19/05/06 Campaign to discredit wind blows to NSW, - By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter, Sydney Morning Herald

 16/05/06 Global warming likely to speed up, CSIRO finds. - By Liz Minchin. The Age - May 16, 2006

16/05/06 Carbon dioxide soars but ozone gases fall, The Age - May 16, 2006

12/05/06 Wind farms halted as help dries up, - By Nassim Khadem, The Age May 12, 2006

11/05/06 Virtue not necessarily owner's reward, By Leon Gettler. The Age , Businesss

10/05/06 Aussie firm on US wind farm buying spree, - The Age

04/05/06 Small cars all the rage as petrol price rises, Ian Porter, The Age , Business

04/05/06 Ethics miss on board favour, By Leon Gettler, The Age , Business

04/05/06 States reject council control over wind farms, - By Nassim Khadem, Canberra, The Age

03/05/06 Vic blasts Campbell's wind farm plan, - The Age

03/05/06 Wind farm paper urges tighter regulation, -By Liz Minchin, Environment reporter, the Age

Back to top

 Let's talk about nuclear power and other energy sources

By Tim Flannery

May 30, 2006

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/lets-talk-about-nuclear-power-emandem-other-energy-sources/2006/05/29/1148754933159.htmlShould Australia "go" nuclear? It's a question that has split environmentalists and threatens to deprive the climate debate of oxygen. But it is an important question, and it needs to be answered.

Greenhouse gas emissions are now so great that Earth's climate system is destabilising, and as it destabilises, so will our global civilisation. If we keep adding to the pollution, rising seas, extreme weather, water and food shortages will lead to mass migrations and a breakdown in the global treaties and understandings that keep us at peace rather than war.

We can see the beginnings of the process now. With CO2 accumulating at the rate of 2.5 parts per million per year, we have just a decade or two to make big reductions.

Australians are the worst per capita emitters of polluting greenhouse gases on Earth, and Victoria is home to the most polluting coal-fired power station in the world. Fifty-six per cent of the greenhouse gases you generated this morning boiling the jug or taking the kids to school will still be in the atmosphere in a century's time, blighting the lives of our children's children. That's quite a moral issue.

Over the next two decades, Australians could use nuclear power to replace all our coal-fired power plants. We would then have a power infrastructure like that of France, and in doing so we would have done something great for the world, for whatever risks go with a domestic nuclear power industry are local, while greenhouse gas pollution is global in its impact.

This, I fear, is not what is intended. Instead, many will want Australia to have its cake and eat it too, which will mean keeping the coal-fired power plants and supplementing them with a bit of nuclear. And exports of both coal and uranium would, of course, be pursued as vigorously as possible.

Where would such a policy lead us? Within a few decades, we could be living in a world undergoing substantial destabilisation of its environmental and political structures. And that world would be awash with Australian uranium capable of making the most destructive weapons ever devised.

What's the way out of this predicament? It's simple, and it begins with asking a question: is it right to enrich ourselves by degrading our children's future? If your answer is no, then certain actions must follow.

First, you would burn as little fossil fuel as possible. That might mean buying a smaller car, or asking your electricity provider for green power. It might mean buying a solar hot-water heater, or even learning more about how electricity is generated and how we use it. If everyone from the Prime Minister down acted in this way, we would need no more power plants - coal or nuclear - because the demand for electricity would drop. So would our petrol use, and our politicians would, of course, take the lead in emergency efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution internationally.

These moral questions also have profound implications for our uranium industry. They may lead to us using nuclear power to offset coal, especially in places such as China (where nuclear power is cost-effective) and, of course, we would seek to make nuclear power as safe as possible. That means insisting on good regulation of the nuclear industry and adhering to international treaties.

I do not believe, incidentally, that nuclear power is entirely safe. But neither is coal. Indeed there can be lots of uranium in coal, which gets into the air when we burn it, and which can lead to high rates of cancer.

The three risks from uranium are bombs, accidents and waste. Our only defence against bombs is good international regulation that prevents uranium being turned into bombs, and to minimise this risk, Australians must become forceful nuclear pacifists.

Because a single new accident could destroy the entire nuclear industry worldwide, lots of work has gone into minimising the risk of accidents. As a result, new nuclear technology is relatively safe. While much work remains to be done in dealing with waste, we have also made progress in this regard.

Is it better to bequeath our children the remaining problems associated with disposing of nuclear waste, or life in a climate-induced dark age? Of course, the ideal solution would be to leave them neither, but few people in power are talking about accelerating the development of wind, solar and geothermal options that might allow us this choice.

Before we make up our minds on how we respond to the Prime Minister's call for debate on nuclear power, let's think through where our response might lead. An angry rebuttal of nuclear power could mire our nation in a heated but not very enlightened argument that will take the focus off the real issue - climate change - for years.

Ignoring the whole thing as just too hard isn't an option either, because that will condemn our world to a new dark age, which may be just a few decades off. Asking for a renewed focus on renewable energy is morally right, but no mainstream politician is listening, and time is short.

You and I must win the battle for our children's future, in double-quick time. The alternative is just unthinkable.

Tim Flannery is an environmental scientist and director of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide.

Back to top

It's an ill wind …

New Zealand's Tararua Wind Power project has 48 Danish-built Vestas turbines able to generate 32 megawatts, enough to supply power to 15,000 homes.
Photo: Reuters

May 19, 2006 SMH

IT WAS May 2004 and John Howard was looking for an exit clause. A Federal Government scheme to kickstart Australia's renewable energy industry had proved successful beyond anybody's expectations. Wind, the cheapest and most viable source of renewable energy, was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the mandatory renewable energy target.

Giant wind turbines were sprouting all over the country, turbine blade and engine manufacturers were setting up shop, and cash was pouring in from foreign and domestic investors. It seemed Australia was finally tackling its greenhouse gas emissions by getting some clean electricity.

But not everyone was happy with the mandatory target. Leaked minutes from a meeting in the chilly confines of Canberra's political corridors show the Prime Minister had called on some of Australia's biggest contributors to global warming - including the coal and uranium miners Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton - to help the Government devise a way to pull the rug from under the wind industry, but still be seen to be tackling climate change.

Two years on, it has become clear just how deadly that meeting was for wind power. The Government's refusal to extend the mandatory target has left hundreds of renewable energy projects unable to secure contracts. One developer last week cancelled two wind farm proposals worth $550 million, while the future of another $250 million project is in doubt.

The Australian Wind Energy Association says as much as $12 billion worth of proposed wind farms is at risk. On top of that, the Government has tried to kill wind farm projects in Victoria and Western Australia and has called on state governments to sign a development code that would give local councils the power to veto wind projects because of community opposition - something that does not apply to new coalmining ventures.

The political bunfight over wind is matched by what appears to be a grassroots battle to stop giant wind turbines being built in rural areas. Resident groups are fighting their case in the media and on the internet.

At a time of near unanimous scientific agreement that large greenhouse gas cuts must be made soon to avoid dangerous changes in world weather patterns, how is it that wind has become a dirty word?

Environment groups say it is all tied up with Federal Government reluctance to impose any kind of cost on fossil fuel industries and its desire to sell more uranium to nuclear weapons states such as China and India. They say it is no coincidence that wind - which could in time be a strong, clean competitor to fossil fuels - is being demonised while nuclear power is being promoted as a solution to global warming.

But nuclear energy is no solution to climate change, says Greenpeace Australia Pacific's chief executive, Steve Shallhorn. "The Federal Government and nuclear industry are trying to force a false choice: polluting coal or expensive nuclear power. Yet safe, clean alternatives exist," Shallhorn says. "Even if there was a doubling of global nuclear energy output by 2050 it would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent."

In the increasingly politicised realm of energy policy, the decision by the federal Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, last month to scuttle a wind farm proposed for Bald Hills in Victoria's South Gippsland looks highly unusual. Campbell said a consultant's report on risks to the endangered orange-bellied parrot had forced him to reject the development.

"I understand that this will be a disappointing outcome for the proponents of the wind farm but it is very clear to me from reading this report that every precaution should be taken to help prevent the extinction of this rare bird," he said.

But research by The Age found the bird had rarely flown near the Bald Hills site and the Government's consultant concluded banning the wind farm would do little to save it.

Those who oppose the project are happy with Campbell's intervention. Among them is the discredited British environmentalist David Bellamy. In late 2004, at the height of the campaign against the Bald Hills project, Bellamy visited the area to support the anti-wind cause. "It's the last place on earth you'd contemplate building them," he said during a visit to the South Gippsland town of Foster, paid for and organised by Channel Nine's 60 Minutes. "Think of the damage they are doing, and for no return at all," he said.

Not long before his visit to Australia, Bellamy said man-made global warming was a myth and wind power was not a renewable source of energy.

It is misleading claims such as these and connections with anti-wind campaigners overseas that have raised suspicions about Australia's anti-wind activists. The Australia Institute's Clive Hamilton believes the sprouting of local opposition groups is not entirely spontaneous. "I believe there is a network of anti-wind activists associated with climate change sceptics who are fuelling the fires of local opposition," he says.

Research by the Herald shows that a loose association of anti-wind farm groups that goes by the names of Landscape Guardians or Coastal Guardians relies heavily for its information and campaign tactics on overseas groups that have been linked to the nuclear power industry.

The forerunner of the anti-wind farm pressure group was Britain's Country Guardians, established by Sir Bernard Ingham, a spin doctor for former the British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. He is a director of Supporters of Nuclear Energy. He was also a paid consultant to the British nuclear group BNFL.

Two British groups, Stop Windfarms in Moray and No Whinash Windfarm, have been caught out by Britain's Advertising Standards Authority for making misleading and unsubstantiated claims about wind power. Similar inaccurate statements can be found on Australian websites.

The latest anti-wind hot spot in NSW is Lake George, where a company called Capital Wind wants to build 63 massive turbines.

William Hoorweg and his partner, Julie Gray, who own a property about 2.1 kilometres from the nearest proposed turbine, are worried about the prospect of having Australia's biggest wind farm nearby. They will not be able to see the 125-metre turbines from their home but they do not accept the developer's assurances they will not be able to hear them, and they believe the turbines could cause bushfires. They told the Herald the project was a "sham" because when the wind did not blow the developer would have to buy electricity from the grid. Gray also says the turbines will leak electricity. Neither statement is correct.

Like many others, Hoorweg and Gray believed Bellamy's spin about wind energy. They also listened to Paul Miskelly, a member of Taralga Landscape Guardians, a group based near Goulburn. Miskelly says wind farms are inefficient and will destabilise the electricity grid because of fluctuations in wind. He is also upset by "the sure knowledge that wind turbines will do nothing for the environment".

Miskelly, who says he is worried about what the proposed wind farm at Taralga will do to the value of the vineyard he owns nearby, worked for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation for 32 years and has given lectures to community groups about nuclear power.

The dubious scientific and environmental claims made by some anti-wind campaigners do not mean there are not valid reasons to object to wind farms. Towering at heights equivalent to 30-storey buildings, and requiring major roadworks and construction, it is no surprise they are not always welcome in scenic rural areas. The secrecy that often surrounds offers made by developers to some landowners has also caused deep rifts in some rural communities.

The NSW Greens' renewable energy spokesman, John Kaye, says wind power can make significant cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

"But that doesn't mean every project is good or that every developer is good," he says. "These people are in it to make a buck, like everyone else, and sometimes they ride roughshod over community concerns."

Kaye says the key is ensuring everyone in a community benefits, not just property owners who sell or lease land to wind farm operators.

BUSTING THE MYTHS

MYTH: Wind power is inefficient and has to be backed by base load power.

TRUTH: Wind turbines convert as much as 45 per cent of the kinetic energy in wind into useable electricity. In contrast, coal-fired power stations convert only 30-40 per cent of the energy in coal into useable electricity. The electricity grid in Australia has back-up capacity. Wind power could supply as much as 20 per cent of the country's electricity without the need to build additional back-up.

MYTH: Wind turbines are fans that dry the atmosphere, break up clouds and chase rain away.

TRUTH: There is no scientific evidence for this. Wind farms only capture energy from existing winds; they do not create wind like a fan.

MYTH: There is no point trying to replace fossil fuel energy with wind energy. Instead, we should cut our energy demand.

TRUTH: We should use less energy. But even with very large reductions in energy use to tackle climate change we would still need to replace some proportion of fossil fuel energy with renewable energy. It is not an either/or situation.

MYTH: Wind power is unreliable and can't be stored. Fossil fuels must take up the slack.

TRUTH: There is no effective way to store large amounts of electricity, regardless of whether it comes from coal or wind. All energy technologies have periods when they are not available. These periods are built into the pricing for the technology. If we locate wind farms in different places and don't see them as the total solution, we can manage fluctuations in wind.

MYTH: Wind power becomes less cost-effective the higher its contribution to overall energy demand. Beyond 10 per cent it is uneconomical.

TRUTH: Denmark gets 20 per cent of its electricity from wind power and doesn't seem to have any problems.

Back to top

Campaign to discredit wind blows to NSW

By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter, Sydney Morning Herald
May 19, 2006

Related coverage

• It's an ill wind …

A VICTORIAN campaign aimed at discrediting wind power that has links to prominent climate change deniers and the British nuclear industry has spread to NSW.

Tactics used by anti-wind farm activists in Victoria - including making misleading statements about wind energy - are being copied by some groups in NSW.

Research by the Herald has found that a loose association of anti-wind farm groups in Victoria that goes by the name of Landscape Guardians, or Coastal Guardians, relies heavily for its information and tactics on the British anti-wind farm pressure group Country Guardians.

That group was set up by Sir Bernard Ingham, press secretary to Margaret Thatcher when she was prime minister. Sir Bernard is now a director of Supporters of Nuclear Energy, and a former consultant to British Nuclear Fuels.

Coastal Guardians Victoria has also worked closely with the now-discredited British botanist David Bellamy, who believes climate change is a myth. He visited Victoria's South Gippsland in 2004 to campaign against wind farms.

The spokesman for Coastal Guardians of Victoria, Tim Le Roy, said he was not worried people would get the wrong idea about his group's connection with Mr Bellamy and Country Guardians and their links to the nuclear industry. "I think the wind industry and its proponents have done the nuclear industry the greatest favour they could have asked for," he said. He believed wind energy would not help cut greenhouse gas emissions generated by energy generation.

Mr Le Roy said he had "a fairly open mind about climate change" and added people in Victoria were right to be angry about wind power because the Bracks Government had caved in to developers and ignored community concerns. "If these windmills were doing any good it would mitigate the concerns."

Mr Le Roy said wind power would not work because it needed back-up power (the national electricity grid is, in fact, already served by back-up power); green groups were split over wind power (all of Australia's major environment groups support wind power); and that wind turbines did not work because they could not store electricity. However, there is no effective way to store large amounts of electricity, regardless of whether it comes from coal or wind, energy experts say.

In NSW, one of the groups using the Landscape Guardians moniker is based in the village of Taralga. Its members are challenging a local wind farm project in the Land and Environment Court. Their president, Paul Miskelly, worked for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation for 32 years and has given talks on nuclear power.

Back to Top

Global warming likely to speed up, CSIRO finds

By Liz Minchin. The Age
May 16, 2006

Global warming is likely to speed up, with a new report showing near record growth in many heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But there is a silver lining to the largely bad news in the CSIRO's annual State of the Air report: the effort to curb ozone-depleting gases is paying off.

The report, being released this week, is based on air monitoring last year at the Bureau of Meteorology's Cape Grim station in Tasmania, and backs up similar findings in the United States.

The CSIRO study found that levels of carbon dioxide - believed to be the single biggest man-made gas contributing to climate change - hit another record high.

"We would expect carbon dioxide to grow every year, but I have been surprised that it has been growing at above average rates for four years straight, because we haven't seen that before," lead author Paul Fraser said. "It's a clear signal that fossil fuels are having an impact on greenhouse gas concentrations in a way we haven't seen in the past."

The trend appears to be getting worse, with air samples from Cape Grim showing carbon dioxide levels increasing at almost double the rate they were in the early 1980s.

Overall, the report said that the combined greenhouse gas rises in 2005 resulted in record levels of greenhouse gas heating, known as radiative forcing, which is driving up the earth's temperature.

The report's silver lining was the finding that gases that damage the earth's protective ozone layer - such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) once commonly used in refrigerators - have been falling since 1997.

The turnaround is the result of the Montreal Protocol, a legally binding international treaty adopted in 1989 by most countries, including Australia, that forced manufacturers to curb their use of CFCs.

Dr Fraser said it was proof that international agreements have a positive effect.

Back to Top

Carbon dioxide soars but ozone gases fall

May 16, 2006, The Age

ATMOSPHERIC levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases grew at record rates last year, but some of the worst ozone-depleting gases have fallen over the past eight years.

The results of testing at the Cape Grim meteorological station in Tasmania will feature at a climate meeting in Sydney today.

Paul Fraser, from CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, said carbon dioxide grew by two parts per million (0.54 per cent) in 2005, the fourth year in a row of above-average growth.

"To have four years in a row of above-average carbon dioxide growth is unprecedented," Dr Fraser said.

"In addition, the trend over recent years suggests the growth rate is accelerating."

He said the 30-year record of air collected at the Cape Grim observation station showed growth rates of just over one part per million in the early 1980s but, in recent years, carbon dioxide had increased at almost twice this rate.

"This is a clear signal that fossil fuels are having an impact on greenhouse gas concentrations in a way we haven't seen in the past," Dr Fraser said. Synthetic greenhouse gases, including hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, were increasing markedly.

Dr Fraser said the highest ever growth rate, a seven parts per trillion or 5.3 per cent increase, was recorded in 2005.

Nitrous oxide also rose by about one part per billion, or 0.3 per cent, in 2005.

Dr Fraser said there was some good news for the atmosphere, too. "Concentrations of methane, the second most important gas responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect, have not grown for six years," he said.

Dr Fraser said the decrease might be due to better exploration and use of natural gas, leading to less leakage.

There also was good news for the ozone hole. "Ozone depleting gases have been decreasing since 1997," Dr Fraser said. "The fall in concentrations has continued in 2005, so we have seen a decline in concentration of ozone-depleting gases for nine years now."

Back to Top

By Nassim Khadem, The Age
May 12, 2006

WIND farm developments in Tasmania and South Australia worth $550 million have been halted because the Federal Government will not increase incentives for energy retailers to invest in wind energy.

Mark Kelleher, managing director of wind power venture Roaring 40s, said it had suspended two big projects because the Government refused to extend the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. The scheme encourages electricity suppliers to invest in renewable energy and is almost fully subscribed.

Mr Kelleher said unless the scheme was extended, or a similar one introduced, the wind industry was doomed.

Roaring 40s had suspended its $300 million Heemskirk wind farm project on the west coast of Tasmania and the $250 million Waterloo wind farm 100 kilometres north of Adelaide.

Mr Kelleher said plans for another 10 projects also had been stopped.

Roaring 40s, a joint venture of Hydro Tasmania and Hong Kong's CLP Group, operates three wind farms in Australia and others overseas.

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell has refused to extend the target scheme, saying it was still not fully subscribed. Senator Campbell wants to introduce a national code giving local councils greater powers to block wind farms if there is community opposition, a move that all states have rejected.

Mr Kelleher said that unless the scheme was extended, all wind farm proposals would be scrapped. Labor environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said the Government was ignoring clean energy. "Roaring 40s announced a $300 million deal to provide three wind farms to China," he said. "They're welcome in China, but not in John Howard's Australia."

Back to Top

By Leon Gettler. The Age , Businesss
May 11, 2006

DOES virtue help the bottom line? Not really, but it doesn't hurt either, according to research from the University of NSW.

A study conducted by John Evans, associate professor at the university's faculty of commerce and economics, found little evidence that ethical investment portfolios outperformed the market simply because of purported goodness.

The study, to be presented at an Institute of Actuaries of Australia forum in Sydney today, tracked the performance over five years of 90 global securities chosen for their ethical rankings.

The stocks were divided into portfolios, grouped by country and industry sector, and also ranked using a method of analysis that factored in important variables that included market capitalisation and growth patterns.

Professor Evans was looking at two key questions: was there any evidence that ethically constructed portfolios underperformed the market; and did the analysis identify ethics as a driver of performance?

His study found no evidence of underperformance. On the other hand, their performance was skewed by the fact that the portfolios had a bias to growth stocks.

"If you were a fund manager, why would you construct a portfolio that's going to lose money?" he said.

As an example, he cited the way ethical investors had lifted their bans on buying uranium shares after BHP Billiton, which covers 45 per cent of Australia's booming resource sector, became a uranium miner when it took over WMC.

"Effectively, what the research is saying is that you get no reward for being ethical but you don't get a lower return for not doing it either," Professor Evans said.

"It just looks like the market, so it (ethical investment) is not what it is cracked up to be."

Back to Top

May 10, 2006 - 4:29PM, The Age

Babcock & Brown Wind Partners (BBW) is raising $120 million to fund a fresh round of wind farm acquisitions in the US.

The investment firm went into a trading halt as it started the bookbuild on a placement to institutional investors it says will be equal in size to about 15 per cent of its existing share capital.

In February this year BBW said the majority of its $227 million cash balance had been reserved for identified projects and acquisitions.

But since then new opportunities to take up stakes in wind farms in the US have appeared on the company's investment horizon, prompting the new share placement.

Of the money raised $50 million will go towards an unnamed potential acquisition in the United States which it says has operating capacity of up to 54 megawatts (MW).

Another $22 million will be spent on buying up the remaining 20 per cent of the company's existing investments in what it calls its "03/04" assets in the US, boosting its stake to 100 per cent.

These projects include stages one and two of the Sweetwater wind farm project in Texas, the Caprock business in New Mexico, Blue Canyon in Oklahoma and Combine Hills in Oregon.

A further $45 million will go towards buying up 37.5 per cent of what BBW calls its "05" assets in the US, again boosting BBW's stake to 100 per cent.

These assets include stage three of the Sweetwater project, the Kumeyaay wind farm in California, Bear Creek in Pennsylvania and Jersey Atlantic in New Jersey.

The new acquisitions will add to the series of purchases BBW has made in Europe and the US since listing in October last year.

"In the short time since listing we have improved the portfolio with a number of excellent acquisitions," BBW chief executive Peter O'Connell said.

BBW says the latest round of purchases will see it exceed earnings forecasts and should contribute about $22 million to net operating cash flows in the 2006/07 financial year.

The investment firm has confirmed its distribution guidance of 10.2 cents per security for 2005/06 and says distributions for 2006/07 will be at least 11.2 cents per security.

The bookbuild is expected to be completed by this Thursday with securities issued at between $1.50 and $1.60.

BBW remains on a trading halt, having last traded on Tuesday night at $1.55.

AAP

Back to Top

By Ian Porter, The Age , Business
May 4, 2006

CAR buyers continued their hot and cold run last month, with the traditional seasonal slowdown exacerbated by the combination of Easter and Anzac Day in the one month.

Average daily sales were down from the March level but still ahead of the previous April as large cars, sports utility vehicles and light commercials continued to lose market share to the fleet of small and light cars flooding in from overseas.

Buyers drove away 3120 new cars each trading day last month, 4.8 per cent fewer than the 3277 bought each day in March. Sales of Ford's Falcon, Toyota's Camry and Holden's Commodore all dropped at least twice as fast, although Ford's Territory and Mitsubishi's 380 both sailed through last month virtually unscathed.

But while they might have been stable, sales of the 380 were still travelling at only half the rate Mitsubishi planned when it launched the car last year.

The company last week revealed a dramatic repositioning of its range of local and imported cars.

It cut list prices across the board and led with a 19 per cent reduction in the base price of the 380, which now starts at $27,990.

All the action was in the light-car classes, with Ford's Fiesta and Holden's Korea-sourced Barina taking some market share from established sector leaders, Toyota and Hyundai.

Ford had an excellent month, with both its European models, the Fiesta and the two-litre Focus, which both markedly boosted their shares of the light and small segments respectively.

While Hyundai lost a little ground in light cars, it more than made up for that with gains in small cars and in the medium sector, where its Sonata gained share in the falling market.

The Korean maker lifted market share for the first four months of the year to 5.3 per cent, enough to move past Mitsubishi and into sixth place.

It was the only brand in the top 10 to lift sales over the four months.

The latest Vfacts figures show it was not just cheap small cars that were selling well. Buyers may well be switching to smaller cars to reduce the effect of surging fuel prices, but owners of large luxury cars are switching to small luxury cars.

DaimlerChrysler was pleased with the sales of its Mercedes-Benz A and B Class models last month. The cars took a combined 31 per cent of the segment for small cars worth more than $40,000.

Audi's A3 models also posted greater sales than a year ago, gaining on the segment leader, BMW's 1 Series. Sales of the 1 Series and BMW's Mini Cooper model both eased under the onslaught from the other German brands.

Sports utility vehicles have taken the biggest hit so far this year but the segment leader, Ford's Territory, registered a steady 69 sales a day last month.

Back to Top

By Leon Gettler, The Age , Business
May 4, 2006

CORPORATIONS are struggling to take ethics seriously and business schools aren't helping them, says KPMG ethicist Attracta Lagan.

She says corporations are falling short on ethics by failing to make it a formal board responsibility.

According to Ms Lagan, today's boards need to develop an ethics strategy and appoint a director to make sure it is implemented.

But at every company? Why should, for example, a financial services company or an engineering company do that if they are not in the business of selling alcohol, tobacco or gaming?

"I bet if you did a survey of how many boards have an ethical strategy that matches their company's impact, they would just look at you and ask: 'What's that got to do with business?'," she said.

"But in the 21st century, no matter what sort of company you are you have to have an ethical strategy because your products have an ethical dimension.

"For me, ethics is something that goes from the boardroom to the back room.

"The board will set the tone, but it's also the back room. It has to be a core competency for everyone in the organisation."

So how do you turn it into a core competency. Tying it to the pay packet would be a start, she said. "If you make it part of the remuneration process, it will become a core competency very quickly. What's rewarded, gets done."

Business schools were not taking it seriously either. "I have lectured at Sydney Uni and it's usually the last week when you are called in to give business greenwash," she said.

"It's not integral to the course because most people think you have to be a philosopher to look at the ethical dimension. They are looking at ethics in that very old traditional sense, they are not looking at in terms of the stakeholder economy that we live in today."

Ms Lagan, a director of corporate citizenship and ethics at KPMG, has co-authored with Brian Moran 3D Ethics, which looks at how companies can implement an ethical strategy.

Part of the process it advocates involves giving people the space to raise difficult issues and report unethical behaviour.

But Ms Lagan said whistleblower protection laws brought in under CLERP 9 and Sarbanes-Oxley would have limited impact.

"They will help but the reality of organisational life, be it public sector, profit sector or not-for-profit sector, is that whistleblowers always lose," she said.

"Whistleblowers are the ultimate sign of a dysfunctional corporate culture. There should have been three or four points beforehand when those people could have raised issues of concern and someone could have acted on it. But typically they cannot raise it until it becomes a major issue and then everyone runs for cover."

Back to Top

By Nassim Khadem, Canberra, The Age
May 4, 2006

State governments will reject a federal proposal to give local councils the power to veto wind farm developments because of community opposition.

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell has released a discussion paper proposing greater industry regulation.

The National Code for Wind Farms suggests local councils be given powers to block wind farms if communities oppose them because of environmental or social concerns.

The paper criticises the Victorian Government's planning controls over wind farms, saying "the current system has disempowered local community input and set the stage for bitter conflicts over the location and siting of wind energy".

Senator Campbell will present a draft code to the states in June, but all Labor states have told The Age they will reject the proposal, and asked why the minister refused to extend the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. The MRET scheme, which encourages electricity suppliers to invest in renewable energy or incur fines, is almost fully subscribed.

Victorian Environment Minister John Thwaites, who has already written to Senator Campbell rejecting a national code, said the minister's decision to block the $220 million Bald Hills wind farm in South Gippsland - based on the remote possibility of the orange-bellied parrot colliding with a turbine - showed he was prepared to politicise wind farm decisions.

Australian Wind Energy Association spokesman Rob Clancy said the system already ensured there was significant community consultation.

But Senator Campbell said the Howard Government had created a massive problem by approving too many wind farms over the past decade. "We developed a policy that . . . has seen only 20 wind turbines in Australia, grow to (almost) 600 wind turbines - 444 in existence and 130 under construction," he said. "I have witnessed this problem over the past couple of years . . . and it wasn't until I flew to Denmark in WA that I realised we needed to take some sort of action."

The wind industry and environment groups have accused Senator Campbell of engaging in an anti-wind farm vendetta following his rejection of the Bald Hills project and subsequent freezing of funding for a proposed WA wind farm.

Mr Campbell wrote to all state and territory environment ministers in November threatening to take away state control of wind farm approvals and federal funding. But yesterday he said that although developments threatening endangered species could be referred to him under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, he did not have the power to change the act to give the Commonwealth ultimate control.

Back to Top

May 3, 2006 - 6:46PM, The Age

The federal government has kicked off moves for a national standard for wind farms after heated community debate over several of the electricity-generating projects.

But the move has immediately run into opposition from the Victorian government, which has told federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell such a code is unnecessary and undesirable.

Senator Campbell, who last month controversially blocked a major wind farm project in Victoria, has now released a discussion paper on a proposed national code.

He emphasised the views of local councils would be given weight under the code.

Victorian wind farm projects do not specifically require local council approval, with the government saying community consultation is drawn through other levels of the planning process.

Senator Campbell said calls for a national standard had grown louder due to the rapid expansion in the number of wind turbines in recent years.

"In 1996, there were only 20 wind turbines in Australia, with a total energy-generating capacity of around 2.7 megawatts," he said.

"Today there are 444 wind turbines ... with a total capacity of about 638 megawatts.

"Another 130 turbines are under construction."

He said the rapid growth of wind farms had generated much community and industry concern and debate.

"While there is a great deal of support for the wind industry, I have received a large number of letters from people across Australia unhappy with the consultation processes and the location and size of proposed developments.

"The multiple planning and regulatory arrangements operating across jurisdictions frustrate and confuse them, raising the legitimate question as to why there is no national standard.

"A key component of the code should take into account the wishes of the local community, often most fairly expressed by the local council," he said.

Senator Campbell blocked the $220 million Bald Hills wind project in Gippsland saying a report found it could kill one rare orange-bellied parrot a year.

Victorian Environment Minister John Thwaites said Senator Campbell's plan was another example of the federal government refusing to act on climate change.

He said he had already written to Senator Campbell, rejecting the proposed code as unnecessary and undesirable.

"We have seen from his orange-bellied parrot decision that Senator Campbell is prepared to politicise wind farm decisions. We don't need his further involvement," Mr Thwaites said.

"His recent intervention only succeeded in jeopardising business certainty and the environment," he said.

"Planning decisions are best made at the local and state level - not in an ivory tower in Canberra."

Australian Wind Energy Association chief executive Dominique La Fontaine said there was no need to add more government planning powers to a system that provided ample opportunities for community consultation.

She welcomed the discussion paper, saying it recognised the important role wind power would continue to play in Australia's energy future. The paper had substantial best practice guidelines, developed in conjunction with the Australian Greenhouse Office, she said.

Anti wind-farm activist Tim Le Roy said a national code was needed because of the behaviour, in particular, of the Victorian government insisting on excluding local councils from the planning process for plants of more than 30 megawatts.

"We hope that these guidelines will bring some sense into the industry, so that they'll take into account landscape, community and environment because they haven't been able to self-regulate themselves," he said.

A spokesman for Senator Campbell later said the government policies under the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target had stimulated more than $1.5 billion in investment in wind energy.

Among these were major projects such as Windy Hill in Queensland, Crookwell in NSW and Challicum in Victoria.

AAP

Back to Top

By Liz Minchin, Environment reporter, the Age
May 3, 2006 - 11:36AM

• LINK Wind farm discussion paper

Local councils could be able to veto wind farms and parts of the Australian coast may be ruled out of bounds for wind turbines, according to a new Federal Government paper on the industry.

In the foreword to the National Code for Wind Farms discussion paper, released this morning, federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell says the rapid expansion of wind farms over the past decade has "generated significant community concern", and that the wind industry is "being given a bad name because the views of local communities are often ignored".

The discussion paper suggests far more regulation of the industry may be needed, either voluntarily or through new state and federal laws.

It also says local communities should have a greater say in the decision-making process, and that parts of Australia's coastline needed to be "preserved unspoiled for future generations to enjoy".

Senator Campbell plans to meet state and territory environment ministers next month to discuss the draft code and discussion paper.

But several states including Victoria have already rejected the need for a national code, with state Environment Minister John Thwaites writing to Senator Campbell last month saying the federal intervention was "unnecessary and undesirable".

Relations between the Victorian and Federal governments have been tense over the past month, since Senator Campbell decided to veto a South Gippsland wind farm over the perceived threat to an endangered parrot.

That decision is now being challenged in the Federal Court by the Victorian Government and the wind farm's developer, Wind Power.

Coastal Guardians Victoria spokesman Tim Le Roy welcomed the proposed national code because "the industry has failed to self regulate and the Victorian Government has been making planning policy for wind farms on the run."

The National Code for Wind Farms discussion paper is available at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/publications/wind-discussionpaper.html

theage.com.au

If you would like to provide comment on this discussion paper, please email renewable@deh.gov.au

Back to Top