capsule global warming climate change australia


	Last updated: 27 June 2009

Why is this website called 'Capsule'?

Dont even ask!

In another life I had an eensy teensy business called Capsule. Along with a number of occasional contractors, I produced websites, computer generated 3d content and multimedia projects, etc., etc. It was not a bad little earner.

One day I realised that I had a suite of corporate clients whose values were out of step with everything I believed in.

Fortunately, I was thrown a life-line in the form of a 'greenie' job. However, the remuneration was not what I was accustomed to and so out of fear, or more accurately cowardice, I declined the offer.

I was really pissed off with myself for missing that opportunity, so I swore that I would accept the very next offer I received, if in fact I was lucky enough to receive one.

A month later I was offered a job at the Wilderness Society. I stopped being a coward, closed Capsule down and became a full-time 'greenie'.

So, what is this website now?

Basically it's just a place where I jot down a few random thoughts. Thoughts inspired by a pervading feeling that the world really is crazy. On reading these thoughts you may decide that it's actually me that's crazy.

Given that I work full time for the Wilderness Society and spend my spare time campaigning for the climate change campaign group, Beyond Zero Emissions, I doubt that I will find the time to keep this site regularly updated.

Btw: my name is Scott Bilby and incidentally, the 'bilby' is an endangered Australian marsupial. Whether it, as an entire species, exists on this planet as long as I do, only time will tell. I used to be embarrassed by my surname. Now I kinda like it.

How Australians’ complacency allows entrenched business interests to pollute.

Left-wing and right-wing in solidarity... unfortunately.

As of 2009, Australia has no shortage of global warming deniers. Will they still be denying in 2010?

Podcasts

David W. Orr - climate change politics, obstacles, proposals and solutions.

Luke Chamberlain - logging Australia's forests and global warming.

Amory Lovins - energy efficiency, transport and renewable energy.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber - pre-industrial carbon levels for safe climate.

Richard Heinberg - ending our fossil fuel addiction

Bill McKibben - keep atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm.

David Karoly - latest global warming science.

Paul Mees - public transport problems and solutions: Part One | Part Two

listen to more podcasts...

How Australians’ complacency allows entrenched business interests to pollute.

27th June 2009. The following text often refers specifically to the state of Victoria, but it also applies to Australia in general.

The background.

Governments across Australia do pretty much whatever the fossil fuel industry wants, and industry wants to keep burning coal regardless of the consequences.

Energy derived from conventional coal-fired power plants, (especially brown coal, aka lignite, in Victoria) is the world’s single biggest source of human-caused greenhouse gas pollution. This is a public relations headache for the fossil fuel sector.

To this end, the general public is often told that something called 'clean coal' is the stationary energy sector’s contribution to solving global warming. By arguing that there will be a shift from conventional coal to ‘clean coal’, industry and governments hope to lull the general public into the belief that they needn’t do anything themselves, other than install a few energy efficient light bulbs.

The real name for ‘clean coal’ is Carbon Capture and Storage. People who refer to it as ‘clean coal’ are either ignorant or are attempting to deceive you, because there is little chance that we will have utility scale Carbon Capture and Storage any time soon, and if and when we finally do get it, it will never be ‘clean’.

Carbon Capture and Storage is hypothetical at this stage. Despite this our governments ensure that coal-fired power plants remain the key beneficiary of energy policy. Even more perverse is that coal-fired power plants remain the key beneficiary in renewable energy policy while existing, tried-and-tested technologies such as solar thermal power and wind power fight over a mere smattering of funding crumbs. It seems that the more the coal plants pollute, the more they benefit, and one of those benefits is large-scale direct and indirect tax payer subsidies that consistently dwarf the subsidy given to the renewable energy sector in its entirety.

Unfortunately for the fossil fuel sector, advances in wind power technology are driving down the cost of wind power to a point where even today it is becoming competitive with many conventional power sources. The unit cost of solar thermal power also continues to fall as the scale and number of solar thermal plant installations around the world continues to grow at a rapid pace, (in fact the US Department of Energy predicts that by 2020 solar thermal power with storage will generate electricity in the United States at US3-6 cents per kilowatt hour, about the same as coal-fired power in 2009!¹).

With this is mind, 'clean coal' is unlikely to ever be cost-competitive. Globally, renewable energy is predicted to be less expensive than even conventional coal by around the same time as the most optimistic timeframe for the inception of ‘clean coal’. ‘Clean coal’, with its extra costs associated with transporting and capturing the carbon emissions, will be more expensive still.

Of course, we must also remember that even if Carbon Capture and Storage does work, it will never be ‘clean’. The facilities will still emit large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The players.

In light of all this, the state government of Victoria’s determination to continue burning lignite for electricity generation can only be understood if we realise just how much influence the coal industry has over them.

For the sake of simplicity, there are only two constituencies that we need consider on this subject. Constituency number one is composed of entrenched, highly-subsidised, wealthy business interests such as Rio Tinto, Alcoa, BHP-Billiton, Blue Scope Steel, etc. Constituency number two is the general public.

The game.

In order to remain in power, our governments are busy playing a complicated game of balancing the demands of these two constituencies. Given that on the one hand entrenched business interests have an army of highly paid, full-time lobbyists working on their behalf to ensure that massive tax-payer subsidies continue to flow into their coffers, and on the other hand a large percentage of the general public is too busy, too complacent, or too ignorant to counter the undue influence of big business, it follows that governments achieve their aforementioned balance by giving entrenched business interests what they want while placating the general public with subterfuge, cynical tax breaks and contradictory and confusing policy.

For example, in the case of the stationary energy sector, governments achieve ‘balance’ by protecting and bolstering the profit margins of the fossil fuel industry, while rendering the general public acquiescent by firstly bribing us with tax breaks and other government payouts, and secondly assuring us that ‘solutions’ such as Carbon Capture and Storage, (aka ‘clean coal’) will allow us to both continue living our business-as-usual lifestyles and solve global warming.

The government’s job in this respect is made easier by a general public that is anything but an innocent party. I believe that the general public is largely complicit in this ruse. They feign a belief in ’clean coal’ so that they can abrogate their responsibilities and continue living their self-centred, irresponsible, high consumption lifestyles. ‘Clean coal’ has little likelihood of being successful, let alone cost-competitive, and I suspect the inadequacies of ‘clean coal’ are more widely understood by the general public than they would have us believe.

As for those remaining members of the general public who refuse to accept this ruse and therefore remain committed to their responsibilities to society and to the natural environment, governments have another trick up their sleeve…they get us to worry about the issue of climate change at a micro level. Examples of this include encouraging the general public to replace their incandescent light globes with compact fluorescent globes, to save water in the home by collecting water in buckets as we shower, etc.

Don’t misunderstand me, these measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are laudable, but must also be accompanied by efforts to change society on a macro-scale; namely a critical mass of public opinion that demands government implement policy that drives decisive and timely systemic change. Examples of such changes that Victoria can make in the stationary energy sector can be seen here.

For quite some time, and to this very day, governments have been happily pandering to the demands of entrenched business interests at the expense of both human society and the natural environment. With this in mind, the general public would be unwise to sit back and wait for respective federal and state governments to take the lead and realistically appraise, plan and act to avoid dangerous climate change. It is the general public that must initiate the changes required to avoid dangerous climate change. They must act on a macro-scale and they must do it soon. To date, those that are taking the initiative and demanding that governments implement global warming mitigating policies are in the minority.

I guess it’s what people are referring to when they talk about the ‘tragedy of the commons’. People care very much about their own car, their own house, their own back yard, but abrogate their responsibilities when it comes to creating a better future for society as a whole. It’s hypocritical that many of us leave that task to our politicians, despite the fact that many of us are rightly cynical of politicians’ motives. Furthermore, we consider our democratic rights to be sacrosanct, but rarely do we protect those rights by exercising our democratic responsibilities. (How often have you heard Australians mention their democratic responsibilities? Very rarely I’ll bet, but they go on and on about their democratic rights!)

What can we do?

Becoming demoralised and disengaged from the political process is not an option. In democracies we elect politicians as our representatives. They are charged with a duty to work for the betterment of society. If these politicians fail in that endeavour then the responsibility reverts once again to the general public.

Thankfully, in Australia there is a genuine groundswell of concern for climate change that has resulted in the birth of a small but vibrant community that has accepted the responsibility that so many within government, business and the wider public refuse to acknowledge.

At the forefront of this groundswell of concern are several hundred local climate action groups. These groups form the core of a movement aimed at, amongst other things, motivating as much of the general public as possible to demand that government mandate change in order to address global warming; a problem that scientists tell us is already well underway.

It is unlikely that we can motivate the majority of the population within a meaningful timeframe. The general public's inertia is fuelled by selfishness, denial and ignorance, and trying to overcome this is no small task. We should also realise that most people are followers. We should instead concentrate on motivating a critical mass of people. If we can do that, the rest will follow.

The critical mass is that point in time at which there are enough people such that the influence of the general public is great enough to ensure that our respective governments are no longer able to fob us off with half-measures, subterfuge, and tax breaks, etc. At this point, the government and the general public together will be able to both expose and resist the undue influence of certain entrenched business interests. Just what percentage of the population constitutes a critical mass is unknown.

So, at this point in time, when anyone asks me ‘what can I do?’, I tell them to join a climate action group. It’s the quickest way to get clued up on the issues, to find like-minded individuals, to find out about events and actions, and so much more. The climate change movement is building momentum. Every day it is becoming stronger and more effective. This momentum is essential, because motivating a critical mass of people is just the start. Within a matter of years society must begin the process of reforming not only the global stationary energy sector, but also transport, forestry, agriculture, etc.

Citations:

1. 'Solar power faces early sunset in Australia'
Paddy Manning June 27, 2009 http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/solar-power-faces-early-sunset-in-australia-20090626-czu5.html?page=-1

Left-wing and right-wing in solidarity... unfortunately.

20th June 2009.

Does this make sense?

I just don't understand some left-wing people. (Note: I also consider myself to be left-wing). I can't help but question why they go on and on so hyper-enthusiastically about how wonderful multiculturalism in Australia is, but at the same time are incapable of questioning Australia's very high level of immigration. (Note: Many Australians are incapable of acknowledging, or even understanding, the divisibility of multiculturalism and immigration).

It seems that by extolling the virtues of multiculturalism or 'diversity' or whatever you want to call it, these lefties hope to convince us that they are tolerant and sophisticated, and by refusing to address the issue of immigration they avoid being branded intolerant, or even worse, unsophisticated! God forbid!

It is this fear of being seen as intolerant and unsophisticated that causes lefties to shy away from accepting the fact that immigration is Australia's number one contributor to population growth, despite the fact that they'll criticise other measures that might increase Australia's population, such as the Australian government's 'baby bonus' policy.

Lefties criticise the 'baby bonus' because they see a relationship between the average Australian's high level of material consumption and the negative impact it has on the natural environment. They are also aware that Australia's per capita greenhouse gas emissions are, if not the highest in the world, very close to it. Therefore, given the possibility that the 'baby bonus' policy may in fact increase the number of Australians living this lifestyle, it receives nothing but scorn from the left-wing.

However, if you were to inform them that Australia's population growth from immigration is greater than natural population growth, (eg: births minus deaths) you will probably be met with silence and a holier-than-thou stare whose sole aim is, ironically, to deliberately and unjustly imply that you are intolerant and unsophisticated!

How the left-wing support corporate and environmental destruction.

By refusing to address the issue of immigration, lefties merely bolster the Australian business lobby's agenda to keep immigration at a very high and ever-increasing level primarily to maximise the profits of property developers, shopping centres, supermarket chains, etc., etc.

So, in trying to appear sophisticated, left-wing people are willing to be unsophisticated in their support for a system that promotes supermarket chains and shopping centres at the expense of our primary producers and our small, local shopping strips.

It also makes them complicit in supporting property developers that make large profits from construction projects that leave the lion's share of the infrastructure costs, (sewage, roads, power, gas, etc.) to the tax payer. It also means ever more of the natural environment is buried under ever expanding suburbs.

More people in Australia also means more imports, which in turn puts ever more pressure on our export industries to earn enough money to get anywhere near eradicating the nation's current account deficit. One of these export industries is agriculture, and the more we put it under pressure, the more we undemine the natural environment.

Furthermore, claiming that Australia's very high immigration program does not contribute to global warming is sheer bloody mindedness in view of the fact that we have possibly the world's highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions.

In short, the lefties support an undemocratic, globalised economic model that respects nothing but money and where tax-payers and the natural environment get milked by entrenched business interests. It's the same model as in the USA, the UK and a range of other Western countries.