Category: Headship

All about gas, coal has lost it

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

It is all about gas. Coal has lost it, but it is a good distraction. Petroleum is a convenient price setter. Renewables are the future and the trick is to be to get the traditional utility models to take ownership. But what is the price?

World wide scholarly types have put forward a number of maps of energy analysis for, Japan and globally. Japan is topical because they are more likely to be a first tier part of Australia’s trade. 

The trade approaches call for model development for energy demand, costing, efficiency, and green house gas emission – We trust you noted that models needed included Greenhouse Gas emissions. Why? Because Japan for its energy security must consider its short and long selling trades on energy. Energy needs include considering an individual process basis including fuel cell technology, vehicle technology, internal electricity needs and the usage strata on all levels including regional or national levels with a multiplicity of competing energy processes.

That said, Japan is only one of our global partners with similar concerns. All must consider in their national interest what are some of the comparable energy pathways. Those pathways include: Coal importation, fuels used for electricity production, electricity use in either residential, commercial, and transportation sectors etc. In all these considerations the answers can change over time and some of the drivers will be the relevant technology needs, the gaps in sustainable delivery mechanisms to meet the demands and gaps in supply, and they must also consider the time frames needed to close each fuel supply type and substitute them.

Australia’s politics is sending up a big smoke screen – Coal is King. World prices and demand says something different something like ‘Coal is dead long live the Coal’ 
 We hear of ‘clean coal’ and then we hear it is a nonsense. What is certain is it becoming an undesirable fuel source. This is not saying unnecessary it is simply saying much less attractive on the world stage. Why, technology can now provide better fuel sources without the climate change consequences. So much so that at any price, coal is too expensive. Coal can be burnt, but needs processing to be useful for other purposes. The term embodied energy come to mind here. It means the amount of energy needed to convert may be higher than the value of the material compared to alternative process. Then there is gas! Gas can be used for its molecule – to make fertilizer for instance, to fuel your stove, boiler, it can be a by-product of another process such as syngas. Your waste can even be used to produce it. Gas can be processes or extracted to supply. But the choices are better, cleaner. Granted, not the best energy source, but far more sensible than relying on coal. Hence, the now is all about gas.

Then there is the markets that determine viability to produce. Despite what our Australian policy makers might be telling us – the truth is more than ‘real’, it more than to be affective it is about being effective. It is not good enough to be positioned well, you also need an effective agenda. Or, at least have you agenda smarter than the other guys. What is there to critique about our stance, now:

Carbon Tax – the UK, US Republicans are all active in thinking a Carbon Tax is good. It is a market mechanism that works. This flies in the face of Australia’s Environment Minister saying it does not – even though the evidence suggest Australia’s Carbon Emissions reduced 11% since the introduction of a carbon price. Even more perplexing is why the Australian government put forward to confuse carbon price and carbon tax. For instance in the legislation for clean energy was the term the Carbon Price. The ‘price’ included offsetting for a transition of industry to a low carbon future. In the repeal legislation is substituted the words Carbon Tax as meaning Carbon Price. The UK and US clearly think there is a difference between the two definitions.

An example of the critics is, on 9 July 2014, Lord Deben – a UK Tory and is noted from the Thatcher years to now as expert on the environment has issued a statement through the ABC saying the Abbott Government “appears to be more concerned with advancing its own short-term political interests” than dealing with global warming.

Also, on 7 July 2014, Solar Reserve chief executive Kevin Smith told the ABC’s Four Corners program the company had been deterred by a drift in policy and the planned scrapping of the carbon tax.

It was also concerned about the appointment of Dick Warburton, who doubts that carbon emissions are causing global warming, to lead a review of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target.

“That policy change pretty much took the life out of the renewable energy sector as far as large-scale projects for utility applications [are concerned],” Mr Smith said.

“Other markets around the world are advancing. Australia is going to get left behind.”

On Mr Warburton’s appointment, Mr Smith said: “Clearly that appointment was made because they want to move back towards conventional fuels, coal and oil.

“It’s pretty clear that the policy in Australia is now being centred around big coal. The coal industry clearly has rallied to move policy away from renewable energies because they view renewable energy as a threat and want to move back to convention coal.”

“Just think, these coal companies won’t be able to sell their coal overseas unless they get sequestration or offset commitments and the only way they can do that is if they have an ETS; they can’t pay for it unless they’ve got carbon credits.

“They’ve killed themselves. Coal is dying anyway, but they’ve killed themselves even quicker.

“The whole politics of climate change has regained a bit of ground.”

Then consider:

Palmer United Party’s commitment to keep part of the architecture of the carbon laws in place – the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority – is a big win, and the reality is it’s driven by the market, ‘Newman’ says.

“That’s enough for now; we’ll regroup. We’ll get there.”

But do we really have to lose the ETS mechanism?

The suggestion Is then that the government cross benches are not happy:

This disaster started to unfold to vote for the ETS in 2009?

“A Victorian senator, Judith Troeth, a senior figure in the Liberal Party’s moderate faction, and a Queensland senator, Sue Boyce, crossed the floor to vote with Labor senators when the legislation was finally put to a vote,” reported the Sydney Morning Herald at the time.

Both these women are now gone. But maybe there are a few other senators willing to vote with their conscience.

It’s a time for bravery. There are Titanic shifts everywhere right in both the US and Australia and impressively they are from the conservative big end of town.

Last week was the think piece in the New York Times from the über-conservative Republican politician Hank Paulson, a former US Treasury Secretary, that ricocheted around the world.

It was based on a bipartisan report, Risky Business, that argued that global warming was no different to the global financial crisis and even more dangerous. And yet it was if the world was ploughing straight into a mountain, Paulson said.”

You might even note here – we are not talking technology, it is the passion of addressing the ‘real’ issues.

We wonder what would happen if you introduced the technology issues with wind-based electricity for water electrolysis for hydrogen production and the use of hydrogen in fuel cell vehicles, the use of biomass to produce biofuels for transportation. I bet the vested interests would do all they can to stop the innovation. Despite how short sighted it is to oppose.

To recap why we mentioned our agenda needs to be smarter. Consider this:

“LNG spot prices for Japan at 3-year low

TOKYO — Spot prices of liquefied natural gas for Japanese buyers have been hovering at the lowest level in about three years due to increased supplies and sluggish demand.

     Spot prices are about $11 per million British thermal units, about the same as immediately after the March 2011 earthquake in Japan. From February this year, the price has dropped about 40%.

     Supplies for Asia are increasing. An LNG project in Papua New Guinea, in which Exxon Mobil and JX Holdings have stakes, began production in May instead of the originally scheduled September or later. Now, more than 300,000 tons of LNG from Papua New Guinea flow into the spot market monthly. And shipments from Indonesia and Australia are also steady.

     In contrast, demand is not as strong. Ten Japanese power companies had 2.44 million tons of LNG inventories at the end of April, up 13% from a year earlier. With the temperature through May having been warmer than usual, these companies did not have to generate as much electricity as a year before.

     In South Korea, state-owned gas company Korea Gas piled up LNG inventories as the country restarted nuclear power plants. It is now asking such Japanese companies as Tokyo Gas and Chubu Electric Power to buy its excess.

(Nikkei)”

Danger Danger no doubt!

Want less intrusive government and good policy – US influencers

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, HeadshipTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Bloomberg reports the US republicans can warm to a carbon tax. Why? Because it is a solution that does not require subsidies to work and it allows the market forces to set the economic response. The hook – all the money is used to offset income tax.

Now back home, despite previously advocating a Carbon Tax as late as 2009, the conservative Australian Government is set about to dismantle the carbon price (also referred to as the carbon tax) and preferring to introduce other taxes/charges/fees that will be greater than the impost of the Carbon Tax. Considerable opposition to the plan is gathering pace, and it is based on the uncertainty of the alternative measures.

So how do the Americans intend to sell the Carbon Tax and what is the appeal that is persuasive for the Republicans? For a start in the main economists agrees a tax is the way to put downward pressure on emissions. The Republicans don’t like quantitative emissions controls, caps on emissions, or subsidies. However, they do like market forces to organise an economic response. The selling point is that emission can be cut where the market finds it is easier and cheaper to do so.

Now we hear the argument: ‘Some’ Republicans oppose the notion that Climate Change even exits! Well to use the President of the Australian Solar Council words spoken on 5 June 2014, when politicians resist they will come around to change their thinking easy enough. You could interpret that as – I oppose to recognise because change present problems that require actions. You could also say in ‘yes minister’ style: One will be courageous when it becomes unavoidable. You could say if you reduce the risk, and it is to reduce the likely hood of a voter backlash it is a good thing.

To follow on with the tax argument, we quote: “Instead of listing all the fine things a carbon tax could buy — some tax cuts here, a bit of budget-deficit reduction there, and plenty left over for additional spending on infrastructure and other good things — advocates of such a tax should simply offer to give back all the revenue in the form of tax cuts elsewhere.

It’s a worthwhile trade because a tax is by far the best way to reduce carbon emissions, which again is the whole point of this exercise. Consider a modest tax of $16 a ton of carbon dioxide, rising at 4 percent a year above inflation. It would reduce power-sector emissions by more than the EPA proposals for the energy sector would, and curb emissions across the rest of the economy as well.

A $16 a ton tax would also add about 16 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline and raise household energy costs by 5 percent to 20 percent, depending on the source. Such costs — to “families and businesses,” of course, because what politician in his right mind wants to impose a new tax on families and businesses? — are most often cited by opponents of the tax.

The answer is twofold. Yes, families and businesses would be paying a new tax. But no, families and businesses would not be paying more tax. The new carbon tax would raise about $1 trillion over 10 years and almost $3 trillion over 20 — a handy sum. That would be enough to send every U.S. resident a check for about $300 in the first year (with bigger checks to follow) or $1,200 for a family of four. It would be more than enough to cut the corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, for instance, or take a bite out of payroll taxes, or some of both.

This would inevitably lead to an argument over which taxes to cut. At which point, admittedly, the debate could bog down all over again. But at least it would be framed by a shared assumption: that a carbon tax is good policy. It gets liberals a more effective climate policy, and Republicans a less intrusive government.

To contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg View’s editorials: David Shipley at davidshipley@bloomberg.net.”

Now back in Australia, eh what was the problem? I guess we have an issue with setting our priorities – we prefer to impress bar flies!

Trade with Asia – price points of gas

Posted on Posted in Carbon Competition & Consumer, Carbon Opportunity, HeadshipTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

We are part of Asia, and an island. We are isolated and that works for and against our security. Energy Security that is, our trading partners have different views on what is a benefit. As an island we need to transport singular purpose vehicles with product from point A to Point B in the most direct line and this method does not share any of the wealth or contribute to other points and their economy.

If you did not know Russia is on top of this issue and they intend to supply gas to Asia and have been into the driver’s seat in the last two years, to do so: A related project to the gas deal announcements is the intention to build a railway transport system from South Korea though to North Korea into Russia, and then connecting to the Trans-Siberian Railway. The intention is to create high-speed rail connections directly from South Korea to the markets of Europe.

“If such a natural gas line and railway were to be built — and there is strong support for this in parts of the South Korean establishment and business community — it would not only provide South Korean producers direct land access across Central Asia and all of Europe.

It would also provide the impetus for transforming the North Korean economy — and change that region’s frozen geopolitics in the process.

In short, if its vision comes to pass, Russia would become anchored in Asia as it never has been in the past. Better yet for Moscow, all major economies of East Asia would become linked to Russia in a way few had previously imagined possible. And that would be truly a pivot to Asia.” Source The Russia-China Energy Agreement Is the world’s largest commercial deal ever. By Kenneth Courtis, May 25, 2014

What about our (Australia’s) great trade hopes? We are deliberately killing off our innovation capabilities, our industries are moving out – even New Zealand seem more preferable! Even the US learnt it lesson that being a service industry country is a lesson of folly. It takes innovation and small innovations to grow into big to be great. So the question must be asked: Do we think we will be rewarded for thinking Asia revolves around Australia? I guess Russia is laughing uncontrollably at this time at such a thought. After all we have our leader saying I am confident, and the advisors or facts did not substantiate that. It seems that Russia will become enmeshed in East Asia in ways to pose new challenges for Russia and Australia.

The opening paragraph of this post said there are differing views on energy supply within Asia. This evolves around the fact that the new Russian Deal on Gas supply to China has been based on an oil price reference formula. Meaning when oil prices are high, the oil-based price formula for natural gas allows the sale of gas at a higher price than if it were based on spot-market natural gas prices. The implications are the entire world’s gas price will follow this formula. The only difference will be transport costs!

Should have mentioned earlier “the size of the Russia China Deal The largest previous natural gas deal which China has signed was with Australia, a dozen years ago. That was a $25 billion deal and runs through to the end of the next decade. The China-Russia natural gas deal is about 16 times larger.

By any measure, it is a big, big deal. Indeed, it is the single largest trade deal ever.” Again the source is Kenneth Courtis.

Now it seems the odd one out of this deal is Japan, our shining light, maybe:

“Japan is the world’s largest importer of natural gas. It continues to seek to diversify its sources of supply.

Japanese buyers are less focused on price than is China, as they also include in their calculations security of supply, stability of supply and consistency of the composition of imported natural gas. Japan also has accepted an oil reference formula for pricing its natural gas purchases.

Now comes the big question: Who in Australia is talented enough to head us in the right direction?

Lot of M’s – the collective fault within

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Billion-dollar investor Warren Buffett is rumoured to be preparing for a US Stock Market crash, as is predicted by a number of pundits. Also expected is that a number of options could be open to investors to either alleviate or survive the down time period. What is predicted is a 50 % reduction or plunge in markets. Having lived the 2008 Global Financial Crisis a number of issues cross our mind. Such as the government policies to handle the situation will they be reactive or proactive? What will happen to the reserve bank policy? Where will you go to protect your wealth position? Will the need for welfare increase substantially?

On the latter the current Australian Government preferred budget policy says we must do it tough to get a surplus. All measure of expenditure will be cut ‘for our own good’. The difficulty here is that the expectation is there is an alternative to welfare. For example: A favourable market. Therefore a 50% plunge in the market will be a crisis with long-term damage to physical and economic circumstances. Ask around now and the evidence is there with small business indicators saying ‘we are stuffed’, ‘do they expect blood from a stone’, and then the irony of comments of we expect you to ‘do more with less’ and policies like the Clean Energy Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2013, also known as the Carbon Tax repeal, will save in the order of 4 to 6% of business costs and be replaced with short term (promised) measures that increases cost through other fees, levies, charges and taxes (even John Howard has said of the current budget before the parliament call it what it is ‘a tax’) increasing costs by around 17%. If you need references to the carbon price repeal go to www.environment.gov.au.

It beggars (pun intended) belief that we will be reduced to just that a nation of begging. Looking for a suitable term – mendicare (a Latin word for to beg). We would evolve the word mendicity to be the practice or habit of begging. Source www.answers.com/topic/mendacity. If you did not know, mendacity is derived as a synonym from Latin mendax and lying, and means habitual lying or deceiving.

On the subject of small business impacts in a recent DOE tender a Multi-use list (MUL) was written as part of the tender documents. Its purpose was said:

“Environment Quality Multi-Use List

1. To promote business opportunities for Small Businesses the Department intends establishing a Environment Quality Multi-Use List (MUL) for service providers that are small businesses. The MUL is expected to be open for registration from 1 July 2014 to coincide with the establishment of the Panel.

2. The MUL will contain the same scope of services as the Environment Quality Panel described in this RFT. Registration under the MUL will be restricted to Small Businesses employing fewer than twenty people. Registrants under the MUL will be required to provide services at rates that do not exceed the Standard Rates described in Part x, Volume x, Section x of this RFT.

3. Small Businesses may tender for this Panel and apply for registration under the Environment Quality MUL. “

Than on 28 May 2014 an Addendum was issued and as part of it said: “In the Request for Tender document under Part 1 – Section A, paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 must be disregarded by potential tenderers. Any potential tenderer should respond to this RFT as the departments intention to establish an MUL will not go ahead at this time.” A sign of what is to come?

In preparing for the impending 2014 stock market plunge, even as a precautionary step, should our government adopt a better system of indicators – go beyond vitriol with the purpose to spread the blame, and for them to look seriously at the “Warren Buffett Indicator,” also known as the “Total-Market-Cap to GDP Ratio,” to have a tools that is capable of alerting what is breaching sell-alert status and a collapse that may happen at any moment? Source of the indicator story is http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNewsIntl/Stock-market-recession-alert/2014/02/10/id/551985/?promo_code=166D4-1&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral

Being positive we can change our polies policies, what would we recommend?

a) Do what the budget or ideology wants you to do: Sell off all your stocks and assets and stuff the money under the proverbial mattress.

b) Risk everything and ride out the storm.

It is more a case of being sensible – whoops, too obvious!

If we look closely, we ourselves collectively are what are at fault. We allow ourselves to be complacent, and that is why we are allowing ideologues to blind us to the facts. The fact we need a multifaceted recourses and revenue base that involves a multiplicity of product offerings. The US has for instance learn’t that their greatness comes from innovation and small growing to big is part of their happiness index. Universally there are specific sectors of the market that are all but guaranteed to perform well. Some may struggle and it is cyclic. We need to think in 10 year terms and short term solutions that are blinkered could be costly.

Just as important are to accept the indicators over the historic sphere are markets rally to new highs despite any massive write-downs. This has nothing to do with luck. It has everything to do with using the tools correctly. In more correct terms being proactive in predictions and being reactive to the historic needs. Tools like a Crash Alert System, actually!

Is chalk and talk past tense – a victim of ‘dash for cash’.

Posted on Posted in Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

I guess the days of chalk and talk are over, in my view, merely a taste of things to come. From conversations throughout the education sector, there is wide-scale disenchantment and frustration with the system and the apparent breach of promise our politicians speak on school funding will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and bring many to the point of protest – students, teachers and parents.

The question that appears to be wanting in the ‘dash to slash cash’ mindset is changes are needed but what is surviving in the face of technology upgrades is education remains the means of survival and how we learn to fine-tune the way knowledge is delivered.

That said, according to Leanne Mezrani writing for the Project Manager – www.aipm.com.au – in the February/March 2013 edition (but still very relevant) “truly effective teaching relies on the give-and-take between teacher and student. Feedback can be as subtle as a facial expression or tone of voice”.

What is all this based on? Invaluable lessons learnt through industry experience, face to face feedback and deliver using a combination of face to face, online and project based assessment. According to Leanne’s article. So rather than cuts more needs to be spent on knowledge delivery. Especially when we are slipping in world ranking and failing our regional area needs on education.

Is there a revolution or evolution of education delivery though technology? Evolution we think, and if you consider this timeline, also courtesy of Leanne Mezrani:

1911 – first distance education scheme in Australia offered by the University of Queensland and extended to correspondence schools in the 1920’s in NSW and Queensland.

By 1933 – correspondence lessons replace the last itinerant teacher.

In 1935 – All Australian mainland states now have Classroom lessons broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC).

1960 – The school of the Air is established. Lessons are broadcast by radio from the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Cloncurry Queensland.

1975 – The personal computer meant users did not need to rely on mainframe computers for use of education software.

IN the 1990’s – Leaning tools went through a significant upgrade in graphics and sound. CD-ROMs become the preferred method of content delivery.

1993 – Under ownership of Monash University Open Universities Australia was formed as a nation wide means of providing distance education using printed courseware and non-commercial television.

1999 – e-Learning was the term used for internet and other interactive or electronic media sources.

2008 – Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) used as a term to describe an online course offered by a US University. The significance – online classes offered free of charge.

2011 – The Centre of Online Learning Excellence is launched by Open Universities Australia with the purpose of becoming a centre of best practice in online education.

2012 – A total of 20 universities and other education providers across Australia offer 1700 units and 180 qualifications through online courses.

2013 – it is recognized that MOOC was a revolution, but it seem only the highly self-motivated student derive any great benefit from this type of learning. What is now apparent is that is it is an evolution of delivery as the average student is more likely to require motivation and inspiration, and are likely to lose their way in an environment that doesn’t offer scheduled classes or feedback from instructors.

The CO2Land org reads, April 2014 – Australia rates 14th in the place to get a quality education. Rating first is South Korea because of the way they give quality time to students. Since writing this post it has come to our attention Australia is now 15th place according to BBC, 8 May 2014. Also worth noting is that UK is second to South Korea according to BBC.

Does it make you think – dash for cash or offer quality learning? What gives the better future payback?

 

from Gonna Do and Talk About to – the Paradigm Shift needed

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Zero WasteTagged , , , , Leave a comment

A discussion group, Sustainability Professionals, is having a long running discussion on the need for a paradigm shift in how we think and act. After CO2Land org posted, 22 April 2014, an Ecoprofit Management Newsletter item on World Meters – Population (pop increase 655,000 net in 3 days). It started a thought process that indicated we complain too much, and do not address the more important aspects – the real dangers of accepting the status quo. How do we go from gonna do and talk about to formulating the tools for shifting our mindsets?

We all know about the importance of educating our children, and use well worn terms like: they are our future and history shows us the way. But, what faces us now is unprecedented in human history, and if adults don’t act there may not be a future for humans. It is therefore foreseeable the paradigm shift needs to have an education component and have:

“INTERNAL TRAINING IN THE ADULT SECTORS on all issues explaining what sustainability is all about. This is sorely needed. We need to work education and training in these issues into the corporate and government structures. They are so risk management oriented. So let’s take a different approach. We need to address and train in the ROI across the board on what sustainability and bringing in why ecosystems working together is key. In the corporate and governments culture employees and all of management must take courses on line such as sexual harassment in the workplace, ADOBE training, how to deal with difficult co-workers, etc. WHAT IF we added:

Sustainability Planning
Sustainability Has a History
Planning Policies for Government and Business
Introduction to Action Initiatives
Waste Streams for Consideration
The Plan: Design and Implementation
Social Responsibility
Definition and Benefits
Guidelines for Transparency for Your Stakeholders
Basic Training of Renewable Energy
Leadership and Administration
Green Building / Systems/Materials
Green Building and Renovations Defined
Energy Efficient Systems
Driving Forces for Change
Risks and Benefits of Green Construction
Green Construction Risk Assessments
Green Certification and Standards
Green Certifications and Standards
Energy Ratings and Audits Defined
Certifications and Energy Standard Case Studies
Green Building Adding to the Bottom Line
Green Supply Chain Management
Leadership, Assessment, and Life Cycle Analysis
Environmental Costs and Benefits
Guiding Your Company’s Plan
Success Story
Waste Management
Waste Concepts are a Part of History
Tracking and Transporting Waste
Solid Waste Principles
What Can Be Recycled?
A Plan to Begin Managing Your Waste
Contractual Guidelines are a Must
Transportation / Green Fleet Management
Introduction to Green Fleet Concepts
Alternative Fuel Overview
Green Fleet Case Studies
Green Transportation Saves on the Bottom Line
Sustainable Purchasing Practices
Concepts in Green Purchasing
Involve Your Purchasing Department in Sustainability
Green Cleaning Practices
Becoming Familiar with Green Cleaning Concepts
Changing Your Cleaning Practices
Water Conservation
Efficient Use of Your Water Resources
Learn about Water Conservation From The Health Care Industry
Water Filtering Options and Storage
Preventing Stormwater Pollution
Environmental Accounting
General Environmental Management System Guidance
International Standards
Environmental Management System Implementation
Planning for Environmental Accountability
Tracking Carbon Emissions
Food Service
Waste and Recycling in Food Service
Greener Food Service Practices
Renewable Energy
Introduction Renewable Energy to Government and Business
Identifying Local Renewable Resources
Waste to Energy Saves Money!

So, wouldn’t this type of internal training help to effect change, catapult the forming of internal committees and cause departments to change business practices? I think it would. This is available now and courses include core competency testing, narration and are of high quality. Place these on corporate and government websites globally, and make them part of compliance internal training programs then the wider public can make better and more ‘informed’ business decisions. http://www.greeneducationonline.com “. Quoted is Kerry Mitchell from Green Education On Line/ Berkshire Hathaway Home Services.

Maybe she has nailed it, a big like from this end. Now how do you get our pollies interested?

Rock and Hardplace – RET and DAP predictions

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Let us now predict: Soon after the RET review the fossil fuel generators will celebrate with a short-term price relief. It is a two edged sword, as they will discover the relief may be temporary. Partly because large-scale renewables facilities are likely to continue to experience cost reductions, and the Federal government’s Direct Action Plan may further dampen electricity demand – not a good outlook for coal fired generation known for its baseload dependability to be profitable.

It is scheduled for the Australian government’s Direct Action Plan (DAP) to release its white paper -Emissions Reduction Fund, this month April 2014. Also scheduled for mid-2014, the Government’s Renewable Energy Target (RET) Review expert panel will report to the Prime Minister. We might even guesstimate that the PM will find DAP will be unlikely to be a benefit or too expensive for the resources sector, and simply drop it. It could be easier than you think, why because it is not yet funded!

Apart from funding, the Governments’ own wording suggests the final design of the government’s Direct Action Plan will be critical for coal generators, and their survival, with potential for emissions baselines and penalties to curb potential growth prospects. Add to this that individual states do more and encourage energy efficiency, and other large-scale efforts to improve energy efficiency via the Emissions Reduction Fund will be a terrible place for coal fired generators to be if the predicted demand for electricity continues to decline. This will put significant pressure on profit margins of these generators.

CO2Land org feels the PM is in a rock and hard place, by his own doing. Come July he will have no choice but to continue with the threat to repeal the Carbon Price Mechanism (which he refers to as the Carbon Tax) – Which results in a short term gain for coal fired generation. Even if RET is reduced or halved, the long term trend for coal output is still dependent on the price effectiveness of that form of supply – it might even need a ‘subsidy’ to continue supply.

That said, if energy security is the stated reason for a subsidy, it is likely the penetration of renewable energy will continue because it will continue to be subject to falling prices to its advantage, and those prices are dropping because of efficiencies in the way it can deliver. Let us not forget – business too will be more efficient, and in order to survive will factor in the need to reduce energy demands, or at least be more efficient in the use of energy.

Lastly, if the PM were thinking of killing off the Direct Action Plan (DAP) it would be unwise. It is the only mechanism the government has to show they care, or are earth aware. Even South Africa has come to recognize a price on carbon + Renewable Energy + Energy Efficiency + Land use change = business success. We don’t want to appear dumb do we!

 

 

What is the language of Australia – by example

Posted on Posted in Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , Leave a comment

What is the language of Australia? Are we following OXFORD, WEBSTER or MACQUARIE diction?  And, what about a bit Wikipedia too being quoted to explain words not otherwise existing – maybe being invented?

Until Abbott, and particular reference is made to strict language requirements of the Howard era, we were clearly following the style guide to policy writing that favoured Macquarie.  The a recent Australian Government document named Green Army Programme Draft Statement of Requirements Consultation Process as issued 21 January 2014, and in opening statements says “The Department is releasing this draft Statement of Requirements for the Green Army Programme 2014–2017 for the purpose of obtaining feedback from stakeholders and potential tenderers about the operationalisation of the proposed Programme design, as described in the SOR.  By seeking feedback on the draft SOR, the Australian Government hopes to benefit from industry expertise and ensure that the SOR describes the best way of delivering the Programme.”

Note the repeated use of ‘programme’ (OXFORD) and the use of ‘operationalisation’ (WIKIPEDIA). Does this mean ‘real’ language is just what suits?

Or does it simply reflect we are not capable of original thinking today, we just select ‘off the shelf’ policies from elsewhere, language and all?

What is the mater of concern:

As a Noun: Program or Programme?

  • American English always uses program British English uses programme
  • Australian English recommends program for official usage.

 

Historically, ‘program’ is UK based language, until the 20th century when fashion came to the UK to adopt French flair and words, it was then when the spelling “programme” became more common — yes, the French managed to influence the English and the adopted the French word “programme”.

 

Therefore, assuming our ‘off the self’ policy is direct from England we should assume you can earn ‘brownie’ points by knowing how to use the noun programme and program correctly, examples:

  • We’re still drawing up the programme for the concert.
  • This computer program won’t run on my PC.
  • I missed my favourite television programme last night.

 

What about the Verb: To Program, Programmed, Programming?

Did you not know the word program is also a verb? Time to get a little different here as both American and British English use “to program” and not to programme. But wait we can still confuse you:

In American English it is valid to use –

  • programed
  • programing

 

In Oxford English, the far more widespread usage is –

  • programmed
  • programming

 

In Australia, is –

  • to program.

CO2Land org has a point to this: Just make sure you are consistent, and government should take note of this – lives can depend on it, as sure as a comma in the wrong place can be totally misunderstood. A good place to start is the government’s own style guide or a rule on which form of the word to use.

 

A ‘true’ reflection of our community thinking

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Alan Kohle – finance presenter on ABC News, said: Abolishing the carbon tax will cost real money – $13.7 billion over four years – because unlike the minerals resource rent tax (MRRT), it would have actually worked. He postulated that the repeal of the MRRT and its associated spending measures produces a net GAIN to the budget over four years of $9.5 billion … and this was supposed to be a tax. This makes interesting reading, the MRRT is a tax that is a net gain to the economy and the repeal of Carbon Pricing is a cost. Now we are starting to understand that the Senate is on about – is expected to vote for costs at a time when someone or something declared ‘budget emergency’.

Jokingly, a near neighbour suggested the best way to tackle the deficient is to remove the cabinet from our executive. It makes some sort of sense if you consider the spin doctors make up the words, the power brokers approve and the Ministers mouth the words with Shakespearean gusto, and possibly cannot answer simple questions outside the script, often saying when asked to do so – I am not the author Ill get the person that wrote it to answer?  It would reduce our deficit would it not?

But far more damaging is what our trading neighbours think…Great conversation with a phone call coming in from …….. yesterday afternoon…have confirmed our first ……… be shipped to us end of January, plus additional projects (really interesting ones) over there. They also provided some friendly political advice that our esteemed PM was doing considerable harm in Asia and needed a bit of “polishing”…… brought gales of laughter and the comment that this is why he was not being taken too seriously at the moment because it was not believed he was a true reflection of our community feeling.

Are our Asian neighbors right? What is so sad about this story is that originally, the project mention above was mooted to be manufactured in Australia – government programs were solicited and proved difficult. It also seems incredulous that the program administrators expect the bankable is sufficient because they approve or disapprove through a program. If you go to the bank with that view they are likely to say government is irrelevant – It is starting to sound like a prophesy, is it not!

Then someone said something ridiculous – I thought they were ‘nomads’ – but they get angry when I TALK TO THEM – The joke is in ‘no mads’ OK!

Hot Air and the Unfair

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

We nearly choked, Malcolm Turnbull – Liberal Front bencher – Minister for Communications, said the loss of Holden’s local manufacturing operations is a watershed event for an Australian economy that must 
commit itself to innovative, high-tech industries. We then lamented, this and previous governments have demonstrated that they have contempt for promoting small innovative firms that demonstrate they can provide globally competitive technology best in its class and fully capable of entering multi billion dollar markets. Proof,

–       Look the number of innovators that go off shore for success.

–       Then look at the procrastination going on about reviews and approvals processes.

–       Then look at the discussion going on about cutting red and green tape etc.

Then CO2Land org thought, maybe we could write a book instead of a post about this and call it – Hot air and the unfair – something like that! Or is it that Mal is planning a new power base in getting a fair deal?

On with the story: Why Malcolm Turnbull saying? Recently the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) wrote The inconvenient truth for the Coalition’s NBN By David Braue Updated Fri 13 Dec 2013, 1:23pm AEDT that the NBN Co of the coalitions model was grossly underestimated in what will cost. Maybe there is cabinet reshuffle of portfolios coming already? It has already been reported that Ian McFarlane is unhappy with Warren Truss’s intervention on Holden. That considerable unrest is around with Government performance to date, and the endless control measures such as Joe Hockey’s handling of money movements. Comments like need to review, measures against etc. All this meaning the excuse to do nothing.

Maybe Liberal frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull saying to Sky News on Sunday 15 Dec 2013, Australia has to realise its future is not in “large scale, very low cost manufacturing” where it can’t compete.

“Emotionally this is a big watershed event,” Mr Turnbull told.

“This should be seen as a wake-up call, a reminder that we must recommit ourselves to an economy that is based on innovation and technology, and that is globally competitive.”

What Malcolm said is precisely our point. Thank you.

Does Australia have “globally competitive technology best in its class and fully capable of entering multi billion dollar markets”? Well if you consider China as a desirable trading party, then as you should, take notice of this invitation for a ‘little aussie battler’: The 4th Annual World Congress of Bioenergy

Theme: Roadmap toward 2020  Time: September 21~23, 2014     Venue: Qingdao, China.   Website: http://www.bitcongress.com/WCBE2014/default.asp

“Dear Peter Davies,

On behalf of the Executive Committee Office, it’s our great honor to announce the most influential bioenergy event in Asia – The 4th Annual World Congress of Bioenergy (WCBE-2014) will hold in Qingdao, China during September 21~23, 2014. In view of the fact that your enthusiasm for biological applications and outstanding achievements in the field of bioenergy. The organization committee cordially invites you to be a speaker in our program and give a presentation at Pipeline 315: Integrated Biochemical Conversion Processing and Bioreactors for Scale-up. 

Main Characters of Annual World Congress of Bioenergy

Comprehensive agendas: With the bioenergy steady economic growth and biomass technology is improving by the day. This congress will discuss on biotechnology development and bioenergy sustainable development. The agendas cover Bioenergy Economy and Sustainability, Applications, Commercialization, Biofineries of Bioenergy, Biomass Conversion Technologies, Feedstock Landscape. This congress with the “Roadmap toward 2020 “as the theme to focus on bioenergy and look forward to the new era.”

Well what is there wrong about our posturing? What is wrong with having a front bencher of the cabinet having the courage to make statements that make sense, that is very close to what the ‘real’ world takes notice of! CO2Land org is saying it goes to say to make government relevant again it must have Headship – the current Leadership talk is exactly that – talk.

Then Mungo MacCallum said 16 Dec 2013, “And if Tony Abbott would rather spend the money on building lots of roads around our choking cities and restoring tax rorts for those who get part of their salary in cars to drive on them, so be it. Perhaps we can pretend that the cars are Holdens. That would make us feel better, wouldn’t it?”

Mungo MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator. View his full profile here.

Over to you Mal – show yourself, please.

But, have we lost something here!