On A Friday: HaPpY NeW YeAr!

Good morning and welcome to 2010!

Ten years ago a new millennium had just started, nine years ago it was the start of the 21st century, and one year ago was the start of 2009.

What got us where in the year just passed? Here is a light hearted review of 2009 which looks at a select number of events that were in some way significant (or not) to the year just passed.

FILE DETAILS:
Format: PDF
Size: 1.07MB
Full Link: http://onecuckoosnest.we
bs.com/www.onecuckoosn
est.com/One%20Cuckoo%
20Short%20of%20a%
20Nest%20-%202009%
20Revisited.pdf

 

 

 

So how did you find the last decade? America’s Pew Research Center recently released the newest instalment of a decade-by-decade rating of the last 50 years. In this, Americans’ perception of the 2000s has shown to be the lowest of any decade yet. Exactly 50% of those surveyed said their impression of the decade was generally negative. This is a jump from the same statistic for the 1990s, in which only 19% ranked the decade poorly.

This high negative is best explained by another statistic released by the Pew Center, which shows the November 11th terrorist attacks to be most widely considered the “most important event of the decade”.

But has the decade really been as bad as this research has shown? It really depends on who you ask. The research mentioned above is only a study of a fraction of the American population (779 people) and doesn’t represent any other country around the world.

One good piece of information to take from this study is that many of the people surveyed think that next decade will be better than the 2000s. Given the rating of the 2000s that won’t be hard!

The Development of the CPRS – Part Six: Emission Targets Around the World

The Labor Government’s targets in its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme have been described as being too little by some and too much by others given Australia’s small contribution to global emissions. Some Liberal party members have commented that the targets are premature and at the moment “unilateral”, and that the CPRS legislation should be deferred until after the Copenhagen Summit next month.

But at the moment, what are the proposed emission reduction targets of the other countries, states and organisations around the world? How do these compare with Australia’s targets? The below grid compiled by this blog’s author compares some (20) of the world’s targets, including draft legislation for the US state of California, which has already created a scheme ahead of the US federal government. California’s program is expected to begin in 2012. Also of interest is new Zealand’s scheme, which has already passed its parliament.

	By 2012	By 2020	Per Capita By 2020	By 2050
Australia	108% of 2000 levels. (2013 is 107% of 2000 levels.)	4-14% below 1990 levels, or 25% with an international agreement.	34-41% below 1990 levels.	60% below 1990 levels.
California (US State)	--	Equal to/lower than 1990 levels. (Guaranteed – part of state law)	--	--
Canada	6% below 1990 levels when Kyoto was ratified, however present minority Government opposes this and says it will not meet this target.	KYOTOplus: 25% decrease on 1990 levels.	--	--
China	IN 2010: 20% cut in energy intensity on 2005 levels. Reduce energy usage by one fifth.	Carbon dioxide emissions cut by 40-45%. (15% renewable energy)	--	((Not yet committed to a half reduction in world emissions by 2050
Denmark	--	20% reduction on 1990 levels.	--	--
European Union	--	20-30% below 1990 levels	24-34% below 1990 levels	60-80% below 1990 levels.
France	Already met Kyoto targets.	30% reduction on 1990 levels. (20% renewable energy.)	--	“Fourfold” reduction on 1990 levels.
Germany	21% reduction on 1990 levels. (Already met.)	36% below 1990 levels.	--	--
Japan	Aiming to be in line with Kyoto.	--	--	--
Kyoto Protocol	5.2% of 1990 levels. This is a different amount for each signatory.	--	--	--
New Zealand	--	10-20% below 1990 levels.	--	--
Norway	--	40% below 1990 levels.	--	--
Regional Greenhou-se Gas Initiative (US states and provinces)	--	10% below 1990 levels.	--	--
(Scotland – under jurisdiction of UK parliament)	--	(40% of energy from renewable sources. Other targets are set by UK.)	--	--
South Korea	--	30% lower than predicted (4% lower than 2005 levels.)	--	(20% renewable energy.)
Sweden	Already met Kyoto targets.	20% below 1990 levels.	--	--
Switzerland	--	20% reduction on 1990 levels.	--	--
United Kingdom	20% less on 1990 levels, however acknowledges that it may fall 4% short. Government estate carbon neutral.	26-32% below 1990 levels (Old info?)	24-34% below 1990 levels. (Old info?)	80% below 1990 levels/60% decrease on present levels.
United States (Proposed before Obama became President)	--	1990 levels. 17% reduction in industry on 2005 levels.	25% below 1990 levels.	80% below 1990 levels. 83% reduction in industry on 2005 levels.
Western Climate Initiative (US State alliance)	--	15% lower than 2005 levels.	--	--

(Note: Targets may change)

Missed any? Please post a response with your addition.

News: No Longer the Wong Way: The Results of the Liberal-Labor Party Negotiations Released

Today the Government released a set of proposed changes to its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) legislation. These changes stemmed from negotiations with the Opposition Liberal Party, whom with the support of the Government aims to pass the bill through the senate. Heading each side of the negotiations are Labor Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong and Liberal Opposition Energy Spokesman Ian Macfarlane, who have been negotiating a deal for weeks. These changes include excluding agriculture from the scheme, further transitional assistance for affected industries and measures to ensure that the burden on households of increased prices on goods and services is lessened.

Today’s Media Release from the Department of Climate Change outlines the areas in which changes have been proposed. Included amongst these propositions is the Government’s previously announced exclusion of agriculture from the CPRS. The details of the proposed changes document also supplied by the Department of Climate Change says that this exclusion will be “indefinite” and the bill will “explicitly exclude agriculture”. This means that any change to this part of the passed CPRS legislation will need to be voted on by the parliament of the day.

The changes also include $1.1 billion for a Transitional Electricity Cost Assistance Program, designed to assist medium to large businesses with the increased electricity costs. An additional $4 billion is also proposed for the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme (ESAS) making the total investment in this area $7.3 billion. The ESAS is designed to lessen the financial shock of the CPRS on fossil-fuel powered electricity generators such as coal powered power stations. Coal fuelled power stations will also be receiving a further $750 million in “transitional assistance” over five years, making the total transitional assistance for the coal industry come to $1.5 billion. $270 million for the Coal Mine Abatement Fund has also been proposed.

The changes also suggest including voluntary household action in the goal of the CPRS, and the details mention that an assistance package has been designed for low- and middle-income households. The carbon price estimate has also been lowered by $3 to $26 per tonne in 2012-2013 due to the strong Australian dollar, which will reduce the cost of goods and services. The media release says that “voluntary action by households will now allow Australia to go beyond our 2020 emissions reduction target.”

The details mention that eligible Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) producers will receive free permits.

The media release also describes making the Global Recession Buffer for affected industries permanent, meaning that eligible industries for 60 and 90 per cent assistance will have a 10 per cent and 5 per cent buffer respectively to ensure sufficient assistance.

The media release explains that with these amendments, Australia will still be able to achieve its “ambitious” unconditional target of a 5 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on 2000 levels by 2020. It also argues that the “deal” is economically “responsible”.

The media release closes with a plea to the Liberal Party. “We call on the Opposition to support this negotiated package and ensure a vote on this package before Parliament rises this week” - a timetable which many Liberal party members may still not agree with.

The Development of the CPRS – Part Five: Alternative Parliamentary Emission Reduction Targets Compared

Who are the Players?
The groups which have the most say in the passing of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) are, ultimately, the Members of Parliament and Senators of the Australian Federal Parliament. The parties represented in the House of Representatives are the Labor Party (83 Seats) and the Liberal/National Coalition (65 Seats in total – 55 Liberal, 10 National). In the Senate the composition is the Labor party (32 Seats), the Liberal/National Coalition (37 Seats), The Australian Greens (5 Seats), Family First (1 Seat) and South Australian Independent Senator Nick Xenophon.

What are their Targets?

PARTY / SENATOR	2020 Targets	2020 per capita reduction	2050 Targets
Labor	5–15 per cent below 2000 levels	27–34 per cent below 2000 levels	60 per cent below 2000 levels
Liberal	Reduce carbon emissions by 150 million tonnes – 10 per cent on 2000 levels.	--	--
National	Yet to formulate a policy.	--	--
Greens	minimum of 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020	--	Net 0 emissions by 2050 at latest.
Family First	N/A*	N/A*	N/A*
Xenophon	both Xenophon and the Liberal party commissioned a report from Frontier Economics, hence the targets are the same.	--	--

*Family First Senator Steve Fielding does not believe in Global Warming, thus there are no targets in this table. 

How each party intends reaching these targets will be explored in a later instalment.

News/Opinion: Burst Melbourne Water Main Not Cut, Millions of Litres of Drinking Water Lost

/First half written on 25/1/2009/

At 3:30am today a small leak in a 50-year-old pipe in St Georges Rd Melbourne was reported which erupted into a 40 meter high fountain two hours later.

The approach that even the least handy-person would take would be to turn the water off, however Melbourne Water didn’t shut down the water main until hours later. During this time dismayed locals looked on, trying to save what water they could from the flooded roadway.

A Melbourne Water spokesman defended the decision not to shut off the pipe, which supplies water to over a thousand homes and businesses in the western suburbs, saying that "In order to fix it we have to shut it down so to avoid leaving people without water we have to first isolate this part of the system.” [heraldsun.com.au]

Victoria’s Water Minister Tim Holding is yet to comment on why the sparse resource was allowed to leak for so long and exactly how much water has been lost to the Melbourne storm water system. However, Upper House Opposition Leader David Davis speculated that the recent efforts by households to reduce water consumption have been undone as a result of the “debacle”. [heraldsun.com.au]

/The following was written on 28/1/2009/

Heat has been cited as the cause of the burst. [MX Newspaper, Jan 28 2009]

Does the delay to warn residents of a water cut-off mean that Victoria’s water protocols need to be changed? In a state that is suffering from its driest January in 77 years [Source: http://is.gd/hv4R] and as Melbourne swelters through its hottest week in 100 years [Source: theage.com.au], surely common sense would prevail and the pipe would be switched off?

Today (28/1) another burst in the same area was caused by a car which crashed into a fire hydrant. Thousands of litres of water were lost again in a 5m high spray [MX Newspaper, Jan 28 2009]. This time 63 homes were affected.

If providing notice to residents and shop owners is required, maybe water companies should reduce the water pressure after a burst so that not so much water is lost? Also, water companies should try to reclaim water that would otherwise be lost, maybe with a stand-by crew that can try to rescue at least some water from a leak. The state’s water system would also benefit from more water control gates so water pipe closures would affect a smaller number of people; similar upgrades have been applied successfully to Victoria’s electricity grid in past years.

Melbourne’s dam levels are presently at 33.8%, a drop of 3.9% from the same time last year. With no rainfall registered in Melbourne catchment areas so far this month, maybe it really is time for the government to review its water protocols. [Statistics from the Melbourne water website, last updated on the 23^rd of January.]

/All statistics correct at time of writing./