Green Up Moggill

Let’s use the best science to make Brisbane safe, says Greens candidate


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

“In the wake of the Victoria Black Saturday disaster, it is important to consider whether fire management in Queensland is up to scratch,” says Greens candidate for Moggill, Dr Philip Machanick. “In consulting my science advisors, I am troubled to learn that some preventive fire strategies in Brisbane could be increasing risk of fire.”

There has been reporting in Victoria of the need to reduce fuel loads, and to avoid dangerous strategies in high-fire areas like planting big trees close to houses.

“Reducing fuel loads sounds like a good idea,” Dr Machanick continues, “but it is also important to ensure that you don’t end up making the problem worse by replacing the burnt fuel by vegetation that burns hotter and faster. The problem arises because frequent burn-offs of the same large area selects for fire-adapted vegetation. Why is this bad? Fire adapted vegetation uses a combined strategy of burning hot and fast to clear the competition, then growing back rapidly after the fire. This means that a poorly-managed preventive burning program can increase the risk of catastrophic fire.”

Addressing the Queensland situation specifically, Dr Machanick says, “I don’t know if this is the case in Victoria, but in Queensland, we have a lot of exotic African grass, much of which is highly fire-adapted. Around Brisbane, the city council has a preventive burning program that fails to take this fact into account. If you look for areas they’ve burnt, you can see singed trees with no indigenous undergrowth, only exotic grasses, ready to burn hotter and faster next time some dolt drops a smouldering cigarette butt out of their car window, or deliberately lights a fire.”

Dr Machanick takes The Australian to task for assigning blame to the Nillumbik Shire Council before all the facts are known, and publishing strongly-worded opinion pieces that say the best science was ignored, while survivors are still grieving. “It’s possible that mistakes were made, but the people who made these decisions have paid a heavy price. It is extremely insensitive to go hard on criticising them when we should be focusing on disaster recovery. This is the same paper that tells us routinely that we should ignore the best science on climate change. I hope this means they are coming around to the view that we should always use the best science.”

He concludes: “In the wake of the Victorian disaster, rather than the usual finger-pointing and blame shifting, I hope we can have some real solid debate on the best science of fire prevention and survival. We have to get this right because climate change will lead to more frequent, longer and hotter heat waves.”

Many more bicycles are sold than cars in Australia, a trend that has persisted over the last nine years. You wouldn’t think it from how little infrastructure is provided for bikes. Given the combined problems of climate change, peak oil and the obesity epidemic, getting more people out of their cars and onto bikes has to be a priority. Why it isn’t for the other parties is not for me to say; it definitely is for the Greens.

I plan on campaigning for a number of improvements in bike infrastructure, including continuing with current plans to improve the bikeway infrastructure. However, bikeways are not enough. It should be safe to ride a bike in suburban and city streets as well.

Here are some details. Watch this space as I pick up more ideas from the community.

• safe bike paths in suburban and city streets
  • bikeways are only part of the solution; local streets as well as the long-haul routes need to be safe
  • paint on a road is no protection from a vehicle weight 40 times your weight
• cycle and pedestrian awareness built into road design
  • for example if the footpath and cycle path are raised relative to the road surface, drivers crossing these paths have to be aware that they are no longer in a car-only space
• environmentally sensitive mountain biking
  • end the conflict between mountain bikers and conservationists in our green spaces
• include bikes in detour planning
  • when road construction or capital works impede traffic flow alternatives for cars are always added
  • bike paths sometimes simply disappear

Watch this space for brief reviews of science topics and pointers to places where you can find out more.

If the World is Warming, How can we have very cold weather?
Global warming refers to the long-term world-wide average. Redistribution of energy from one part of the planet to another may make some areas warmer and others cooler. For example, in the northern hemisphere 2009-2010 winter, some areas experienced extreme cold. However, if you look at the distribution of northern hemisphere temperatures, what happened was that the Arctic warmed considerably. Look at the image: the Arctic region shows strong warming, with Greenland considerably warmer than usual (more accurately, less chilly), yet Northern Europe and North America are large local areas of cooling. Possibly this effect caused cold air to move south, but in any case, the cooler overall northern hemisphere in the most inhabited regions has hit the news, a slightly misleading picture when you look at the whole map.

Dead Zones
A dead zone is part of the ocean where oxygen levels are too low (less than 2 parts per million) to support life, or anoxic. Here is a site at Montana State University that provides some information. For more, see NASA’s information on dead zones. Algal blooms can make part of an ocean anoxic. In an extreme case, about 251-million years ago, the oceans became widely anoxic, as part of a mass extinction event at the boundary between the Permian and Triassic though probably that event had different causes.

Life In Your Back Yard
Want to find out if there are endangered species or unwanted alien invaders somewhere, or just check out who or what your wild neighbours are? The federal environment department has a great tool for finding these things out. Click the “Interactive Map“ link, find your area of interest on the map, click Report and use the mouse to drag out a rectangle on the map.

How Green is the electric car?
Electric cars – in the early days of motoring, a mainstream option – are making a comeback, with variations such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids. But how green are they really? Here’s an article with more detail. Check out Tesla’s first sedan. A UK company, Riversimple, has some interesting ideas on how to build an ultra-efficient car using a hydrogen fuel cell. I remain unconvinced of the hydrogen economy because hydrogen takes a lot of energy to produce, but Riversimple has some interesting ideas, like leasing the cars rather than selling them as a way of avoiding the false economy of planned obsolescence.

Smart Grid
Something that will be talked about increasingly is managing energy use more intelligently not only to be more efficient but to fit swings in demand to swings in supply better, as a remedy for the intermittency of some modes of renewable energy. Look out for articles about the smart grid such as this one.

Electric Vehicles
Now that the Obama administration is talking up clean energy, there’s been an explosion of interest in electric vehicles, so much so that rather than summarize articles, I’ll list pointers to them here as I encounter them:

• Willie D. Jones. New Electric Power Train Promises 160-km All-Electric Range—on a Bus! IEEE Spectrum, April 2009

Biochar
Biochar is the idea of burning carbon-containing materials in low oxygen (pyrolysis), resulting in charcoal that can be buried in the ground, improving the soil while sequestering carbon and reducing nitrous oxide (potent greenhouse gas) emissions from the soil. Biochar can also be used to produce biofuels as a byproduct. Here’s a nice YouTube summary of Australian work on biochar:

“Clean” coal
Various projects claim to be cleaning up coal. Carbon sequestration is one of the buzz words. The theory is that you can bury the CO₂ deep underground. In practice, to do so on a significant scale would be very hard. The perceived need for carbon sequestration arises from the incorrect perception that a coal producing country like Australia cannot survive a transition away from coal, a claim that is hotly contested even by former coal supporters. Here are some contrary views:

• Quarry vision: why clean coal isn’t the answer, ABC Radio National, 25 March 2009
• Quarry vision: why coal is no longer important, ABC Radio National, 25 March 2009

• Mining stalwart sees no future in carbon plan, Sydney Morning Herald, 25 April 2009

Some obstacles: worldwide emissions would amount to around 30km³ per year even compressed down to a liquid. One power station would be a lot less but still a vast volume of toxic gas to handle. Pumping it out at high temperature through a high smoke stack dissipates it into the air, and turbulence mixes it into the atmosphere quickly. A cold leak at ground level on the other hand will not dissipate fast, and can kill people in large numbers, as occasionally happens as a result of volcanic processes. Here is a detailed critique I wrote of a “clean coal” proposal for Felton in Queensland. And here is a Coen brothers ad featuring their take on clean coal:

Forest management and climate change
The forestry lobby is big on the benefits of harvesting timber. Cutting down trees, they claim, is somehow good because new growth will sequester even more carbon. The reality is a lot more complex than that; logging old growth is almost always a net loss, and managing plantations for the best overall return on carbon emissions takes careful management. This Forest, Carbon, Climate Myths slide show covers most of the major issues.

Regenerating lost forests
Watch biologist Willie Smits explain how he re-grew clearcut rainforest in Borneo, saving local orangutans – and at the same time creating work for the locals. Ignore the car ads.

Read the rest of this entry »

Government cash handouts irresponsible, says Greens candidate

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

“The prime minister has announced a fiscally irresponsible $40-billion stimulus package on top of his previous $10-billion dollar effort, with very little of it targeted at retooling the economy for the twenty-first century. President Obama on the other hand has outlined a clear message of hope for the future for the United States. What we need to do in Australia is sit up and take note,” says Dr Philip Machanick, Greens preselected candidate for the Queensland state seat of Moggill. “Usually government spending on this scale would be highly inflationary. The massive worldwide recession represents a once in a lifetime opportunity for governments to spend big on the future without a major inflation risk. Instead, our federal and state governments are blowing enormous sums on short-term economic stimulus. This is mind-bogglingly irresponsible, faced as we are with the twin challenges of the twenty-first century of climate change and depleting fossil fuels,” he continues.

“The United States is embarking on a massive Green New Deal, rebuilding and retooling their economy for a clean energy future. The Greens here have already started campaigning for a similar concept, with plans for solar thermal power plants, enhanced incentives for home solar power and solar hot water, and an emphasis on public transport. The long-term future of the Australian and the Queensland economy is in creating quality jobs in a clean energy economy. There is enough cause to pursue a clean energy strategy for environmental reasons, but economic reality increasingly favours going clean and green,” Dr Machanick elaborates. “The US is already one of the most protectionist economies in the world, and carbon taxes will be the trade barrier of the future, whether our industries like it or not. If we continue to produce aluminium by the dirtiest possible process, we can expect to get priced out of the market. If most of our exports are either fossil fuels, or produced by heavily emitting technologies, our industries will be increasingly uncompetitive in a carbon-taxed world market.”

Dr Machanick also emphasises the importance of diversifying Queensland’s economy. “If Queensland continues to rely so heavily on resources for state revenues, we will remain subject to the boom and bust cycles typical of commodity-based economies. Already, mines are laying off workers in the thousands. If the economic downturn continues, many more will be out of work. Sad though this is for those who’ve lost their jobs, this presents a great opportunity to follow President Obama’s lead by re-orienting the Queensland economy to the new reality of the twenty-first century. Yet the two economic stimulus packages on offer are both designed for a twentieth-century economy: more roads, more capacity to export coal, support for building old-fashioned cars, cash handouts to encourage consumerism. Where is the investment in renewable energy, in making it easier to leave your car at home, in research in technologies we can sell to the rest of the world? The odd gesture like a partial program to insulate roofs of houses and an improvement in the solar hot water rebate does not do it. The federal government claims that its roof insulation program will do the equivalent of taking 1-million cars off the road by 2020. Where is the plan that will actually take cars off the road?

“The Greens have long stood for the principle of sustainability not only as an environmental concern, but as a basis for sound economics. We are pleased that the US is now moving in the same direction we have long advocated. This is the time for Queensland to embrace the politics of hope and confidence in the future that the Greens represent.”

Dr Machanick promises to work hard at developing the solutions we need for this century. “Queensland should be both the smart and the sunshine state. We have some of the best science in the country, and some of the best solar resources. How can it be then that Germany, hardly a sunny country, has far more solar power installed than we do? Much of our best science ends up overseas, with no financial benefit to the taxpayer. At a time of economic emergency, the fiscal irresponsibility of subsidising obsolescent projects and once-off cash handouts is crazy. Money poured down a sinkhole is money wasted at the best of times; money wasted now means that much less opportunity to tackle the real problems. We need to change the focus of government from rewarding inefficiency, and launching grand projects that make neither environmental nor economic sense, to working for the future – and working smartly for the future.”

###

Background

“Greens launch green-collar jobs package for Queensland”: http://qld.greens.org.au/media-releases/greens-launch-green-collar-jobs-package-for-queensland
“Why Obama’s green jobs plan might work”: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-greenjobs4-2009jan04,0,378269.story

Contact

Contact: Dr Philip Machanick, Greens preselected candidate for Moggill
Email: greenupmoggill@gmail.com
Phone: 042 234 6909
Website: www.greenupmoggill.org

---

Some people think that the hard economic times ahead are a good reason to go slow on dealing with climate change.

Think again.

These are the same people who ran the world’s economy into the worst economic crisis since 1929.

The Queensland economy is heavily reliant on coal revenues. Coal is about 80% of the problem of climate change, and we are a big contributor not only through our own use but our exports. However, coal is not a huge employer. Modern mining is more capital than labour intensive. Less that 3% of all Queenslanders work in mining of any description. Many more work in tourism than in coal. We should be working hard to protect our great environmental icons, like the Great Barrier Reef. We cannot do that without international cooperation. But it is crazy to expect that cooperation if we don’t set realistic emissions targets ourselves.

The next notion is that it is somehow wise to rely on coal revenues, because fossil fuels will be with us for the next 200 years or so. That kind of estimate relies on use at current rates, an unrealistic starting point since we know usage is growing. How much? The authoritative BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008 shows that energy use grew 2.4% from 2006 to 2007. One of the arguments of the pro-fossil-fuel lobby is that we mustn’t curtail use of fossil fuels because that would be unjust to developing countries, so let’s allow the growth rate to be higher to allow them to industrialise. I’ve graphed three scenarios for depletion of reserves:

• continued use at today’s rate, calibrated to get reserves to zero in 200 years (blue curve)
• continued escalation at 2.4% (red curve)
• escalation of demand at 5% per annum (yellow curve)

---

Fossil fuels could run out in as little as 50 years. That’s good cause to pause and think.

What will happen if one of the faster depletion scenarios pans out?

First, long before any fossil fuels disappear from production, we will be subject to wild swings in price, as a combination of supply shortages and speculation push prices through the roof, only ending when the world economy crashes. Sound familiar?

Second, the various types of fuel will not deplete at the same time. Coal will be around a lot longer than oil for example. The trouble is we are increasingly being left with the dirtiest, least efficient forms of fuel. Converting coal into something like oil is expensive and emissions-intensive.

That brings me to the final problem. The faster emissions grow, the sooner we will be forced to make deep cuts. Why? Because in pre-industrial times, natural processes of carbon emission and absorption were in balance. While some extra CO₂ can be absorbed, not all can; about half remains in the atmosphere in the short term. After 1000 years, almost 20% of the excess we’ve emitted will still be there. What this means is that once we’ve hit a CO₂ level that is generally accepted to be the safe limit, we will have to move to world-wide zero-emissions. Anything less will continue to add to the level in the atmosphere. Worse, the biggest sponge of CO₂ is the oceans. Dissolved CO₂ forms an acid in water, and ocean acidification is one more threat to the Great Barrier Reef, already endangered by temperature rises.

---

Rushing headlong into maximising coal exports therefore is a crazy approach. We will suddenly find ourselves on the wrong side of a worldwide moratorium on coal use. And if the current resistance to change is anything to go by, we’ll get there only after irreparable damage has been done. What will it take? Loss of the Great Barrier Reef? The collapse of the Kakadu and the Murray-Darling ecosystems?

All of these are not only great environmental resources and Australian icons but much bigger sources of jobs than mining.

What is the alternative?

We need a coherent plan to phase out coal, and to move to renewables. If we wait until the rest of the world moves, it will be like running out of road at a cliff, and pressing the accelerator. Phasing out coal with the big investment we already have in coal power plants cannot happen fast without economic disruption. That’s why a slow phase down has to start as soon as possible. Yet we see no action on that front, nor do we see any attempt at slowing coal exports. On the contrary, exports are being ramped up. Or at least capacity is; at time of writing, demand drops as a result of the worldwide recession were resulting in job losses on the mines.

That brings me to the great opportunity the recession offers. Governments are trying to spend their way out of it. Much of the work in ushering in a new green economy is necessarily labour-intensive. We can install solar hot water on every available roof. We can pump money into research to make new initiatives like hot rocks geothermal and solar thermal power viable. We can start working on a public transport network with mostly electrical vehicles, the better to be able to convert to clean power at a flick of a switch. We can work on making Queensland not just the smart state or the sunshine state but the smart sunshine state.

Wouldn’t that be great? We are already world leaders in sporting achievement and the biological sciences. Why should we not be world leaders in the new energy economy?

Coal is holding us back. We are world leaders in exporting something that, increasingly, no one will want. Why can’t we aim to be world leaders in what everyone is going to want soon: renewable energy technologies? Coal is dirty stuff as soon as it’s out of the ground. Why don’t we keep it there, until we figure out a better use for it – and a way of using it without wrecking the environment? Coal is a complex mix of chemicals, not just carbon. Once oil runs out, we will need a source of industrial chemicals, not just stuff to burn.

If Queensland and Australia are to take their place in the world as leaders, we need to think long-term. And protecting one industry at the cost of all else is not only failing to think long term, it is stupid. Surely we can do better than that.