly, and the Feed-in Law barely survived attacks from the conventional electricity generators.
Significant improvement came after the 1998 election, when the ‘red-green’ coalition came into office, and strengthened renewable energy support, especially for PV and biomass, thanks also to activists and municipal utilities. Eurosolar’s 100 000 roof proposal since 1996 and the German Solar Energy Industries Association, played key roles in the continued growth of the PV market after the 1 000 roof programme.
The new federal government emphasized ecological modernisation and climate change policy as well as job creation and socio-economic development. It included eco-tax on energy, phasing out nuclear power and strengthening renewable energy sources and combined heat and power generation for increased efficiency of energy use.
The government’s measures to promote renewable energy included a five-year market incentive programme that provided about € 445 million from 1999 to 2002; a tax break on bio-fuels in keeping with a EU directive; and most importantly, it adopted the 100,000 roof programme for PV, and the Renewable Energy Sources Act adopted in 2000 and substantially amended in 2004.  This new Law repealed the Feed-in Law of 1990 but maintained an essential feature, i.e., the reliance on feed-in tariffs to encourage the development of renewable energy sources for electricity. This has given German PV and other renewable technologies a further boost. In 2006, Germany accounted for 56 per cent of the world’s solar energy technology market and around 80 per cent of the European market [6].
Germany already generates 6.5 per cent of electricity from wind [4] and is planning to increase this amount. In September 2009, the cabinet announced plans for up to 40 offshore wind parks holding as many as 2 500 turbines and projected to generate 12 GW by 2030 [7]
There are also plans for other sources including biogas, small hydroelectric plants and geothermal.  In July 2009, a large group of German companies announced a joint investment of €400 billion ($560 billion) in concentrated solar power (CSP) plants in the Sahara Desert. These are seen as making significant contributions to the total energy supply but are also important because the energy supply is predictable or storable and can provide a buffer against fluctuations in other sources (but see Chapter 12 of [2] for strong reservations on big CSP projects).

No nuclear or carbon capture and storage

Unlike the UK government, the Germans are confident that they can achieve their aims without nuclear power. In 2002 they decided to phase out their nuclear plants by 2022, and while the present Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is known to favour extending the stations’ lifetimes beyond that date, there is little support for building any new reactors. Public opinion in Germany is against nuclear energy especially after the July 2009 incident in which the Krümmel nuclear reactor had to be shut down for the second time in two years and the revelation of problems at the Gorleben site, which is intended for long term storage of nuclear waste [8].
Germany has traditionally relied very heavily on coal and so like the UK, is actively pursuing research into CCS. Vattenfall, a Swedish-German firm, has applied for EU funding to help it build a 385 MW demonstration plant [9]. Germany is not, however, depending on CCS to help it achieve its emissions targets in the same way that the UK is. In particular, it is not included in their plan for reaching their 2020 target because they do expect it to be commercially available by then. Instead, while they will still be generating 40 per cent of their electricity from coal, the emissions will be reduced by increasing the efficiency of the plants, by having more combined heat and power CHP installations, and by an 11 per cent reduction in total energy consumption.  If CCS proves successful, they will be well placed to take advantage of it; if it does not, they have other strings to their bow.
Germany, in sharp contrast to the UK, is looking forward to a future in which more and more, if not all of its energy comes from renewable sources. It clearly sees this as an opportunity: the creation of 500 000 new jobs and establishing Germany as a major exporter of renewable technologies; and substantially reducing energy imports

Transport and airline tax

Like the UK, Germany is looking at specific measures to reduce carbon emissions from the transport sector, such as improving the efficiency of vehicles and moving traffic from road to rail and from private cars to public transport. But the Germans start with the advantage of a superior rail network. Unlike their British counterparts, the German Federal Department for the Environment is advocating that airlines pay tax on aviation fuel and VAT on tickets for international flights, thus removing a major subsidy to the industry [10].

No carbon trading

While the UK White Paper assumes that carbon trading will make an important contribution to meeting the country’s emissions target, the UBA explicitly states that Germany aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by measures implemented within Germany itself.
 

Greens get action on ESD policies

I put forward a notice of motion in February to ensure that the targets and aspirations of the City’s 2030 policy translate into action in the City’s public works and lead to measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Grand statements and headline grabbing targets are great to inspire people but the real changes happen at the street level detail where water is diverted from rooves into storage and onto gardens that nourish our trees and edible plants and solar panels run day to day appliances and feed excess power into the grid for others to use.

A friend of mine, environmental warrior Michael Mobbs, sent me this brief message a couple of weeks ago about the power of these small changes in his immediate neighbourhood:

“About 500 m2 of gardens along footpaths, on both sides of Myrtle street, and in some parts of Shepherd and Rose Streets, are now watered by rainfall from the front rooves of houses. The rooves have a combined area of some 2500 m2 (50 houses x 50m2). Add to that the street gardens - some 1200m2. Thus, the total area of rain harvesting is 3700m2. Each year each square metre of that area will receive over 1200 litres of rainwater. This provides a saving of over 4.4 million litres of water which previously ran off into Sydney Harbour.”
Read the rest of this entry »