Showing posts with label australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label australia. Show all posts
26 March 2012
15 March 2012
Australia's climate warming at alarming rate, report warns
Australia's climate is warming at an alarming rate and oceans around the continent have been rising by as much as a centimetre a year, according to a new government report
By Jonathan Pearlman | The Telegraph | 14 Mar 2012
A dust storm hits Bondi Beach back in 2009. According to the report Australia has recorded its 13 hottest years on record since 1997. Photo: EPA
Read more...
Sphere: Related Content
02 March 2012
In the REDD: New report from Friends of the Earth International about the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership
A recent report from Friends of the Earth International takes a further look at the Australian-funded Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership. The report looks at the social and environmental effectiveness of the KFCP project and concludes that forest carbon offsets are a false solution to climate change
By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 1st March 2012
Read more... Sphere: Related Content29 February 2012
Power groups face huge carbon bill
Victoria's major power generators have emerged as some of the biggest carbon emitters in the country and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars under the carbon tax - costs that will largely be passed on to consumers
David Wroe | The Age | February 29, 2012
Hazelwood Power Station. Photo: Pat Scala
Read more...
Sphere: Related Content
19 February 2012
Forest waste plan slammed
A plan to make native forest waste eligible for renewable energy credits has angered the North Coast Environment Council
ABC North Coast NSW | 14 February, 2012
The North Coast Environment Council is fearful of the potential consequences of a new plan to deal with forest waste (Stateline Victoria)
Read more...
Sphere: Related Content
06 February 2012
Coal mines shut as Australia evacuates flooded towns
Heavy rains shut four coal mines in eastern Australia on Friday as military helicopters evacuated stranded residents from inundated towns, and authorities warned of further flash flooding
Reuters | Feb 3, 2012
Read more... Sphere: Related Content02 February 2012
Indigenous communities in Peru condemn the further adventures of an Australian carbon cowboy
In April 2011, the Inter-Ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon (AIDESEP) published the Declaration of Iquitos which opposed the proposed forest carbon trading activities of a Hong Kong registered company called Sustainable Carbon Resources Limited
By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 31st January 2012
27 December 2011
Indonesia’s Bima clash needs to be investigated independently
While an investigation into bloody clashes between security forces and local people that claimed the lives of nine people in Mesuji, Lampung province, was still in progress, another incident involving police and residents happened in Bima district, West Nusa Tenggara (NTB), on Saturday, leaving to two locals dead
By Andi Abdussalam | ANTARA | December 26 2011
Read more... Sphere: Related Content
Situation after incident involving police and residents happened in Bima district, West Nusa Tenggara (NTB), Saturday (Dec. 24). (ANTARA/Rinby)
21 December 2011
How to Occupy the World
The leading tagline of the Occupy Wall Street movement reads: “Protest for World Revolution.” This is an ambitious claim, to be sure. And in most respects it seems to ring quite true: the movement has successfully taken root not only in cities and towns throughout the United States but also in major urban centers around the world. On October 15, Occupy Wall Street’s success inspired a broad wave of coordinated occupations across Europe. I was a founding participant in the one that began in London
by Jason Hickel | Dec 21 2011 by Common Dreams in Energy Bulletin | Dec 21, 2011
Read more... Sphere: Related Content
23 October 2011
What’s holding renewables back?
The barriers to renewable energy are many. It’s not just a matter of the draconian new Victorian laws against wind farms — the legacy of government support for fossil fuels also hangs heavily over the renewables sector
By Ben Courtice | Green Left Weekly | October 23, 2011
Read more... Sphere: Related Content
16 October 2011
Occupy Wall Street inspires global protests against the '1%' (activist reports, videos, pics)
According to http://15october.net, protests and actions -- inspired by the Occupy Wall Street mass movement across the United States -- were to take place in more than 950 cities in more than 80 countries on October 15. Actions had already begun in some parts of the world before that
Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal | October 16 , 2011
Read more... Sphere: Related Content06 April 2010
Stranded ship "time bomb" to Great Barrier Reef
A stranded Chinese coal ship leaking oil onto Australia's Great Barrier Reef is an environmental time bomb with the potential to devastate large protected areas of the reef, activists said on Monday
Reuters | Apr 5, 2010
The ship was a "ticking environmental time bomb," Gilly Llewellyn, director of conservation for the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in Australia, told Reuters.
She said this was the third major international incident involving its owners in four years.
Australian government officials say the stricken Shen Neng I belongs to the Shenzhen Energy Group, a subsidiary of China's state-owned China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, better known by its acronym COSCO.
In 2007, COSCO was linked to a major oil spill in San Francisco bay, while last year it was tied to another in Norway, both of which damaged environmentally sensitive areas.
"We are seeing a concerning pattern potentially associated with this company," Llewellyn told Reuters.
COSCO officials in Australia could not be contacted for comment on Monday.
The Great Barrier Reef stretches along Australia's northeastern coast and is the only living structure on Earth visible from space. It is the world's largest coral reef and a major tourist draw.
As salvagers struggled on Monday to stop the ship breaking up and spilling hundreds of tons of oil and thousands of tons of coal, environmentalists told Reuters tighter controls on shipping were needed to protect the reef as Australia's energy industry expands.
SHIP NEEDS HELP
Although only a small amount of the 975 tons of fuel oil on board has so far leaked, Australian officials have warned the ship is unable to move off the shoal unaided, as its engine and rudder were damaged.
International salvage firm Svitzer has been engaged and has attempted to use tugs to stabilize the vessel, but the head of the government agency overseeing the operation said on Monday the ship was still moving on the reef.
The 230-meter (754-ft) ship was carrying 65,000 tons of coal to China when it ran aground on Saturday with 975 tons of heavy fuel oil on board, a type of oil environmentalists say is particularly sticky and damaging to marine organisms.
The ship was off-course and traveling at full speed when it hit, Australian officials have said. If it broke up as feared, environmentalists said the effects could be devastating.
"We would potentially be looking at an environmental disaster," Llewellyn said." It would be an extremely large spill."
Among the animals affected would be protected species of turtles, dugongs, and marine birds, as well as the sensitive corals, she said.
Chris Smyth, an ocean campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation, said with Australia planning to expand its energy industry, its government needs to consider whether ships should be traveling through the reef at all.
"It is going to actually increase shipping traffic substantially and the likelihood of these kinds of incidents occurring in the future," he told Reuters.
This is Australia's third such recent disaster, he said, following two last year, another oil spill off the Queensland coast and a major oil well blowout in the Timor Sea.
It should be clearer within the next few days what the likely scale of this disaster may be, Smyth said. In a worst case scenario, the spilled oil could reach protected areas on the Australian mainland, he said.
On Monday, Queensland state premier Anna Bligh called for tough legal action against the shipowners, saying they could face fines of up to A$1 million ($920,000), with the captain facing a further fine of up to A$220,000.
Investigations are underway by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
A spokeswoman for AMSA told Reuters its investigation would be "exploring breaches and possible offences" under Australian law. Some 23 crew who were on board the vessel when it ran aground so far appeared to be safe, she said.
Rescue officials have said the ship will require a long and careful salvage operation, expected to take weeks.
(A$1=$0.92)
(Editing by Jerry Norton)
(Sydney Newsroom +612 6273 2730)
© Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters
Read more... Sphere: Related Content30 March 2010
Rudd ominously silent on climate change
We know Kevin Rudd has what it takes to win elections and it would be amazing to see him lose the one this year. So we know he can survive as prime minister. A much harder question is whether he has what it takes to be a good prime minister
Ross Gittins | Sydney Morning Herald | March 29, 2010
It's too soon to be sure - after all, John Howard had a terribly rocky first term - but it isn't looking good.
It's unfair to say, as Tony Abbott does, that he's all talk and no action. If this line is biting in the electorate - as it seems to be - it's the judgment of someone who hasn't been paying enough attention.
Rudd has been frenetically active since Day 1. So it's truer to say he doesn't have a lot to show for all his activity. And some of what he has to show isn't very impressive. His notorious attention to detail doesn't seem to be paying off.
His greatest achievement has been to minimise the severity of the recession, but the absence of a negative isn't something that sticks long in the electorate's mind.
The media, which reflect the weaknesses of human nature, tend to focus on the few things that go wrong and ignore the majority of things that go right, thus giving us an exaggerated picture of how bad the world is.
This is true of their reporting of the insulation scheme and the school building program. Even so, you get the feeling we're seeing an instance of Rudd's inexperience as a leader - his belief that, by thumping the table, he could make things happen.
They did happen, but they didn't happen well. The federal urge to take over state responsibilities ignores the truth that the federal bureaucracy simply isn't good at delivering services on the ground.
Rudd has taken on far too much, then failed to get policies right. He devotes too much time to criticising his political opponents which - counterproductively from his perspective - legitimises their contribution and gives them more media attention than they'd otherwise get.
He wastes a lot of the time of himself, his ministers and their departments in his unceasing efforts to dominate the news cycle. They have to produce an unending stream of minor ''announceables'', while he devotes inordinate time to going places and doing things that will get him onto the evening news. This is leadership?
I think it was the veteran journalist Laurie Oakes who said that in Howard's first term he made every mistake in the book - but he only made them once. Has Rudd got such a steep learning curve? I hope so, but I'm beginning to wonder.
Then there's the question of whether he has the courage to introduce needed but controversial reforms; whether his ultimate commitment is to making Australia better or just staying in charge of it.
Rudd has made much of his grand crusade to reform hospitals and healthcare, but how much courage does that take? Who's he up against? The public? No, the great majority want to see a federal takeover of hospitals. All he's taking on are the premiers - who, as always, are merely haggling over the price.
The longer we study his reforms the less impressive they are. They respond to the public's preoccupation with hospitals rather than focusing on the more important issues of primary care and prevention. They'd do nothing to end the Blame Game - as Rudd keeps claiming they would - nor would they do much to shorten hospital waiting lists, which are essentially the product of the strength of demand relative to the funds you make available.
They'd neither transfer all the responsibility for hospitals to the feds, nor ensure there was enough flexibility at the regional level to respond to differing patient needs.
But, in any case, Rudd has changed the subject to health because he no longer wants to talk about his first great reform promise, the carbon pollution reduction scheme.
Public support for action against climate change has softened, so Rudd has switched to hospital reform, which is still popular. This man is a champion of good policy?
Rudd hasn't said a word about climate change for months, even though his emission trading scheme bill is back before Parliament.
What's his problem? He hasn't decided whether to continue the fight. His political advisers tell him the trading scheme's now a vote-loser and he should abandon it, while his policy advisers are telling him that to abandon his commitment would greatly damage his credibility as a leader.
You can say that again. He'd be forever revealed as a weak reed, the ultimate self-seeking pragmatist, with achievements as few as Malcolm Fraser's, far below the supposedly indolent Howard's. And Rudd? Still making up his mind.
To get his trading scheme into law, Rudd's only course is to hold a double dissolution election and pass it at a joint sitting. But that would mean making his ''great big new tax'' a central issue in the election campaign, having a real fight on his hands and possibly losing some seats.
His trading scheme is itself a compromised and imperfect thing, but it beats total, tail-between-the-legs inaction.
Many of the people who contributed to the defeat of the scheme last year - who got into bed with the climate change ostriches - did so in the belief that its rejection would force Rudd to come back with a better offer. He'd be forced by the pressure of public opinion. How wrong-headed they were. Now we have Rudd seriously contemplating doing nothing about ''the great moral challenge of our time''.
Ross Gittins is the Economics Editor
Copyright © 2010. Fairfax Digital
Read more... Sphere: Related Content28 March 2010
Denmark: Letter from two climate activists facing jail for Copenhagen protest
Australian activist Tash Verco and US citizen Noah Weiss were arrested in Copenhagen for the crime of helping organise a mass demonstration to coincide with the December United Nations climate summit (see here). Printed below is a March 22 letter from Verco and Weiss. It is reprinted from www.climate-justice-action.org, where English versions of Danish press coverage of the trail can also be read. To send a letter in their support to the Danish government, click here.
Green Left Online | 26 March 2010
Dear all,
First of all, Noah and I wanted to say a massive thank you for all the solidarity, the actions, articles, petitions and messages of care that have been organized in solidarity with our trial. Although we know that political repression of this sort targets all activists, it does feel very isolating being the people picked out and charged.
Every single action of solidarity has made this process easier for us and reminded us that we are not alone. So thank you!
We have had several victories, some beautiful court moments, and a very stressful week in court. Our case was extended for three more days — which will not happen until August. Noah and I are both sad that the trial is not over but relieved to have not been judged yesterday.
We were originally given two days in court for our trial (the Tuesday and Friday just passed). We had been charged with organizing violence against the police, gross public disorder, systematic destruction of property and gross disturbance of public infrastructure.
Two of these are charges associated with Danish terror laws. The police said that we did this from the period of October to December 2009 but that these things were mostly to be carried out in Copenhagen during the period of the 11th to the 18th of December.
They said that the alleged actions we are accused of mostly failed because the police managed to stop them — in part by arresting Noah on the 11th and me on the 13th of December and keeping us in prison for the rest of the COP (and three more weeks — just to be sure!).
On the morning of the first day in court our lawyers argued for the case to be dropped. They explained that charges in Denmark usually have to include some description of what people are accused of doing, including things like how they were doing it, where, when ... anything really.
They successfully removed one of the terror charges (gross disturbance of public infrastructure) and got the police prosecutor to admit that none of the things we were accused of had any relation to what happened on the streets in Copenhagen during the COP 15.
So now we are just accused of attempting actions, not actually carrying anything out!
It was at this point that the police prosecutor introduced the crystal ball defence. No more details than “something bad was supposed to happen at some point somewhere in Copenhagen” could be supplied by the police because they couldn’t look into their crystal ball when they charged us!
In a spectacular display of confidence in the charges, she then asked the court to note that she had not actually written them herself!
The court decided to continue with the rest of the charges regardless, but after two days in court I am wondering if they regret that decision.
The “evidence” for the non-specific things we are accused of organising is spurious at best and in the worst cases produced bursts of laughter from both judges and spectators in court.
They have trucked out tiny bits of conversations from tapped phones between other people and asked us to interpret them, radically reinterpreted what we and others have said on the phone (from over three months of our private conversations that they recorded) to the point where even the judge objected.
They used notes from brainstorms, scribbled notes from media report backs, and outlandish conjecture to try to demonise us.
My personal favorite is a note I made about big bolt cutters. Instead of asking to interview me during my three weeks in prison (although they said one of the reasons I was kept was for further investigation), they chose to leave until court to ask what was meant by this note in my confiscated personal note book.
I explained that it was prop for a demonstration that was a huge two-meter tall paper mache bolt cutter. It was to be used on the day of the climate no-borders day of action as both a humorous and serious way to say it is illegitimate to cage human beings.
The prosecutor tried to throw doubt on the honesty of my reply until two of the audience in court went to pick the prop up from a local social center and brought them in for the court to see.
Everyone but the prosecutor laughed.
The state of the evidence would really be hilarious if the case didn’t carry such serious consequences both for us personally and for Democracy in Denmark. We are the first of a series of cases against people accused of organising.
It seems that the Danish state is using us as a test case for new anti-activist laws they have passed, the extension of terror legislation to cover any form of political protest and to establish the ability to try people for things that never actually occurred.
Noah and I were both picked up and arrested on the side of the road while riding our bikes by ourselves, threatened, isolated and kept in prison for over three weeks of ‘preventative detention’.
The personal impacts of this have been huge. Even scarier, though, is the potential effect this has on everyone’s ability to speak up about things they care about in Denmark.
If they manage to criminalise protest to the extent that going to meetings, organising speakers for a demonstration, or being a media spokesperson can land you in jail, then what sort of world will we be living in?
If they manage to say intense surveillance and monitoring of activists and their lovers and friends is legitimate, and arrests should be made on crystal ball suspicions of potential actions- then we have moved from even the sham of liberal democracy to a society more reminiscent of 1984 than any of us would like to admit.
It is clear also that this is not just happening in Denmark. Since our arrests we have heard of countless political prisoners facing the hard end of political repression. After our experience of injustice and repression in Denmark we feel very personally that it is so important that all of us speak out and not let this repression continue.
Free all political prisoners, drop the charges for the Cop 15 defendants and all people arrested during the COP15, and end political repression NOW!
Read more... Sphere: Related Content24 March 2010
Copenhagen: Activists face 12 years jail for climate protest — send protest message
In Copenhagen, Sydney-based climate justice advocate Natasha Verco, as well as US activist Noah Weiss, faces charges under Denmark’s “terrorism” laws. Verco faces up to 12-and-a-half year jail for her role in organising protests against the United Nations Copemnhagen climate summit in December
Kieran Adair | Green Left Online | 23 March 2010
The two activists appeared in court on March 18.
Verco was arrested while riding her bike on December the 13 ahead of a national day of action she was helping organise the following day.
She said: “A plainclothed police women jumped out at me and ... took me to an unmarked police van.
“I asked them, ‘Are you randomly picking me up?’ and they said ‘No, we hunted you’.”
Verco was then held in in isolation — in an underground carpark — for about 16 hours before being taken to Copenhagen’s Vester prison where she was held for a further 23 days.
Verco said she was charged the day after being taken to prison, but bail was refused.
“I wonder what the hell they’re going to argue because I can’t see what evidence they’ve got for these charges”, Verco said.
“Under the new anti-terror laws they can do this, but it seems to me that applying terror laws to activists is steadily eroding the base of our democracy.”
During the December 7-18 UN summit, “dozens of protests from the small to mass rallies of 40,000 people, took place; the Danish police arrested nearly 2,000 people”, a March 18 Mobilization for Climate Justice statement said. “The police are now processing nearly 200 legal complaints about the treatment of the arrestees.”
[Action is needed in support of Verco and Weiss. To send a message to the Danish justice and foreign ministries to support the two, please click here.]
Read more... Sphere: Related Content20 March 2010
FACTBOX-About 110 nations back Copenhagen climate deal
The number of nations backing the non-binding Copenhagen Accord for fighting global warming has risen to about 110 and includes all major greenhouse gas emitters, according to a Reuters compilation on Friday
Reuters in AlertNet | 19 Mar 2010
The accord, reached at the December summit, sets a goal of limiting a rise in temperature to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F), but does not say how to achieve the goal. Rich nations also aim to give $100 billion a year in climate aid from 2020.
Major emitters -- led by China, the United States, the European Union, Russia and India -- all back the deal. Russia has given verbal support even though a U.N. website has not registered a formal letter of backing, official sources say.
Names of supporters, among 194 member states, will be listed at the top of the document. Nations signing up in recent days, past an informal Feb. 1 deadline, include Algeria, Eritrea and Zambia. China and India signed up last week.
More than 60 countries have also issued domestic goals for reining in climate change by 2020. A U.N. analysis indicates these pledges will only be sufficient to limit global warming to 3 degrees Celsius (5.4F).
Following are details of national plans published on the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat website -- * shows willingness to be listed as a supporter.
INDUSTRIALISED NATIONS -- EMISSIONS CUTS BY 2020 (FROM 1990 LEVELS UNLESS STATED)
* UNITED STATES - 17 percent from 2005 levels, or 4 percent from 1990 levels.
* EUROPEAN UNION (27 nations) - 20 percent, or 30 percent if others act.
* RUSSIA - 15 to 25 percent.
* JAPAN - 25 percent as part of a "fair and effective international framework".
* CANADA - 17 percent from 2005 levels, matching U.S. goal.
* AUSTRALIA - 5 percent below 2000 levels, 25 percent if an ambitious global deal. The range is 3-23 percent below 1990.
* BELARUS - 5 to 10 percent, on condition of access to carbon trading and new technologies.
* CROATIA - 5 percent.
* KAZAKHSTAN - 15 percent.
* NEW ZEALAND - 10 to 20 percent "if there is a comprehensive global agreement".
* SWITZERLAND - 20 percent, or 30 percent if other developed nations make comparable cuts and poor nations act.
* NORWAY - 30 percent, or 40 if there is an ambitious deal.
* ICELAND - 30 percent in a joint effort with the EU.
* LIECHTENSTEIN - 20 percent, or 30 percent if others act.
* MONACO - 30 percent; aims to be carbon neutral by 2050.
DEVELOPING NATIONS' ACTIONS FOR 2020
* CHINA - Aims to cut the amount of carbon produced per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels. This "carbon intensity" goal would let emissions keep rising, but more slowly than economic growth.
* INDIA - Aims to reduce the emissions intensity of gross domestic product by 20 to 25 percent from 2005 levels.
* BRAZIL - Aims to cut emissions by between 36.1 and 38.9 percent below "business as usual" levels with measures such as reducing deforestation, energy efficiency and more hydropower.
* SOUTH AFRICA - With the right international aid, South Africa says its emissions could peak between 2020-25, plateau for a decade and then decline in absolute terms from about 2035.
* INDONESIA - Aims to reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2020 with measures including sustainable peat management, reduced deforestation, and energy efficiency.
* MEXICO - Aims to cut greenhouse gases by up to 30 percent below "business as usual". A climate change programme from 2009-12 will also avert 51 million tonnes of carbon emissions.
* SOUTH KOREA - Aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent below "business as usual" projections.
OTHERS' PLEDGES
* ARMENIA - Increase renewable energy output, modernise power plants, restore forests.
* BENIN - Develop public transport in Cotonou, better forest management, methane recovery from waste in big cities.
* BHUTAN - Absorbs more carbon in vegetation than it emits from burning fossil fuels; plans to stay that way.
* BOTSWANA - Shift to gas from coal. Nuclear power, renewables, biomass and carbon capture among options.
* CONGO - Improve agriculture, limit vehicles in major cities, better forestry management.
* COSTA RICA - A long-term effort to become "carbon neutral" under which any industrial emissions will be offset elsewhere, for instance by planting forests.
* ETHIOPIA - More hydropower dams, wind farms, geothermal energy, biofuels and reforestation.
* ERITREA - Improve energy conservation, efficiency, reduce deforestation, enhance soil carbon stocks.
* GABON - Increase forestry, bolster clean energy
* GEORGIA - Try to build a low-carbon economy while ensuring continued growth.
* GHANA - Switch from oil to natural gas in electricity generation, build more hydropower dams, raise the share of renewable energy to 10-20 percent of electricity by 2020.
* ISRAEL - Strive for a 20 percent cut in emissions below "business as usual" projections. Goals include getting 10 percent of electricity generation from renewable sources.
* IVORY COAST - Shift to renewable energies, better forest management and farming, improved pollution monitoring.
* JORDAN - Shift to renewable energies, upgrade railways, roads and ports. Goals include modernising military equipment.
* MACEDONIA - Improve energy efficiency, boost renewable energies, harmonise with EU energy laws.
* MADAGASCAR - Shift to hydropower for major cities, push for "large scale" reforestation across the island, improve agriculture, waste management and transport.
* MALDIVES - Achieve "carbon neutrality" by 2020.
* MARSHALL ISLANDS - Cut carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent below 2009 levels.
* MAURITANIA - Raise forest cover to 9 percent by 2050 from 3.2 percent in 2009, boost clean energy.
* MOLDOVA - Cut emissions by "no less than 25 percent" from 1990 levels.
* MONGOLIA - Examining large-scale solar power in the Gobi desert, wind and hydropower. Improve use of coal.
* MOROCCO - Develop renewable energies such as wind, solar power, hydropower. Improve industrial efficiency.
* PAPUA NEW GUINEA - At least halve emissions per unit of economic output by 2030; become carbon neutral by 2050.
* SIERRA LEONE - Set up a National Secretariat for Climate Change, create 12 protected areas by 2015, protect forests.
* SINGAPORE - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent below "business as usual" levels if the world agrees a strong, legally binding deal.
* SIERRA LEONE - Increase conservation efforts, ensure forest cover of at least 3.4 million hectares by 2015. Develop clean energy including biofuels from sugarcane or rice husks.
* TOGO - Raise forested area to 30 percent of the country by 2050 from 7 percent in 2005; improve energy efficiency.
Other nations asking to be associated, without outlining 2020 targets: Albania, Algeria, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Fiji, Guatemala, Guyana, Kiribati, Laos, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Palau, Panama, Peru, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Zambia.
Ecuador, Kuwait and Nauru reject association. The Philippines will support the Accord if developed nations make deep and early cuts.
(Compiled by Alister Doyle in Oslo; Editing by Janet Lawrence)
© Reuters Foundation 2002. All rights reserved
Read more... Sphere: Related Content11 March 2010
REDD project in Sumatra slammed by Friends of the Earth Indonesia and Australia
Friends of the Earth Indonesia (WALHI) and Friends of the Earth Australia put out a press release today strongly criticising an A$30 million Australia-Indonesia REDD project in Sumatra, which was announced last week. WALHI and PPJ (United Farmers of Jambi) have also produced a position paper on the project and REDD in Jambi
By REDD-Monitor | 11th March 2010
WALHI and Friends of the Earth Australia are particularly critical of the carbon offsets that are fundamental to this sort of REDD project. “REDD projects will provide a cheap source of ‘offsets’ to count towards Australia’s greenhouse gas reduction commitments,” says James Goodman of Friends of the Earth Australia.
Sumatrian Forest Carbon Deal slammed by Australian and Indonesian environment groups
Media Release
11 March 2010
For Immediate ReleaseFriends of the Earth Australia and WAHLI (Friends of the Earth Indonesia) have come out strongly in opposition to the new Australian-Indonesian Forest Carbon Partnership announced to coincide with the Indonesian President’s visit to Canberra. The REDD (Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Degradation) trial project will be located in the Jambi province and receive A$30 million in funding from the International Forest Carbon Initiative (IFCI), which is jointly managed by the Department of Climate Change and AusAID.
‘It is vital to globally reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, however, the international REDD framework fails to address the real drivers of deforestation nor will it reduce global carbon emissions’ said James Goodman from Friends of the Earth Australia.
‘REDD projects will instead provide a cheap source of ‘offsets’ to count towards Australia’s greenhouse gas reduction commitments. Treasury modelling shows that the government plans to achieve its 5% (30.75 MtCO2) emission reduction target by purchasing 46MtCO2 of offsets for overseas, that is purchasing more tonnes of carbon offsets that we reduce emissions by! Without offsets the modelling shows that our emissions would actually increase by over 5%. Such ‘offsets’ do not reduce global carbon emissions, but provide a dangerous smokescreen behind which the Australia government can hide its lack of read action on climate change and continued fossil fuel dependence’ he continued.
WALHI and FOEA are extremely concerned that REDD projects will undermine the rights of Indigenous and forest-dependant peoples in the area. In September 2009 the United Nations Committee on Racial Discrimination wrote Indonesia to express concerns that Indonesia REDD regulations do not respect the rights of Indigenous peoples. Documents from the Australian-Indonesian Kalimantan REDD project fail to guarantee the rights of Indigenous people in the area. ‘This raises human rights concerns and bad climate policy given that enhancing local control and management of forested areas by Indigenous and local communities is the best way to reduce deforestation’ said James Goodman.
There are additional concerns about the environmental utility of this scheme in light of a recent Indonesian government announcement that they are seeking to reclassify palm oil plantations as forests, meaning that the Indonesian government could still be paid for forest conservation in cases where old growth forest is clear-felled for palm oil plantations.
‘Australia REDD offset model violates Australia’s international obligations and should be considered as a fraud: the scheme aims to reduce deforestation is not, in fact aims to create a source of cheap credit for the increase in emissions in Australia.’ said Arif Munandar, Regional Executive Director of WALHI Jambi.
A position paper with further background information from WALHI isattached.
For further comment:
James Goodman, Friends of the Earth Australia (0425 264 401)
Arif Munandar, Regional Executive Director of WALHI Jambi (081274375845)
REDD-Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Read more... Sphere: Related ContentRI maps forests with satellite images
Indonesia is intensifying efforts to map forest areas nationwide using remote-sensing satellite technology, to maximize on their role in absorbing greenhouse gas emissions, a seminar has heard
Desy Nurhayati | The Jakarta Post | March 11, 2010
The announcement was made Wednesday at the start of the three-day symposium of the 4th Asia-Pacific Global on Earth Observation System in Bali. Attending the event are delegations from 26 member states of the Group on Earth Observations (GEO).
The forest observations, being conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (Lapan), is aimed at collecting data on forest coverage and monitoring changes in the areas, including pinpointing fire hot spots.
Lapan remote-sensing unit deputy head Nur Hidayat said Indonesia had teamed up with Australia for the project.
“We’re looking to reduce the number of forest and peatland fires by 20 percent a year, so we’re continuously observing forests using remote-sensing satellite technology,” he said.
“The number of hot spots can now be monitored in real time.
“We’re intensifying our annual monitoring of forests to collect reliable and accurate data that can be used to calculate the forest’s capacity to absorb carbon emissions.”
Data collected by the agency will be used to draft a recommendation for follow-up action from other agencies, Hidayat said.
Indonesia is targeting to cut carbon emissions by 26 percent by 2020, or 2.95 gigatons of CO2, 14 percent of it to come from the forestry sector.
The country’s total forest cover is 98.5 million hectares, according to Forestry Ministry estimates. Islands with the highest coverage include Papua, which is 33 percent forest, and Kalimantan with 27.8 percent.
Lapan liaison director Ratih Dewanti Dimyati said the partnership with Australia was aimed at providing data on land changes for Indonesia’s National Carbon Accounting System (INCAS).
INCAS is a joint forest carbon partnership program between the two countries to support Indonesia in providing significant and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by reducing deforestation, encouraging reforestation and promoting sustainable forest management.
“We’re currently in the process of updating the previous data on forest areas nationwide, and we expect to complete it by the end of this year,” she said.
“However, because this is still the early stage of the observation, we can’t say conclusively if there has been any increase in deforestation or the number of hot spots.”
The agency’s will crosscheck its findings with those from the Australian team, to ensure the accuracy.
Forest fires are common across the country, particularly in Kalimantan and Sumatra.
The number of hot spots in Central Kalimantan has fluctuated wildly over the past 13 years, says the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Indonesia.
In 2009, the figure was 4,860, up from 1,827 in the previous year and 2,793 in 2007.
Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved
Read more... Sphere: Related Content10 March 2010
Australia Revises Renewable Energy Target Plan
On February 26, Australia's Minister for Climate Change and Water Penny Wong, and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet, announced that the government would make changes to the country's Renewable Energy Target plan. Starting in January 2011, the existing scheme will include two parts – the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) and the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET)
RenewableEnergyWorld.com | 09 March 2010
These revised arrangements will deliver on the Government’s 20 percent by 2020 Renewable Energy Target (RET) and are expected to enhance the scheme by providing greater certainty for households, large-scale renewable energy projects and installers of small-scale renewable energy systems like solar panels and solar water heaters. Combined, the new LRET and SRES are expected to deliver more renewable energy than the existing 45,000 gigawatt-hour target in 2020.
The LRET portion of the target will be increased to ensure the 20 per cent by 2020 target is still met if the uptake of small scale technologies is lower than anticipated. The new LRET annual targets (to commence in 2011) for large-scale renewable electricity generation are listed in the table below.
The new SRES has been designed to deliver households, small business and community groups, $40 for each Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) created by small-scale technologies like solar panels and solar water heaters.
Under the existing Solar Credits initiative, the new fixed price of $40 per REC will see a Sydney household that installs a 1.5 kilowatt solar panel system in 2011 benefit from an upfront subsidy of $6,200 through RECs. If the same household decides to install a typical solar water heater they will receive RECs worth $1,200.
The number of systems receiving support under the SRES will be uncapped to ensure small-scale installers have certainty. The Government will review the operation of the SRES in the context of the planned 2014 statutory review of the Renewable Energy Target.
“The Rudd Government has got it right with this announcement,” said Matthew Warren, chief executive of Australia's Clean Energy Council. “The clean energy industry has been discussing structural design issues with the current Renewable Energy Target since late last year. The Rudd Government has listened carefully to industry advice and today has acted decisively and effectively. Our main concern was to improve the design of the RET to ensure that it delivered both industrial scale generation projects as well as the continued development and deployment of household technologies like solar panels and hot water. Today’s announcement addresses this problem. We will continue to work with the government to ensure the final legislation is effective and efficient."
Copyright © 1999-2010 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved
Read more... Sphere: Related Content07 March 2010
Censored ex-CSIRO economist speaks out
Carbon trading schemes have become the most favoured government strategy to deal with climate change, including in Australia. But as economics professor Clive Spash found out, government employees who question whether such schemes can actually deliver emissions reductions can find themselves under huge pressure to be silent
Simon Butler | Green Left Online | 6 March 2010
Spash wrote a paper critical of emissions trading schemes called The Brave New World of Carbon Trading in 2009. The paper aimed to “point out some of the pitfalls [of carbon trading] which seem too often brushed aside”.
His then employer, the Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO), reacted to this implicit criticism of government policy by trying to brush his entire paper aside.
CSIRO management refused Spash permission to publish the essay. Later, the New Political Economy journal agreed to publish it, with a disclaimer saying no association existed between the paper and the CSIRO. The CSIRO then pressured Spash to make changes to his paper so it could formally release it. When he refused, the organisation released it but stressed that it was not linked to the CSIRO.
The essay may never have been published at all if Spash hadn’t decided to speak out against the censorship. In December 2009, he resigned from the CSIRO to ensure The Brave New World of Carbon Trading could no longer be suppressed.
Spash spoke at a public meeting titled “Why carbon trading will fail” in Sydney on March 2. The meeting was sponsored by Solidarity, Sydney university climate action collective and the Parramatta Climate Action Network. Spash will also speak in a session at the Climate Action Summit in Canberra, March 13-15.
His March 2 talk summarised the main themes of his controversial paper.
The economic textbook assumptions that underpin carbon trading models bear little resemblance to reality, he said. Rather than achieving emissions reductions, carbon trading schemes in other countries have delayed genuine action to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Supporters of emissions trading say that it’s the most efficient way to reduce carbon pollution. But in practice, what is “efficient” and profitable for big polluters is not necessarily efficient for the Earth’s ecosystem, which requires a rapid phase-out of fossil-fuel use to avert runaway climate change.
Spash’s paper explained why big business much prefers carbon trading schemes over pollution taxes and direct government regulation. “Powerful vested interest groups support permit trading for good self-interested reasons. Polluting industries see the potential for massive financial rewards in return for their participation …
“Emissions trading in itself cannot … provide polluting firms with certainty about future carbon prices (despite the confident predictions of economic modellers). Its attraction is more likely to relate to the potential windfall gains of free permits.”
He told the meeting: “It’s not possible to redesign these schemes to make them work. The level of certainty assumed is purely unavailable.”
Read more... Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
