Thousands of people gathered in Sydney’s Prince Alfred Park Sunday morning to show their support for the federal government’s proposed carbon tax. Rashida Yosufzai reports.

Mums, dads, kids and climate activists made up the crowd of an estimated 8000 urging the government to put a price on emissions and invest in renewable energy, as part of a nationwide campaign organised by community action groups.

Some held politically-charged banners and placards with slogans criticising the opposition and calling for a policy shift from investments in coal to clean energy.

Simon Sheikh from activist group Getup and one of the campaign organisers, said it was time for the government to act on climate change.

“We say yes to a price on pollution and yes to clean energy investment,” he said.

“Right now our politicians are negotiating a carbon price. We say to them to make it ambitious, make sure it invests in clean energy and energy efficiency. “

Rallies were held in cities across the nation to coincide with each other as part of the ‘Say Yes’ campaign, which kicked off last Monday with a TV advertisement featuring actress Cate Blanchett. The controversial ad generated a media storm after the actress was criticised by parts of the media for being out of touch with families who are struggling with the costs of living, especially those in Sydney’s west.

But Parramatta resident Ramya Krishnan, from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, told crowds that residents in her community were just as concerned about climate change as the rest of Sydney.

“The shock jocks don’t speak for western Sydney, neither does Tony Abbott,” Krishnan said.

“The mothers and fathers in western Sydney have big dreams. These are families who are struggling just like everyone else, but who want to lead a better world for their children and future generations,” she added.

Phil Bradley of the Parramatta Climate Action Network, which represents a group of 150 members, said western Sydney householders have genuine fears about the impact of the carbon tax, but much of it comes down to a lack of information being sent across.

“We’ve been on door-knocking campaigns and found some people were so pressed financially they were using solar lamps [instead] of lights at night, and sometimes not even having the refrigerator going because of the costs of energy,” he said.

“It’s pretty sad when some of them are saying they’ve heard prices are going up, and thinking that’s the fault of the carbon tax, which hasn’t even been introduced yet . They’re unaware that there is a compensation package part of this, that in fact makes some people better off,” he added.

Four Australian guys are driving across the globe attempting to ‘fill-up’ only on biofuel. Jamesina McLeod reports.

Four Australian guys are attempting to drive across the globe the green way. Image: thegreenwayup.com

Burgers and Friday afternoon fries – the next solution to our environmental energy crisis?

According to the boys from The Green Way Up, it could be a possibility. The Green Way Up team consisting of Justin, Oscar, Bob and Chuck, are recycling all the plant and animal fats they can beg, borrow or steal from restaurants and street stalls to drive, sail and moped their way from Tasmania to Belgium.

Using biofuel to make their way across multiple continents, their aim is to never have to fill up at a petrol station.

Harnessing their respective DJ-ing, marketing, engineering and welding talents, Justin, Oscar, Bob and Chuck have been planning the six-month trip for two years. Most of this time was spent designing and building the portable biofuel converter and aluminium boat they are using on their trip. When finished, they will be donated to a tsunami-affected community.

Starting with a big idea but with no money, the team was stunned by the generosity of supporters who heard about them through their Facebook and Twitter pages.

The Green Way Up interview with Justin

“Fundraising has been really good at the moment, we’ve been getting support from all over the world,” said Justin, who was surprised by the number of anonymous donations after word spread about the project online. The $20, 000 needed to microfinance their boat was raised in three weeks through online donations.

Apart from carving donators’ names onto their boat, the boys will continue to thank their supporters through an interactive googlemaps page allowing people to track their progress and comment on their journey on thegreenwayup.com.

Their trip is being made into a documentary to be released later this year.

Read the transcript below.

Jamesina: So Justin, it’s yourself, Bob, Chuck and Oscar setting off on this epic expedition. How did this all start?

Justin: You know initially when we started the idea we didn’t have an idea of what the benefit would be apart from just engaging our friends and followers as we got on the road and for us that was an attractive idea simply because it was going to inform what we saw along the road, where we went and what was cool and interesting to do.

Jamesina: And how does the Green Way Up concept campaign fit in?

Justin: The Green Way Up concept was exactly that it, it was to make the whole movement palatable, to show what was good and interesting and to not associate environmentalism with guilt and negative emotions. Not to ram a message down anyone’s throat or run a hard line with a particular sort of perspective on the environment but we just wanted to create conversation around what was happening in every aspect of sustainability.

And that’s what we’ve done with our website – greenwayup.com – it’s a commentary on what was cool and interesting, innovative and just fantastic in the world of green design, green technology, green art, all of the above.

Jamesina: How important has social media been for you guys?

Justin: We knew the best way to spread the message was through a medium that our generation was familiar with and community participation, social media participation has been critical. That’s one of our main tools for engaging as we go. No one had seemed to have done that facebook-twitter-googlemaps mashup before, enabling one to geographically find and follow our route.

Jamesina: You’re on the road for 6 months and almost as many continents – what are you looking forward to most?

Justin: Once the website really gets up and rolling, when we start getting a lot of comments on the [interactive google]map, I’m really looking forward to actually meeting the people who are engaging with us through our facebook and twitter and maps and saying “come visit us here and here and here!” I think that’s going to create a really nice organic element to the whole trip.

The four of us haven’t really contemplated what to expect once we hit the road because it’s been “go-go-go!” working on the boat, the biofuel processor, the trailer. It’s pretty intense at the moment and most of us haven’t had time to look forward to what it’s going to be like on the road. But it’s going to be a hell of an adventure.

Government drawback means solar is growing up, Benjamin Vozzo reports.

The solar energy industry has received little government support so far. Image: Daniel Figueroa.

A decision by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to phase out Solar Credits a year earlier is being flagged as a win for the solar energy industry.

The decision means that average government support for a 1.5 kilowatt system in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide would be reduced from about $6,200 to about $5,000.

Mark Twidell, the executive director of the Australian Solar Institute, says that the recent announcement by Minister Greg Combet shows that the industry is beginning to support itself without government help.

“The technology costs are coming down. The industry, as it continues to expand, is able to lower prices and the result is that generally governments around the world are reducing the level of
subsidy support, which is a good thing,” he says.

“If you were to think of solar energy as you might think of a human being, we’re probably just entering our teen years. We’re yet to leave home. I think leaving home is when you can start to look after yourself.”

Twidell believes the government has an important part to play in helping the solar industry to gain independence and compete in the energy market.

“Every market around the world is in some ways the result of government policy. Those policies manifest themselves in subsidies and incentives to help build the market for solar power so
that more investment can come in, which lowers the cost,” he says.

But not everybody believes governments have helped the industry get on its feet. Recent amendments to state and territory feed in tariff systems created a level of uncertainty for businesses in the sector, and caused confusion to the consumer.

The NSW State Government recently decided to slash the household feed in tariff for solar panels from 60 cents to 20 cents per kilowatt an hour.

Not all states are following this pattern. In August, South Australian Premier Mike Rann announced that he would be increasing the feed in tariff by 10 cents to 54 cents per kilowatt an hour.

Not only do the rates vary from state to state, but so too do the duration of subsidies.

Matthew Wright, the executive director of the non-profit, volunteer organisation Beyond Zero Emissions says that the recent changes by state and federal governments have not helped the industry to achieve its full potential.

“The main issue around it is the stop-start nature of policy, which basically means that industry can’t really scale and ramp in an orderly way, or follow thorough with the quality that is needed,” Wright says.

“So perhaps [the] market was a bit more heated in ramping faster than it needed to, but that didn’t mean that you pump it and dump it.”

Wright believes that a uniform feed in tariff would reward production and ensure consumers seek out better quality panels and installations.

“What we really need is a national approach, it should all be based around a feed in tariff . . . and renewable energy certificates should be eliminated as upfront subsidies because they don’t reward production,” he says.

Max Sylvester, general manager of Innovation at renewable energy company Energy Matters, says that the recent announcement by Mr Combet does have an impact on the stability of the industry, but also shows that solar energy is on the way up.

“It’s kind of bad for the industry, but it proves that the industry actually works and that people are producing meaningful amounts of power,” he says.

“I think it will play a huge role in the future . . . once the panel is produced, there’s no emissions from the energy that’s created from the panels. So it really is an emissions-free technology.”

Sylvester also believes that the industry is being unfairly blamed for rising electricity prices.

“It’s really the ageing infrastructure. There’s billions of dollars that needs to be invested into electricity infrastructure, but it’s nothing to do with solar. Nobody has spent any money on it in the last 30 years,” he says.

Sylvester points out that solar is the cheaper long term alternative for consumers, as coal-generated electricity prices continue to rise.

“If you work it out over 25 years, you’re paying probably 10 cents per kilowatt an hour, or maybe less because of the current rebates that we have [for solar]. Whereas you’re currently paying probably 15 to 20 cents per kilowatt an hour for electricity you’re using around the house. And that’s only increasing every year.”

Like any developing sector, there are many research projects underway to increase the presence of solar energy in Australia.

The Australian Solar Institute is funding 27 projects valued at $200 million across Australia. Twidell says that one such project is looking into the benefits and development of solar thermals.

“Solar thermal technology uses mirrors to focus the sun’s light in the same way that you might do with a magnifying glass. These projects offer the advantage of being able to store heat and generate electricity after dark, and one of the challenges of solar is that we like our electricity when we’re at home at night,” says Twidell.

“I would say that the future for solar energy is absolutely bright. The industry is doubling in size almost every year around the world . . . it’s certainly the world’s fastest growing energy industry.”

Carbon capture storage is promoted by governments and the mining industry worldwide as a solution to climate change. But can it hold up to its promises? Lauren Kelleher reports.

Coal Power Station. Image: Greenstone Girl

In March this year, the New South Wales government announced the allocation of $28.3 million to develop the state’s first large scale commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility.

Addressing the problem of climate change has been, and continues to be, a major concern of governments globally. CCS is one of the options at the foreground of providing a solution to this issue.

CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere, compressing it, transporting it to a suitable site, and injecting it into deep geological formations where it will be trapped for thousands or millions of years.

Ralph Hillman, Executive Director of the Australian Coal Association, believes the NSW government’s announcement is a right step forward for the future of CCS in Australia.

“The close working commitment and relationship shown by the coal industry and Federal and State governments to CCS technology will ensure that Australia has a number of commercial scale CCS projects ready within the next ten years,” said Hillman.

The Australian Coal Association and both the federal and NSW governments equally fund the project, managed by Delta Electricity.

At the 2008 G8 Summit in Japan, all parties committed to the development and broad deployment of CCS by 2020. In conjunction with this promise came the 2008 Hokkaido Recommendation to launch 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects by the end of 2020.

According to the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI), over 80 large-scale projects are at various stages of development around the world, including in the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.

Australia, named by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as one of the major countries committed to CCS, has invested heavily in the clean coal scheme. In 2009 the Australian Federal Government created the Clean Energy Initiative (CEI), which includes spending $2.4 billion on CCS projects. The Rudd government also invested $100 million a year into the Global CCS Institute.

But according to Greenpeace, CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change. The environmental organisation believes that deployment of CCS at utility scale cannot be achieved before 2030, and to avoid the worst impacts of climate change gas emissions will have to start falling by 2015 at the very latest.

Time is not the only concern revolving around the use of CCS. Issues about the feasibility, costs, safety and liability of CCS all need to be addressed.

Journalist and environmental consultant for Greenpeace Australia Pacific Julie Macken said, “Carbon capture and storage is like the tooth fairy. It’s fantastic. But it’s totally delusional.”

According to Macken there is serious doubt whether the capture will work on such scale and that it will work commercially.

“At the moment we use coal because it is cheap. But using CCS will make fuel more expensive, the price of fuel will rise from $35 to around $120. The government and companies involved are saying that tax money will subsidise CCS to make it more commercially viable, and therefore cost will not become an issue.

But we say – why not subsidise on new green renewable technologies that are already available and will cost less?”

Macken argues that spending money on CCS is diverting urgent funding away from renewable energy solutions, such as wind power and many types of sustainable biomass.

According to the 2008 Greenpeace report, False Hope: Why Carbon Capture and storage won’t save the climate , funding for renewable technologies and efficiency has stagnated or declined. Australia has three research centres for fossil fuels, including one committed to CCS, but there is not one committed to renewable energy technology.

McKinsey & Company predict that by 2030, carbon capture and storage costs could be reduced to $45-$70 per tonne of CO2 abated, compared to a price of $90-$140 per tonne for current demonstration projects. This amounts to a 50% per cent cost reduction over the next 20 years.

Nevertheless, environmental concerns include catastrophic leakage, contamination of water and the escape of captured flue gasses. Such concerns highlight the unpredictable nature of CCS and demonstrate one of the key challenges it faces: the safe and permanent storage of captured carbon.

According to New Gen Coal, ‘there is no single technology available today that will enable greenhouse gas emissions from energy production to be stabilised and reduced to the levels scientists say are needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change. There are currently no facilities that capture CO2 emissions from a power plant at commercial scale’.

In 2006, a United States Geological Survey (USGS) field experiment demonstrated the unpredictable nature of carbon dioxide and the inexperience the world has when it comes to the long-term storage of CO2.

The 2008 Greenpeace report tells how the USGS scientists were testing deep geological disposal of carbon dioxide at a pilot project in Frio, Texas. The buried CO2 dissolved in large amounts of the surrounding minerals responsible for keeping it contained. Leading scientist of the field experiment, Yousif Kharaka, told Greenpeace that the results are a ‘cautionary tale’ for future detailed and careful studies of injection sites of CO2.

Macken also considers legal liability a major concern regarding CCS. Industry views liability as a barrier to wider deployment of CCS and is unwilling to fully invest in CCS without a framework that protects it from long-term liability.

“Who owns the Carbon once it is stored underground? Who owns it once it explodes, leaks, or causes an earthquake? The answer is no one. The fact is [CCS] is uninsurable. It is a risk that can’t be managed and therefore can’t be done,” said Macken.

The International Energy Agency claims significant progress has been made on the development of legal and regulatory frameworks. It will be producing a bi-annual review of CCS Legal and Regulatory Development and is working on a Model CCS Legal and Regulatory framework.

In 2005, the Regulatory Guiding Principals for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage was established by the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources of the Australian Federal Government. The frameworks outline liability responsibility to all parties involved whereby liability does not arise until the injury or damage occurs. Such frameworks display that not all liability costs will be faced by the public in relation to CCS.

Australian Coal Association Ralph Hillman said “Australia generates around 80% of its electricity from coal, and the coal industry directly and indirectly employs over 130,000 Australians and plays a major role in our national economy. With so much at stake, the deployment of CCS is crucial to our industry’s future and New South Wales is now firmly in the development picture.”

With planned CCS projects proceeding in Australia and worldwide, only time will tell whether the new scheme will be a success.

Green business now stands for good business, and Australia’s design and building industry is leading the trend worldwide. Dave Drayton reports.

ANZ Centre in Melbourne received a 6 star Green Star rating. Image: Charles Van Den Broek

As cars, tourism and even coffee went eco-friendly, it was inevitable that the building and design industry in Australia would eventually follow suit.

And while Australia cottoned on to the trend slightly later than Europe, it has by now well and truly caught up, according to the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA).

“Australia is definitely one of the world leaders. We have transitioned a lot faster than a lot of the other countries,” says Suzie Barnett, Executive Director of GBCA.

Around 11% of buildings in Sydney’s CBD are “green-star” rated, which means their environmental impact has been assessed based on management, indoor environment quality, energy, transport, water, materials, land use & ecology, emissions and innovation.

“[This percentage] is quite high given that this ‘green-star’ only came onto the market in 2003,” Barnett says.

However it seems the greatest catalyst for this change is not a moral or ethical decision but a business one, with companies that remain stubborn in their ways left behind.

“Buildings with a five or six green star rating are becoming fashionable to companies wanting to present a ‘clean green’ image to their customers,” says construction and property recruiter Julian Murray.

“Developers and construction companies as well as government agencies are now seeing green methods of construction and environmentally sustainable projects as a key selling tool at the point of sale.”

In an interview with the GBCA, Managing Director of Leighton Properties, Mark Gray, said it is the leadership of the property and construction industry that brought about such rapid change in “both the way we deliver and use buildings”.

“Green Star ratings have become integral to the design and construction of developments, from single buildings to whole precincts, which has been fostered through increased stakeholder and community awareness.”

Murray expects that this is only the beginning of the transformation.

“As base line consumer perception changes to favour organisations that are perceived to be green, business will invariably change to match the needs of their consumers.”

The GBCA, which has 830 registered members, was established in 2002. From a small organisation, it has rapidly grown into what many consider to be the foremost authority on the subject of green building and design in the country, alongside counterparts such as the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS), Green Biz Check and The Fifth Estate.

Be it a drive for dollars or genuinely caring for the environment, Barnett says what matters is that green building is no longer a niche market, it is being indoctrinated throughout the industry.

“It’s the whole industry, I can’t pinpoint any one company because it has actually become the norm rather than the exception.”

Barnett believes the shift towards green building is so strong that newer buildings that don’t adhere to green star ratings are doing themselves a severe disservice.

“They can build the building and it’s going to be obsolete before they even open their doors,” she says.

Murray expresses a similar opinion.

“Large infrastructure projects funded by government are now under intense scrutiny from the public in relation to their environmental impact and as a result, contractors are having to provide environmentally sustainable construction blueprints in order to win contracts.”

Barnett says the perceived cost differential, often seen as a significant deterrent to going green, is misguided.

The Economics and Commerce building at University of Melbourne has a 5 Green Star rating. Image: Christopher Eliot

Gray explains that the reduced cost of technologies is due to the increased adoption of sustainable practices, which “has produced improved cost and value outcome”.

The GBCA is banking on the increasingly green attitudes of industry heavyweights such as Stockland, Lend-Lease and Mirvac to lower prices of sustainable products and materials for smaller companies.

According to Barnett, the effects of this are already showing.

“Things like using low-VIC paint and e-zero laminate particle board have become pretty much standard practice,” she says.

Nicholas Bernhardt, the managing director of Green Biz Check, agrees.

“Green products and practices are now more widely available, accepted and expected,” he says.

Barnett believes that greening is becoming so mainstream that “the industry has now shifted to say ‘We’re not actually looking at sustainability as additional costs, that’s just what it costs us to build it”.

Government regulations are also influencing the green trend, albeit in a more forceful manner.

“If it’s not the demand that’s coming, it’s the regulation,” Barnett says.

Regulations such as the Local Environmental Policy (LEP) planning reform, and the imminent Building Efficiency Disclosure Bill encourage an environmental consciousness across the board.

“These new plans will also provide the framework for planned growth and development in each local area - enabling economic investment and protection of environmental assets,” says Barnett.

“Green-washing” has proven so popular that the GBCA now also caters to the education, health, retail, public, multi-unit residential and industrial sectors.

And to encourage building and design companies of all sizes to run more sustainably, the GBCA membership fees are set according to the size and worth of a company.

“We don’t have a criteria for membership. Our belief is people who are members of the Green Building Council are paying that fee because they want to be more educated and more switched on,” Barnett says.

Building on its success and looking to the future, the GBCA has taken up a new challenge: to make existing buildings as sustainable as their newly built counterparts.

“We’re looking at evolving that asset, at investing that capital now to get that asset to be greener in the future.”

But Barnett also argues green renovations could benefit from a little more help from the government.

“We’d like to see some focus from the government, whether it’s a cash incentive for a developer to do it, whether it’s a tax incentive…Things like that.”

Various incentives have already been established around the country, at different levels of government. Overall, they have had a positive effect, assisting major developers in making the transition to become environmentally friendly, and Barnett sees this as a real solution.

“Basically, our strategy was: if we can get the top tier developers demanding this it will actually mean economies of scale for everyone else,” she says.

But the market is suffering from a lack of environmental sustainability experts.

“The CSIRO believe we need 3.25 million people to be skilled up to actually deliver what we need to deliver in the market over the next five to ten years,” says Barnett.

“The sooner we can skill up the workforce to these ‘green-collar jobs’ the sooner we will be able to bring those costs down and also have the expertise in the market so it becomes a lot more accepted than it is now.”

Murray says he has noticed a “significant increase in the number of positions created with an environmental focus, but more importantly, these positions are becoming more and more senior within the construction sector”.

Asked for the ideal framework to help green building to continue to flourish, Barnett says the GBCA seeks “a balance between stringent regulation and government incentives”.

But Bernhardt from Green Biz Check says it is arguable how effective incentives and grants may be “without an overall business environmental sustainability policy on developing greener practices”.

While Australia may now be ahead of the pack when it comes to a greener future for the construction and design industry, a delicate balance where government regulations direct and guide this shift is required to ensure Australia’s ongoing focus, commitment and innovation in this field.

On 20 April a disastrous explosion on the BP-owned Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers and subsequently caused the rig to sink. A damaged wellhead underwater was left leaking over 1 million litres of oil per day for a month. In the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April, the world is left wondering how this could happen, whether or not it was preventable – and more importantly, will it happen again? Bjorn-Ruban Thomassen reports.

Rescue of a Brown Pelican from the Barataria Bay in Grand Isle, La., June 4, 2010. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Ann Marie Gorden. Image: Deepwater Horizon Response

Deepwater Horizon is not the first major devastating oil spill in the world. A little closer to home, it was only last year that one of Australia’s worst oil disasters occurred.

On 21 August 2009, a blowout on a rig in the Montara oil field in the Timor Sea off the northern coast of Western Australia left a well leaking 64 tonnes of oil per day. The well did not stop leaking until 3 November when the blowout was capped.

The World Wide Fund for Nature reported that the oil leak had significant impact on marine life, occurring in a fragile conservation area. Consequently green groups have been calling for better emergency response plans at oil and gas sites, as well as improved safety measures.

In more ways than one, the Montara Wellhead spill foreshadowed what would be an even worse disaster.

While the official investigative report on the spill is yet to be made public, conservationists and experts claim that lessons clearly have to be learned in the field of security and safety measurements on oil rigs worldwide.

And while the public discussion on the safety over oil rigs continues, others question the severity of impact oil spills have on the environment.

In a report published on the University of Technology Sydney’s Newsroom website, professor and marine biologist Peter Ralph argues that the Montara Wellhead leak had little impact on marine life.

“This is not refined or processed oil leaking from the Montara Wellhead platform.

“It is the same natural oil that leaks from natural fissures in the sea floor.

“The highly toxic components of this oil evaporate far more readily than other oils such as the bunker oils. As the slick breaks down, components of the oil will dissolve in the water but the large volume of the surrounding water means the impact is quickly diluted.”

While Professor Ralph’s statements might indicate that oil spills of a major size like the Montara Wellhead are not as dangerous as they are made out to be, other experts say there is simply not enough knowledge of the subject.

Professor Ross Coleman is the director for the Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities at the University of Sydney. He says more research is needed before we can truly define the environmental impacts of oil spills.

“The environmental impact of an oil spill is often actually not known because it’s an area we don’t have much knowledge of.

“People don’t necessarily define what they mean by environmental impact. For instance, conservation groups often use emotive imagery in their work. A bird covered in oil spill trying to take off from a rig is not a pleasant sight, but it is not necessarily indicative of environmental damage.”

After the Deepwater Horizon spills, birds were largely reported to be affected and Coleman agrees this is a problem.

“The effects of oil spills on sea birds are reasonably understood,” he says.

“Oil causes birds to lose the capacity to insulate themselves, so they often die of hypothermia. And while there is the option of cleaning the birds, it usually adds stress and the birds end up dispersing anyway.”

However, Coleman argues that it is very hard to know in detail how oil spills affect other marine life, as in general we know very little about the deep sea.

“We generally know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the deep sea. So understanding ecological impact on deep sea marine life, such as organisms living on the sea floor is simply something we need to do more research on. Better research on oil spills in these habitats would mean we would better know what would happen if they were contaminated,” Coleman says.

A greener future

Environmental groups worldwide argue that oil spills on the whole should be avoided no matter how much or little of an impact they have on marine life.

Alex Moore, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth US says all new oil drilling should be avoided.

“Offshore drilling is inherently dirty and dangerous. The only way to protect our coasts and our economy from oil spills is to ban any new offshore drilling,” he says.

The organisation also remains highly critical of the US government and BP in light of the recent disaster.

“For far too long the U.S. Government has allowed oil companies to set the rules for safety and environmental protection”, he says. “Do-nothing regulators have looked the other way as companies like BP drilled deeper and deeper, putting the coastal ecosystems and fisheries at unacceptable risk.

“President Obama needs to take over the spill response to ensure that people and the environment are put ahead of BP’s profits,” says Moore.

BP themselves have openly declared ultimate responsibility for what happened and are responsible for making things right.

While their response to the oil spill has been under extreme amounts of scrutiny, even President Obama acknowledged at a recent press conference that some of the criticism hurled at BP has been unfair or overly harsh. And as the company progresses with the clean-up, the very future for offshore drilling is looking bleak.

Green organisations warn of future environmental disasters caused by offshore drilling, and while President Obama has put a moratorium on drilling permits until November, experts are beginning to question whether our dependency on fossil fuels must come to an end once and for all.

Professor Coleman says there are resources that unlike fossil fuels, are not currently being used to their full potential.

“There is a fine supply of oil and coal on the planet, and the less there is the harder it is to get, and the pricier it will become. I think we will suffer stress long before the supplies run out,” he says.

He adds that Australia has a “shockingly bad” reputation in this respect.

“We have the possibility to provide solar power a lot more than we do. And yet successive governments have unsuccessfully done so, by failing to fund necessary research.

“For instance,” he adds, “the University of New South Wales did research on solar power but was cut back on funding.

“Another indicative of a poor attitude towards the issue is the lack of use of water power. In Sydney, it rains more than it does in London but still most of the rainwater goes out to sea so we suffer periodic droughts.”

Greenpeace International recently announced a new blueprint showing how governments investing in green energy jobs could save the climate and fossil fuel addiction.

“Our Energy Revolution scenario shows how to eliminate unpredictable fossil fuel costs, destructive mining and oil exploration and with it catastrophes such as the current BP Gulf oil spill,” said Sven Teske, Greenpeace International’s Senior Energy Expert in a statement.

“Investing in people, rather than dirty and dangerous fossil fuels not only boosts global economic development but stems catastrophic climate change,” he added. The report goes on to show that cutting our dependency on fossil fuels is not a matter of technology, but investment.

“The 2010 Energy Revolution report outlines pathways towards a 100% renewable energy supply for the world. It demonstrates that there is no technological barrier to achieving this vision and reaping its many benefits in terms of the environment and jobs,” said Christine Lins, Secretary General of the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC).

She added, “The barrier is political. All that is now needed to set sustainable energy future for our planet is the political will.”

The Lofoten Islands – potential disaster

This political will might see a rather significant boost after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, if environmentalists are to be believed.

In Norway, plans for test drilling were recently dropped.

With its 4.8 million inhabitants, it might seem rather insignificant in comparison to the bigger, more powerful European nations, but Norway is no small player on the European economic market.

With large resources of oil, natural gas and hydroelectric power, it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, benefitting from its large coastal areas, strategically kept to itself by opting out of affiliation with the European Union.

Since the 1960’s, successful offshore test drilling for oil and gas has quickly sent the country to the top of the world’s list of financially wealthy countries, and Norway invests its Petroleum Fund, saving up capita for future generations.

While Norway has avoided any major damage from oil spills, there are still concerns about its offshore rigs.

As the government announced new plans for more test drilling close to potentially very fragile marine environments, green groups throughout the country panicked and quickly opposed the government’s plans.

However, it was not until the Deepwater Horizon disaster that plans were officially dropped.

The proposed new drilling was to take place in the Barents Sea, just off the coast of the Lofoten Islands. For the 25,000 inhabitants living on the islands, an environmental disaster such as an oil spill could have devastating consequences.

Frederic Hauge, of the Norwegian Environmental group Bellona, says the area is one of the world’s most important fishing grounds.

“The Lofoten Islands and the Barents Sea is one of the world’s cleanest sea areas, and is the natural habitat for over 150 different fish species,” he says.

“The areas are grounds for spawning for some of the world’s most important fish stocks. The Northern areas are regarded as internationally important sea bird areas, and are the homes to a lot of endangered species. These unique resources are vulnerable to pollution from oil spills.”

Bellona says the Norwegian government so far has insufficiently taken this into consideration, as well as failing to acknowledge how there is very little knowledge about the natural resources in the area.

“Accidents and spills in these vulnerable areas will generally have bigger consequences than other places in the world,” Hauge says.

With the government currently revising its plans for expanding offshore oil drilling, the vast fishing and sea bird grounds of the Lofoten Islands are momentarily safe, but for other areas of the world offshore oil drilling is the only option in the search for energy fuels.

Joshua Reichert of the Pew Charitable Trusts in the US says while offshore oil drilling probably will not come to an end anytime soon, environmentalists are happy with the focus that has been put on safety measures and risk assessment.

“All uses of the ocean should be considered through rigorous, scientifically valid assessments of the potential impacts and benefits,” he says. “If offshore oil and gas development continues to be a part of the picture it should not be at the expense of either safety or the other economic and environmental values our oceans provide.”

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority and BP Global declined to issue any comments, and directed information requests on to their respective websites.

Bjorn-Ruban Thomassen was on an Global Environmental Journalism Education Initiative exchange at UTS is now back at City University where he is completing a Bachelor in Journalism.

Henry Peters | Melbourne, Australia

Melbourne City: a high density destination. Image: Reinis Traidas

Standing atop the Hollywood Hills in California and peering out across the vast expanses of Los Angeles, the blanket of smog in the atmosphere is so dense the city’s skyscrapers are almost invisible. Cars are a necessity in Los Angeles and if urban sprawl continues unabated in Melbourne, it too could be confronted with the visual effects of a large carbon footprint.

There are many valid reasons to halt urban sprawl and focus on urban consolidation given Melbourne’s burgeoning population. Environmental impact on Carbon emissions, quality of life for those living in Melbourne’s expanding fringes, and our transport system’s inability to facilitate further urban sprawl, are just a few.

Many residents are choosing to object to high-density growth but the ideal of a large backyard will need to eventually give way to urban consolidation. Proposals in Camberwell, Mitcham and Box Hill have been vetoed in past years despite potential for population management, sustainability and traffic reduction. Director of City Design for the City of Melbourne, Rob Adams, believes Camberwell is a prime location for high-density development. “I can’t think of a better place for low-rise high-density development [than Camberwell]”, he said.

Paul Little, from global development group Aurecon Pty Ltd agrees with Adams. “[Camberwell junction] has excellent access to public transport options and has seen significant growth in commercial floor space capable of being used for office purposes.” High-density developments in Camberwell and Mitcham have needed the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to step in and overruled community rejection. Many residents remain unconvinced that high-density living is the best way to combat a growing carbon footprint.

Victorian Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Kate Auty, says that residents often object to high-rise residential and multi-use buildings because they feel excluded in the planning process. “(Residents) are opposed to having something stuffed down through their letterbox that says this is what’s going to happen and they’re not engaged in the discussion”, Auty said. Many don’t feel obligated to address the environmental concerns posed by urban sprawl.

A report issued by the Whitehorse City Council outlines the basis for community rejection of another high-density development. In 2004, Whitehorse rejected the proposal for a 17-level and 11-level pair of residential towers at 1-19 Colombo Street in Mitcham. Locals lodged over 600 objections to the initial project, which was dubbed the ‘Mitcham Monster’. These concerns will need to be reassessed if Melbourne wants to manage the exponential growth of its population without reverting to urban sprawl.

According to the report, one reason for council rejection was the “building is too big and too high”. The report elaborates, “the scale and form of the building is inconsistent with surrounding buildings.” Another point for rejection was “it will increase parking problems for rail users” and “air quality will be further affected by the increased traffic.” The report neglects to realise air quality overall will improve because people would be traveling less distance by car and more by train, while any parking could be avoided by implementation of underground parking or even a multi-level parking building beside the station.

Whitehorse also cited “the over sized building will devalue the surrounding properties.” Federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson disagrees with the overall Australian consensus that higher property value is good for Melbourne.
“Housing is a necessity like food, water, electricity”, Thomson said. “Why do we cheer when the prices of houses go up?” Higher property value alienates Melbourne’s middle to low income bracket.”

But residential growth in Melbourne’s CBD has been impressive despite community rejection of high-density development in suburban areas. “The population in central Melbourne has increased from 30,000 to 100,000 and they’re all in apartments”, Adams said. Eventually, the ‘not in my back yard’ stance will be ignored.

Despite the trivialities of some reasons for community rejection, some potential problems associated with high-density development need to be avoided. Water conservation, ventilation, energy efficiency and overshadowing of adjacent Primary Schools should all be legitimate concerns for high-density developers.
Early Childhood Teacher at St. Michael’s Grammar School, Emily Poore, said that sunlight in primary schools is crucial to the positive development of young children. “Kids need to be able to run around and the sun definitely has an impact on their intrinsic motivation at school,” Poore said.

But Adams said European cities have proven that high-density buildings are more equipped to manage population growth, sustain the environment and function symbiotically with transport infrastructure.“None of it has to be high-rise. I’m talking about five to six storeys in height. The sort of stuff you might find in European cities like Barcelona”, Adams said.

High-density developments close to existing transport infrastructure are optimal because they reduce the need to use cars and limit traffic. Central Coburg, for instance, is “desirable because it’s close to both the (train) station and the transport corridor”, Adams said.

Despite the viability of more infrastructure in these inner-city activity centres, the government has allowed extension in areas like Cranbourne many kilometres from the CBD and without a developed train network.
Cranbourne residents are too reliant on cars and being pushed away from economic opportunity in the CBD as fuel prices rise.

Professor of Transport Studies at Monash University, Graham Currie, points out that the social implications of further urban sprawl are also profound. “Young people demonstrate higher unemployment and lower educational and social participation in fringe areas”, Currie said. If this is the case then criminality could also be spiked by urban sprawl. Low-income earners are being effectively stranded in areas like Cranbourne. Everyday access to the CBD is coming to them at a greater cost, let alone residence closer to the city.

“By stopping the expansion of the city and concentrating on creating communities in and around the existing fabric, places like Cranbourne maybe in 10 or 15 years time start to get its own urban area and hopefully fed by public transport”, Adams said.

Greater carbon emissions, social and economic alienation of residents on the ever-expanding fringe and pressure on a buckling transport system present a dark future for Melbournians. Identifying areas for high-density consolidation is only the first stage of managing our population. The residents in these areas need to start co-operating and realise that our environment is at stake and not just the view from their backyard.

Henry Peters is a student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

Kylie Beale | Melbourne, Australia

Powering Australia another way. Image: Ian Britton

Guy Abrahams is a former solicitor and art gallery director turned environmental activist. As well as completing his Environmental Masters at Melbourne University, Abrahams spends much of his time spruiking his climate change message to community groups around Victoria. He does this as part of the 3,000+ international cohort of volunteers, trained by Al Gore following the success of An Inconvenient Truth.

Audience members can’t help but be drawn in by Abrahams’ obvious passion. The prevailing message that lingers in the audiences’ minds is just how far behind other countries Australia really is with regards to the development of renewable energies.

At a meeting in Melbourne, Abrahams raised his concerns. “In Australia our solar resources are absolutely enormous, countries like Germany which are now far advanced in their implementation of solar power, they’re up in the fog in Northern Europe. They look down at Australia and say ‘What are you doing?’ or ‘Why aren’t you doing anything?’”

Matthew Wright of Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE), a climate solutions think tank, agrees. “Australia has fallen far short of the world’s leading economies.”

Wright says fossil fuel industries “Can’t do” campaign is holding Australia back by “misrepresent(ing) renewable energy as not being able to run in a modern economy.”

According to BZE, Germany installed a “massive” 4000 megawatts of photovoltaic modules in 2009 and are expected to exceed this in 2010. Spain is also ahead of Australia, installing over 2500 Megawatts in 2008. Australia “should already be installing 1000 Megawatts of photovoltaic modules per annum and growing each year,” says Wright.

But Australia has fallen short of this target.

Abraham’s and Wright’s views are echoed throughout the business world, the public service and politics. One of BZE’s key objectives is to build a large network of people from the government, business and education sectors to combat the misinformation being communicated to the public by the fossil fuel industry.

“Once we have hundreds of thousands of Australians working hard for a 100 per cent doable, 100 per cent renewable economy…people power will have its way and this will involve the dirty future being cleaned up and the clean future being forced through,” says Wright.

But the clean future Wright and his team dream of comes at a cost.

Sustainability Victoria’s CEO Anita Roper admits that some technology, like solar PV systems, are not affordable for low-income households due to the upfront costs faced. Although some have the desire to reduce their carbon footprint, they don’t necessarily have the means.

Erik Zimmerman is one industry leader trying to make “going green” affordable.

Previously Head of Learning and Development for ANZ Bank, Zimmerman stumbled upon a documentary in 2006 at a film festival. After watching A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash, a film about society’s addiction to oil, he was inspired. Taking a great personal risk to try and make a difference, Zimmerman took out a second mortgage on his home to fund his project, EKO Energy.

Zimmerman’s solar energy company, came to life later in 2006 when Australia’s solar installations sat at an approximate 1500 per year. Zimmerman estimates that this figure has increased by a substantial 38 times from its beginning to 2009, with an estimated 47,000 solar installations accounted for last year. EKO Energy was responsible for one in five of every solar installation in Victoria in 2009.

“My aim was to put as many [solar panels] on roofs as I could. I really, passionately believe in this idea of an eco-community,” said Zimmerman in an address to the audience at an EKO Energy Community launches.

“What we’re trying to do is bring renewable energy within reach of every home, every school, every business and every community and what I really want to see one day is systems on every roof.”

Wright points out that the cost of photovoltaic modules has “fallen by half in the last 18 months,” resulting in the expansion of the solar industry in Australia. Despite this positive expansion, Australia is considered to be far behind where it ought to be.

Member of German Parliament Hans-Josef Fell is largely responsible for the German Renewable Energy legislation and framework of the very successful solar feed-in tariffs, which have now been adopted in NSW.

In 2005, the share of renewable energy in the gross amount of electricity for Germany was 9.3 per cent. In 2009 it was 16.1 per cent. By 2020 Germany aims to source 50 per cent of their electricity from renewable energy sources, and 100 per cent by 2030 – a big step up on Australia’s pitiful comparison of 5 per cent from solar powered and 20 per cent wind powered energy by 2020.

Fell says that with global mass production, renewable energy technology will become increasingly cheaper and that national leadership is needed to see it take off.

“Renewable energies would be the most decisive contribution to Global Climate protection,” he says.

“It is also necessary to identify those solutions which are not real solutions at all and to end political support for them. These include in particular the use of nuclear power and reliance on so-called carbon-free coal power stations using CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technology,” says Fell.

BZE is promoting an ambitious Zero Carbon Australia 2020 project, which is a “costed, detailed blueprint” of Australia’s transition to zero-emissions in the next ten years. The plan focuses on using proven and available technology to accomplish its zero-carbon goal in a bid to dissolve beliefs that renewable energy is simply not a viable option.

Wright suggests that overall, Australia needs “a shift in national imperative to a clean renewable energy future.”

According to Wright, this shift will only occur “when the public understand the facts on global, commercially available solar technology and then have the confidence to argue for what they want.”

Kylie Beale is a student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

Jenny Jägerhorn | Melbourne editor

Hazelwood Power station in Victoria. Image: Jenny Jägerhorn

The air is crisp and the clouds over Latrobe Valley are as grey and thick as the smoke spewing out of the pipes of Australia’s most polluting power stations. The mining of the oldest brown coal reserves started in the 1950’s and even the younger power stations, built in the 80s, look like icons from the former Soviet Union, with their toxic green façades.

The brown-coal-fired generation plants in the valley account for 85 per cent of Victoria’s greenhouse contributions. Hazelwood power station produces up to 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is almost 15 percent of Victoria’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, and 3 percent of Australia’s total carbon emissions.

Environmentalists are calling for the closure of Hazelwood by 2012 to be followed by Gippsland’s other brown coal stations.

“Environmentalists have to make a large decision on how they’re going on about it. It’s not just the power stations they’re going to shut down, it’s three major towns [Morwell, Moe and Churchill] within the region and all the people that support the power stations as in workshops and industries that rely on it,” says Phil Bramstedt, who works as a belt technician at the Yallourn mine.

He has been working in the power industry for 25 years and has seen all the commotion around the industry during the past decades.

“There’s nothing they’ve really thought on the community side. Basically, Latrobe Valley has been built over the 70 years as a coal industry,” says Bramstedt.

Once owned by the state

All six power stations, Yallourn Power Station, Hazelwood Power Station, Energy Brix Power Station, Loy Yang Power Stations A & B and Jeeralang Power Station (gas), were once run by the government owned State Electricity Commission (SEC). The height of power production was in 1974, when the SEC employed 26, 000 workers in Latrobe Valley.

The privatisation of the state’s electricity in the 1990’s was commenced by the Kirner Labor government and continued by the Kennett Liberal government, delivering $23 billion dollars to the state coffers.

Hazelwood Power Station and the associated mine were privatised in 1996 and sold for $2.35 billion.

However, the privatisation came as a bombshell in the Latrobe Valley and led to mass layoffs. Jobs went down from 11, 000 in 1989 to only 2, 500 people working in the power industry in Latrobe Valley today, and many never returned. The SEC trained around 500 apprentices a year, but nowadays, the apprenticeships are a fond memory. The Government’s withdrawal wounded both the economy and the psyche of the community. Thriving families spiralled into despair as employment opportunities went up in smoke and social infrastructure failed.

Social problems

Gippsland Trades and Labour Council secretary John Parker says there are two to three generations of families that have lived but haven’t worked in the Latrobe Valley since the privatisation, which has led to major social problems with a lot of drug and alcohol abuse.

In the 15 years to 2005, the population of Latrobe municipality dropped from 75, 000 to 70, 000. More would have left the valley but were unable to because of the plummeting property prices.

“The biggest problem is that we have a market driven economy, but what we need is planning and leadership that work together with the community and the unions,” says Parker.

He sees the Government’s recent decision to postpone the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which aimed at cutting Australia’s greenhouse gases by making the industry pay for the right to pollute, as unfortunate.

PHOTO GALLERY – Click to enlarge
[miniflickr photoset_id="72157624279102815" ]

“It would have given a certainty to the workers. Companies want to wait until the last minute and then just close everything and give redundancy packages. The rest of Gippsland will collapse around them without the support form the government,” says Parker.

The effects of what happened after the privatisation can still be seen. Many of the small businesses never recovered. Walking down the streets empty shops can be seen all over Morwell.

Bramstedt says the government backing in the Latrobe Valley is virtually zero.

“Every time we set up some sort of scheme to do anything here it’s always moved up to Melbourne or some consultant overseas. We put up the ideas and the next minute they’re moved out. Politicians don’t listen to anybody here,” he says.

One-fifth of local jobs in the valley remain directly related to electricity. Phil Bramstedt believes that closing down the coal business would mean the end for Latrobe Valley.

“This will just be like an American ghost town. I’ve already told my children not to rely on the Latrobe Valley as an employer in the future. My 21-year-old daughter is living and studying in Melbourne and my sons have made plans to move there. It is a very large part of Victoria’s economy that the government has to look at,” he says.

Australian Manufacturing Worker’s Union (AMWU) organizer in the La Trobe Valley, Steve Dodd, has a more positive vision about the future of coal but stresses that there needs to be a just transition to new industries.

He sees a future in coal and believes the power stations need to be retrofitted to make a more pollution-controlled zone, whether it will be in power stations or to put coal in to some other use, such as coaled oil or coal fertilisers.

“There’s got to be a change in the short term, there’s got to be a change in the long term, but it has to be a just transition with all parties involved. That includes not only the business groups but also the union and the community groups. They shouldn’t only be done on the basis on the next election in sight,” Dodd says.

“Heard promises before”

On the opposite side of the street from Loy Yang lies a big hole with a massive amount of the black gold. From here the coal strip goes up to a building that crushes the coal. Conveyer belts then move it further and dump it into the ominous, curved brown boilers. The 150-meter high chimney pumps out 14 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. The endless, overpowering, signature smell envelops you through the sticky air.

In March 2010, it was announced that the operators of Loy Yang A (Loy Yang Power) signed a contract with Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals Australia for the supply of electricity to power aluminium smelters at Portland and Point Henry until 2036.

Loy Lang workers Neville Darragh, 53, and Toby Thornton, 50 have both worked in the power industry for more than 25 years and recognize that there has to be a change.

“There will have to be a move away from coal, but the biggest problem is where are we going to take the electricity from,” says Darragh.

They have heard promises by the Government before, assuring that new industries would come into the area, but without seeing it carried through. They fear that the past could be repeated.

“I think there’s a lot of pressure, Hazelwood was due to close 2005 but they’ve extended it to 2031. There isn’t really anything else,“ says Thornton.

“And Morwell power station [Energy Brix Power station] was supposed to shut down in 1996, all the money was set aside to close it down and it’s still running,” says Darragh.

“They’ve known that the plants here are getting old. They’ve had at least 20 years where they could have started looking around building new things.”

Redundancy packages a solution?

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) says that a move away from coal is inevitable, but it believes the transition time would have to be minimum seven years.

Greg Hardy, Victorian secretary of the CFMEU’s mining and energy division says that the average age of the members is 53 years. So a natural or early retirement could be a solution, requiring that the Government supports them. If the power stations were closed gradually the younger employees could be moved to the newer power stations, Hardy suggests.

But the two Loy Lang workers aren’t convinced.

“How are we going to enjoy the life quality, if we don’t have the power? I think the government wouldn’t allow that. Where would they find money for that, when they they’re struggling with building new hospitals and roads,” says Thornton.

Both agree that people would probably look at redundancy packages if they were given enough to sustain their quality of life. But another aspect is that they feel that one needs a sense of wellbeing in the community as a contributor.

“You can’t just sit in the house and do nothing. We’re hands on people. When the SEC sold it off and downsized and gave away packages, people sat at home and the whole society here changed,” Darragh says.

The question remains, even if most of the workers retired earlier what else is there for the Valley?

“Even if they’re going to have these power stations closed, and if new technology would come along, who are they going to get to build it? These people pass on worthwhile skills to the younger generation,” says Thornton.

The Government recognises that the older and dirtier Hazelwood and Yallourn power stations are likely to close over the next ten years although compensation to the generators will slow that process. To combat devastating job losses alternatives need to be found.

Steve Dodd, from the AMWU, believes in developing manufacturing in Latrobe Valley.

“It could be solar hot water heaters or making parts for wind turbines, there could be a whole range of different, manufacturing of things in this region. It needs a bit of backing up from the government and the power stations and business groups.”

“We believe that there are more opportunities in new technology and in new ways of doing things than in the old power stations that haven’t been upgraded. If it would still be in government hands there would be two new power stations more up to date,” he says.

A recent report by Green Energy Markets for Environment Victoria has found that the closure and replacement of Hazelwood power station could be achieved by the end of 2012 for $320 million a year. The report also points out that an early closure of the power station would cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 12 per cent.

Consultants Green Energy Markets found that Hazelwood could be replaced in one of two scenarios.

Firstly, a combination of large-scale gas-fired power of 1800 megawatts and an expanded renewable energy program of 1500 megawatts, mainly from wind.

Secondly, install less gas and introduce a residential and commercial energy efficiency program, wiping out the need for a quarter of Hazelwood’s electricity.

Environment Victoria expects between 1900 to 2500 construction jobs will be created in building the clean energy replacements for Hazelwood.

Another part of the jigsaw of the future may lie in hot rocks.

Professors Rachel Webster and Edwin Van Leeuwen of Melbourne University have discovered that the best site for geothermal power is in the Latrobe Valley. An operational test plant could be running within four years for $100 million.

John Parker questions the capacity of it. The existing coal-fired power plants in Latrobe Valley generate more than 6000 megawatts. Loy Yang A alone has four generating units with a combined capacity of 2200 megawatts.

“That’s a lot of power to replace within a few years. The problem with all of the thermal, carbon capture and solar test plants so far is that all are based on give us some money and we’ll try,” says Parker.

Nuclear power, popular in many countries in the European Union, where it provides around a third of the electricity, has had significant societal barriers to overcome in Australia. But perhaps attitudes will change?

“Nuclear power will come to Australia, we can’t get away from that, because people still want their lives to go on. If a nuclear power station is to be built it needs to be built here because the infrastructure is here. So I believe there will be a mix of energy,” says Darragh.

“Even if we decided to go on nuclear power, there would be another 10-15 years before we would have anything on tap,” says Thornton.

Despite the unhappy past they still have hope for the future.

“It’s got to be positive, there’s a lot of pressure everywhere, so I reckon pressure usually brings good,” says Darragh.

Both find it disappointing that the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong hasn’t been to Latrobe Valley although there were promises to do so. Perhaps if she did, she would see how devastating bad planning could be to a community.

Jenny Jägerhorn is a GEJI exchange student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

Related articles
Hundreds protest over Rudd’s backflip
Climate protesters planning new protests

Australia has committed to reducing carbon emissions, but traffic is congesting our major cities and pumping out greenhouse gases. Are electric cars the answer? Britta Jorgensen reports.

Most car manufacturers plan to release their electric vehicle models by 2012. Image: Todd Mecklem

More than 700 000 cars travel through Sydney city every day, and if the government gets its way, many of those could soon be electric. Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore officially opened Australia’s first on-street electric vehicle charging station in the city’s inner west early this week.

“This is historic, this is a beginning, this is a trial,” she said.

“We don’t have electric vehicles operating in Australia yet, so this… will enable us to assess the usage here and the take up, and when electric vehicles start arriving in Australia in the next 12 to 18 months we’ll be ready. Certainly the city is investigating the purchase of electric vehicles for our fleet.”

Sydney is one of six countries around the world taking part in a program to fast track the introduction of electric vehicles. Clover Moore committed to the program at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit last year.

“The other thing the city will be doing over the next 18 months is purchasing 50 electric vehicles for use in the city, and of course we’ll be wanting to see the roll out of other charging stations. This trial will enable us to assess how this one goes, so then we can see them being provided throughout our cities.”

Chargepoint is the company managing Sydney’s charging station, which can charge a plug-in hybrid Toyota Prius in three hours. Its Chief Executive Officer Luke Grana says they have plans to conduct similar programs in Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide later this year.

“We’ve got plans for a pile of programs in each state of Australia happening later this year and next year as it becomes a model. The next charging station installation will actually be in Canberra next month,” he says.

“We know that most major automakers are releasing their electric vehicle models in the next two to three years. Mitsubishi is releasing later this year, I believe Tesla as well are releasing this year- but if you look at all the major automakers, they’ve got electric vehicles in development and they plan to release them in 2012.”

So far, Chargepoint has been dealing with local councils and fleets who have adopted the early electric vehicles.

“We provide an infrastructure for home and for business and on-street use, but as more of electric vehicles come into the market then we plan to roll out more of an infrastructure to support the uptake of electric vehicles over time.”

Listen to this story on the Wire:
[See post to listen to audio]

But there are some doubts about the possibility of a mass production of electric cars in the near future. In a submission to last year’s Copenhagen Summit, the Society of Automotive Engineers suggested it was 20 years away and that government money would be better spent in making traffic flow more efficiently.

There have also been some safety concerns.

“There’s obviously safety aspects to the charging stations, so any alerts or faults we get alerted straight away and we can send someone here to make sure the charging station is in operation,” says Mr Grana.

“There’s an RCD [safety switch] in the charging station, so it trips at 20 milliamp seconds. It’s very quick, so if there is any issue the whole station will be de-energised very quickly.”

The Sydney trial station will provide usage data that will be used to determine whether or not Australia should invest more in the electric car infrastructure.

“We’re very excited about his and we’ll be assessing it and we’ll be looking at how we’ll roll it out,” said Clover Moore on Monday.

“I have made a commitment together with other city leaders in Copenhagen last December, and we’re really committed to this project but we’re learning. It’s historic and it’s a first, and it’s a learning experience for us all.”

Britta Jorgensen is a producer for The Wire .