Electric Motoring: The Technology Every Fleet Manager Should Know About

Posted on Posted in Carbon OpportunityTagged Leave a comment

A global debate occurred today 6 July 2012, after James Knight of The Fuelcard Company  in the UK posted a guide – Electric Motoring: The Technology Every Fleet Manager Should Know About. A guide for Fleet managers are looking to greener technologies to combat fuel costs and emissions.

CO2Land org played the devil’s advocate by quoting Origin Energy’s comparision posted on Drive.com.au . The quote being “A new generation of plug-in cars could do more to damage the environment than a Holden Commodore…..Origin Energy, Australia’s largest energy supplier, has compared the running costs and carbon dioxide emissions associated with a Nissan Leaf electric car against a similarly sized Mazda3 small car and Toyota’s environmental hero, the Prius.

Nissan come back with ‘‘It’s mostly Victoria that has the brown coal issue…Even in NSW (which uses black coal-fired power) the CO2 data are better…. ‘While it’s a most parochial angle, brown coal-fired Victoria is probably the least attractive to electric vehicles at the moment…’But this is changing with the carbon tax et al, and, as Nissan has said in the past, we can deliver the ultimate emission free technology but we can’t fix everything (like the source of energy) for which governments and energy producers are ultimately responsible….the Commodore’s emissions figures would look even worse if – similar to accounting for the emissions from electricity generation – the CO2 output of refining oil to make petrol was taken into account.

CO2Land took note of the comment and an interesting point prevails – what is the full life cycle cost of any of each of these types of cars? No real answer came forward, however on the grid emissions matter affecting electric cars environmental performance, the response from Ron Benenati in California USA was worth taking notice of: “The grid is everything. I suspect this bodes worse for Australia’s electric generation than for electric vehicles. It is one of the filthiest grids in the world. Coal fired electric plants are dinosaurs on their way out. THIS IS WHAT WE MUST GET BEYOND. It is the whole package. I have seen no other research as severe in its conclusions”.Then in defence of electric cars, Ron said: “But, three things I would add…The technology is new, and will only improve. Grids, in most, countries are getting better -rapidly. Renewable energy now provides 20 percent of electric worldwide according to the IEA. In my country, states like California have set a target of 60 per cent clean electric generation in the near future. So, dirty fuel generation is not really the failure of electric cars.

In hybrids vs conventional, MPG/MPK, certainly means a lot in terms of emissions. It also means a lot in terms of spills, contamination from processing before we even get to car emissions… 

If we are going to have a future, I suspect electric cars will be a part of it”.

Sheepishly, this writer has to say, seeing we live with such a dirty fuel generation system in this country, the preferred vehicle in this garage is POWERFUL – vroom vroom – for another couple of years anyway!

Opinions on anthropogenic climate change vary greatly across society

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged Leave a comment

Opinions on anthropogenic climate change vary greatly across society, and it appears that Australia’s farmers remain largely skeptical about the causes of climate change – As is the view of Richard Eckard (Uni of Melbourne)

And Don Atkin (only identified via grapevine email) asks: Have I missed something? The astute ones were adapting to floods, droughts and market conditions then (evidence he collected from the 1950’s). “When they were seen to be successful, others in their neighborhood followed. What is new”?

CO2Land org notes that occupied land have weather data that goes back more than 150 years. Those groups, and lets not discount the recollections of those before occupation, they can see patterns in the data that help them make good decisions.

In Eckard’s work is shown: Recent surveys show that only 28% of primary producers accept that human activity is the cause of climate change, compared to 58% of urban dwellers.

The conclusions include that “Regardless of farmers’ beliefs on whether the climate is actually changing and what’s causing the changes, there are impacts that will need to be managed”. It could be argued that urban dwellers just believe what they are influenced by in terms of the news 24/7.

While Richard Eckard talks of the separate need to consider the physical, policy and peripheral impacts of climate change. Co2Land org wonders if one of the 3 P’s is ignored: The considerations of the past – the old person that remembers the days when!

Anthropogenic change can be proven; it is the responses that present the reason for alarm. Adaption means innovate and survive. Lets slow down at this point, as physical impacts are evident, so it is easy to engage with policy and peripheral impacts. For once it is now confused: Is it the market or sustainable practices that rein?

BAU is the easier option for farmers going broke slowly

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged Leave a comment

Today, something was said that resonates the importance of community consultations. The importance is that policy makers must understand that something good in the office is not always good for the target. In a story printed by ABC News 4 July 2012,  “Pastoralists say comments by the Federal Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, show he has no idea about the implications the carbon tax will have on their livelihood”.

Previously CO2Land org argued that the program options for landholders were CFI, BF and BAU. What was not clearly explained was that BAU is the easier option for farmers going broke slowly. It simply means farmers might not have an adequate succession plan in place to take advantage of the biodiversity fund (BF), and might prefer to wait for family or new owners to make decisions for CFI involvement. The crux of the problem is the individuals costs associated with bringing about change is greater than the immediate benefit.

In the ABC story, Mr Combet (Minister for Climate Change) said “that farmers are entitled to pass increased costs associated with their tax onto their customers”, and “The WA Pastoralists and Graziers Association’s Rob Gillam says that is impossible….Quite simply, farmers are price takers; we’re in a very, very weak position when it comes to stipulating the price,” he said…”We’ve always been price takers and not price makers and as much as we would like to receive more for our products there’s no way we can enforce it.”

CO2Land org gives Mr Gillam a hat tip (HT in twitter land) where he correctly says pastoralists are hit hard by the carbon tax and they are secondary recipients of the costing”. In logical assessment it is clear not paying attention to going broke slowly will be counter productive to the CFI intention and any kudos expected by ‘good policy’ will not accrue to any political party that cannot recognize the problem.

Carbon Management – despite the storm of words

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged Leave a comment

The differences between the parties of politics in Australia are centered around the carbon price mechanism. However, the parties share their support for putting in place approaches to carbon management.

In the story “Tax furore hides much furious agreement”, Andrew Ure wrote “he makes an issue of how Australians would be forgiven for being a little lost in the carbon tax introduction and the storm of words”. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/tax-furore-hides-much-furious-agreement-20120702-21d4c.html#ixzz1zb5R3I5L

CO2Land org looks closely at where there is general agreement by our political parties that climate change is real, and notes:

  • Unconditional commitment to reduce Australia’s emissions by the same amount (5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020).
  • Agree on a minimum undertaking of the scale of emissions reductions that Australia should endevour upon.
  • Agree that there is a degree of climate change action that Australia should take forward.
  • Furious agreement that Australia should encourage the development of the renewable energy sector through promoting a renewable energy target, and they even agree on the amount: 20 per cent of Australia’s energy supply should come from renewable sources by 2020.
  • Energy Efficiency programs will remain in focus regardless of who is in power
  • Land management is in agreement for support, however the estimates of the potential of reducing emissions from farming and forestry vary, but all agree the reductions potential is very significant.
  • Although they have the same objective and hence the same program type but called differently: The government’s contracts for closure program and the coalition’s emissions reductions fund is seeking to support the closure of inefficient power stations.

Being that the coalition are on record as saying estimates that soil carbon measures could represent 85 million tonnes of annual CO2 abatement potential we can take this as agreement the government’s carbon farming initiative is the safest part of the government’s Clean Energy Future package. Albeit we will hear more of the slant to be tested based on the direct action plan.

CO2Land org is of the view we should not let the arguments get dull or fade away, even the minor differences present significant opportunity to do better and more is best for climate change action. Viva la differences and the nuance to maneuver to our special place – sustainable living.

Measures – world economics from west to east.

Posted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged Leave a comment

The good news is that some major emerging countries are taking measures to stimulate growth. Innovation? But,

From the West:

As we know from many sources Europe’s major economies have been weak in 2012.

France – Despite President Hollande’s preference for a growth-based strategy. Several signals point to a contraction of private consumption, suggesting France cannot get away from fiscal austerity measures in the coming years. Therefore, the outlook for the French recovery remains weak.

Italy – The Italian GDP continues to fall. Consumer and producer confidence is described as ‘has deteriorated’.  Recession continues and is likely to do so into the third quarter of 2012. The problem for government in making deficit reduction very challenging.

United Kingdom –A technical recession the reality. However, assessing the entirely of the problem is complicated. “The contraction of GDP was largely thanks to the rapid pace of destocking by British firms” says Rabobank. Some bounce is expected from the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the Olympics in the later quarters. But manufacturing markers are showing further contraction.

The Netherlands – The Dutch economy is fragile and the Netherlands is still in recession. Consumption remains low, with low consumer confidence. The bright side is exports continue to be the engine of the Dutch economy. However, The outlook for the rest of the year for exports is moderate.

The rest of the west already gets enough coverage for you to know, or expect to know their economic pacts.

From East:

Incoming economic data indicates a few scattered bright spots, but our focus in that both growth and currencies appear to be on the slide in around the World.

In Brazil, China and India, governments are coming to the fore trying to keep growth at reasonable levels.

Brazil uses monetary policy, China fiscal policy, but in India the policy room seems limited given sticky inflation.

Co2Land org researched a little with the help of Rabobank on what to expect of the west to east world economics.  This snapshot is designed to be an indicator of factual information and is not to be taken as financial advice in anyway.  

Big End wants Carbon Price – But not Alan Jones and Co.

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged Leave a comment

Has Alan Jones made one mistake too many? Is it a matter of the illusionary superior proving they are inferior?

Quote from smh “while a much smaller group in Melbourne heard the broadcaster Alan Jones refer to climate change science as ”propaganda”.

‘The notion of global warming is a hoax,” Jones told a group of about 150 people on the steps of the Victorian Parliament. ”This is witchcraft. Commonsense will tell you it’s rubbish;…” Then it is reported the Australian Communications and Media Authority reprimanded Jones’s station, 2GB, last month, after he made multiplication errors in his calculations about atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/climate-change-a-hoax-jones-tells-tax-protesters-20120701-21b3z.html#ixzz1zRPVvZOs

All this is at odds of the real picture as it emerges near to 300 companies and organisations have signed a statement backing the carbon price in a bid to balance the often-louder voices of opposition. Quoting smh “Companies including AGL, Westpac, Alstom, GE, Fujitsu, IKEA, Unilever, Grocon, Pacific Hydro and Infigen Energy have signed the statement that will feature in print and online media from today.

So if some peak organizations might say the price is too high, most including Business Council of Australia do not think it is ‘propaganda’, and as of 1 July 2012, 299 companies calling themselves ”Businesses for a Clean Economy” are endorsing the carbon price and pleading for stable, long-term policies to give clear signals to investors.Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/lets-give-it-a-chance-says-business-grouping-20120701-21b2v.html#ixzz1zROrOJLZ

CO2Land org is of the view that presenting facts is important, but distorting or selective skewing is not acceptable by anyone. The facts clearly are in favour of presenting a sustainable way to tackle climate change and carbon management, these companies is not in the business of politics they are in business full stop.  Leave emotive clichés out of it and you can see businesses that tackle climate change also move to more energy efficient practices. Is that not a good thing anyway?

Weed control Practices

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged Leave a comment

Weed control Practices  – Chip or Spray

Being observed in the paddock chipping away with the tried and faithful mattock, some comments were made, is that not too much work, why not just spray?

At this landholder practice the answer is: Yes, it is a lot of work no matter which way you practice weed control.

In the natural order of things that grow it is competition to survive and proliferate. So the two methods help in being selective on what plant will dominate the field. A third method is burning off, but not all of us can do that at a time that suits or is possible.  Albeit, you might be able to claim it on your CFI plan?  More on that in a later story.

Essential items in the shed for the chip or spray battle: The mattock, grass seed, a drum of glyphosate, a drum of flupropanate, spraying machine, protective gear, a way to record what you have done.  For yourself it is be competent to handle all above and make the time to do or supervise the work.

Why not just spray:

Each year more weeds are reported to be resistant to herbicide, the increase is now described as ‘dramatic’. For instance CropLife Australia recently reported:

  • Fleabane resistance to glyphosate had escalated from eight cases listed last September to more than 50 sites this year, and two years ago there were no reported cases of chemical resistance in fleabane.
  • The number of weeds showing resistance to one or more chemicals in Australia sits at 16 grasses and 22 broadleaf species.
  • Annual ryegrass is the most prominent weed standing up to chemicals, with more than 30,000 sites across Australia with reported resistance to herbicide.
  • The follow types also show increasing resistance brome grass, wild radish, awnless barnyard grass, barley grass, etc, etc.

And, in this part of the country we have a problem with serrated tussock control. Chip earlier and it reduces the need to spray. Note the words ‘reduces’, and CO2Land org is not alone in saying that careful thought needs to be part of the control plan as even the chemical companies and crop biotechnology businesses – encourages farmers to adopt integrated weed-management strategies to counter herbicide resistance.

Confusion everywhere: What is the program for Farmers.

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskLeave a comment

Do you know the clean energy future plan encourages innovation?

Do you know different programs affect you in different ways?

Do you care anyway?

Can you have innovation and policy outcomes in harmony?

Let us confuse you. You must decide what and when and how you will get engaged. You will be given information that says you can, should and have a duty to be involved in a program.

Why would you be confused?

  1. The federal government’s carbon tax is just days away, and seminars will guide you to carbon price effects.
  2. Carbon farming initiatives and the opportunities available to farmers who want to innovate in the sector through the program are subject to being on the positive list.
  3. The Carbon Farming Initiative, the Biodiversity Fund and Energy Efficiency can be mutually exclusive.
  4. Federal programs tend to look at the big picture, and state run programs tend to look for additional capture.
  5. The clean energy future plan does not make it mandatory for any program if you are outside the policy list.
  6. You are not clearly made aware of the differences of the programs. That is possible exclusion from one or all of the programs.
  7. Bi-partisan political support is by degrees, not absolute.

Let CO2Land org give you a example: A recent seminar, hosted by NSW Farmers’ Association and Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority, focused on the federal government’s clean energy future plan and the carbon farming initiative. Farmers were encouraged to look at how they can reduce their carbon emissions, in a way that complements their existing business, to develop innovation strategies.

But, can farmers double dip into each program? The short answer, you should be aware, very very aware you must make choices of what you engage to do. Put this way “One farmer has implemented a scheme where effluent is collected and the methane emissions are captured then burned to generate electricity (Example from the seminar by Mr David Eyre of NSW Farmers Association)

Then the carrot “Grants are available to farmers who have an appetite for innovation and want to develop carbon schemes”. The question then becomes, on what program? How do I decide? Am I content to be just inside the tent, or am I driven to do something more aligned to sustainable and improving practices?

Then you should be aware business as usual can have penalties!

Bi-partisan support for Bob Hawke Landcare Award

Posted on Posted in Carbon OpportunityLeave a comment

The Bob Hawke Landcare Award is replacing the McKell Medal.

CO2Land org has picked up that the NSW Department of Primary Industries is encouraging Landcare facilitators, coordinators and networks to nominate a worthy recipient for the Bob Hawke Landcare Award.

To be eligible for the award, nominees must be actively involved in Landcare or sustainable agriculture and be willing to promote the Landcare ethos.

The Bob Hawke Landcare Award recipient will be awarded a $50,000 prize package for further development of their knowledge and skills in sustainable land management. The recipient will also receive an honorary two-year position on the Australian Landcare Council.

Nominations close at midnight (AEDT) on Monday 23, July 2012.

Being that all nominations will be assessed by a non-politicked advisory panel, with representatives from Australian, state and territory governments, Landcare and the natural resource management community. CO2Land org is happy to pass this message on to its readers.

For more information the NSW Government contact is:

John Perrott
Natural Resource Officer
Department of Primary Industries

Phone: 02 9895 7252
Fax: 02 9895 7252 
john.perrott@environment.nsw.gov.au

Real Milk – GST help and no permeate

Posted on Posted in UncategorizedLeave a comment

 Yohoo for dairy farmers:

The byproduct of milk that is white but not milk will not be added back to milk.  Permeate replaces the need for processors to buy more milk – the change means producers and consumers will benefit from getting milk labeled milk– amazingly it make no noticeable difference to the price consumers pay. The winners will be the producer and consumer, and we would expect more confidence on the quality of milk will mean higher sales and processors will be happy.

More happy news:

The government is providing a total of $8 million to assist milk product manufacturers to invest in energy efficient machinery, to help reduce energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. The help will be given as technology grants as part of pre-carbon tax incentives.

Bega Cheese, given as an example, operates five plants, and currently has a energy bill of $13 million a year, and although carbon tax and rising fuel costs will add $3 million this year to the bill, the savings of 20% per annum in terms of energy efficiency dividends will actually reduce the costs of operating.

CO2Lan org asks you to note that smart adjustments mean real benefits – including for the future.