South Australia - State News - December 07
Back to :- News Reports Index | Back to:Teachers for Forests Home Page | Combined Interstate News Index | Australian Capital Territory;
New South Wales; Northern Territory; Queensland; South Australia; Tasmania; Victoria; Western Australia
11/12/07 Backing for Adelaide hot rock power plan AAP; South Australia; Dec 07
06/12/07 Australia can lead the way on climate, Kenneth Davidson, The Age; Opinion
03/12/07 Big emission cuts are affordable, study finds The Age
December 11, 2007 - 1:54PM
An exploration company has been granted a licence to search for a source of geothermal power in the Adelaide suburbs.
Torrens Energy Ltd has been granted a licence to establish heat flows over the Port Adelaide region, in Adelaide's north-west.
If successful the company could tap into a source of clean energy that could boost Adelaide's electricity supplies and provide power for a future desalination plant.
But Mineral Resources Minister Paul Holloway said any development would have to adhere to strict environmental safeguards and be in sympathy with both the natural and made-made environments.
He said the company also had given assurances it would not impact on the Port River Dolphin Sanctuary, the only place in the world where dolphins are found within the confines of a major city.
Torrens Energy chief executive Chris Matthews said the exploration licence was an historic step for his company.
"We believe our project area has the potential to provide a clean, geothermal-based, green energy source that could potentially provide baseload power for Adelaide, with no fuel needs of its own, zero emissions, and just as importantly, no waste materials," Mr Matthews said.
"An added bonus is the fact the licence area is also central to SA's main electricity supply infrastructure and industry, which will enable us to easily and cost-effectively connect into the national electricity grid if our project is successful.
"This provides us with a significant commercial advantage over other companies exploring in areas that are unsupported by current electricity infrastructure."
Torrens Energy has already started drilling at its initial hot rocks exploration project at Port Augusta, in South Australia's mid-north.
It expects to be in a position to start exploratory drilling at Port Adelaide in 12 to 18 months.
However, the company said it would need further approvals from the state government to start its drilling program.
Mr Matthews said the company was excited about the prospect of direct geothermal desalination of seawater in the region, given the state's current water crisis.
"The use of geothermal energy for direct desalination has the potential to improve water security without placing an additional burden on the state's power supplies, at the same time reducing our reliance on Murray River water," he said.
"South Australia has rapidly growing demands for both water and power, and the company believes that coupling renewable sources of power generation with a desalination process is essential to meet the requirements of a sustainable future."
Kenneth Davidson, The Age; Opinion
December 6, 2007
'WE HAVE already entered an era of dangerous climate change. We now know that the dynamics and inertia of our social and economic systems, if left unchecked or inadequately addressed, will sweep us on to ever more dangerous change and then, within a decade, to the start of an era of simply catastrophic climate change where humans will lose all control over what happens and most of the globe becomes unliveable." (Extract from the draft of Climate Code Red, to be published by Friends of the Earth in January.)
This statement sums up the scientific consensus about the urgency of the issue. Rudd Labor's target — a 60% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 — effectively supports a three-degree increase in global temperature. This will put the world in the zone of catastrophic and uncontrollable climatic change, which will make most of the planet unfit for life.
Even reductions consistent with a two-degree increase in global temperatures are now seen as reckless, given the risks. According to Australia's leading climate scientist, Graeme Pearman, the global climate-science community has indicated that changes of even one or two degrees have the potential to bring about significant global exposures to coastal erosion, sea-level rise, water supply and extreme climatic events. He said the number of humans affected by a two-degree change may be counted in the hundred of millions.
Given the science and the risks, what should the Rudd-led Australian delegation commit to at Bali? The responsible position is to try to get the conference to agree to a set of targets that are consistent with global warming of no more than one to 1.5 degrees by 2050. This can be achieved only by deep cuts that should begin before Kyoto Mark I ends in 2012 and include mandatory interim targets and an ultimate objective of achieving global cuts of 80% by 2050. To reach this overall target, developed countries will have to achieve cuts of at least 90%. But events at Bali suggest few countries are ready to make this sort of commitment.
Rudd can make high-sounding aspirational noises about how he wishes to build bridges between the Western industrial countries and the Asian tigers to achieve some sort of consensus on targets. But it is fair to say that what will drive countries at the meeting will be perceptions of their own national interest.
So what is Australia's national interest? First it must do its bit to try to persuade the more recalcitrant countries to understand the urgency of the problem and put in place policies that significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions. These cuts must aim to get results within the next decade or the outlook for life on Earth for most of its species, including humans, is likely to be exceedingly grim. Having done that, Australia should get on with implementing the policies that will cut Australian emissions.
It won't do to bleat about what other countries are doing or not doing to cut their emissions as an excuse for not acting unilaterally to achieve deep cuts. The sooner Australia makes adjustments to cut its greenhouse emissions, the lower the transition costs. As an early adaptor to climate change, Australia will be at a competitive advantage compared with countries that delay structural adjustments to both mitigate the impact and prevent climate change.
If no global agreement is achieved before extreme weather events kick in to make life nasty, brutish and short, Australia's more timely adjustment will still give us a lifestyle advantage.
If the nations can't get their act together in time to avoid going over the edge of what top NASA climate scientist James Hansen calls "the climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption" then it won't matter much except for the handful of global survivors who will eke out a miserable existence at the poles.
So what should Australia be doing? Here in Victoria the authorities might think twice about the Port Phillip channel deepening to avoid facilitating sea-level rises and tidal surges; consider firing base load power stations with natural gas rather than brown coal; and put a moratorium on the construction of new freeways and road tunnels and desalination plants in favour of investment in rail and water conservation. If Brumby Labor doesn't come to its senses, Rudd Labor should use its financial, legislative and constitutional clout to impose sensible economic and environmental policies on Victoria.
Bad politics? No. The climate itself and the science of climate change is pushing public opinion faster than politicians can adjust.
Just ask Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, who in the federal election experienced a 1% swing against him in the context of an overall swing of 6% to Labor because of the well-founded belief by voters that the Brumby Government has already stitched up a public-private partnership deal to build the east-west tunnel through the electorate.
Kenneth Davidson is a senior columnist.
December 3, 2007, The Age
MAKING very deep cuts in Australia's greenhouse emissions would be affordable and compatible with continued growth in national income, employment and living standards, according to modelling commissioned by the Climate Institute.
The Monash University Centre for Policy Studies modelled cuts of 40%, 60% and 100% in net emissions from 1990 levels by 2050.
The incoming Labor Government is committed to a target of a 60% cut on 2000 levels by 2050.
The modelling shows that if Australia reversed its rising pollution by 2012, reduced emissions by 20% by 2020 and became carbon neutral by 2050 growth would slow, but only marginally.
GDP in 2050 would be 4.2% lower than if nothing was done, while the economy would grow at an annual average of 2.8% between the base year of 2005 and 2050 compared with 2.9% if no action was taken.
While energy prices would increase, they would fall from some 6% of average income to 4% by 2050.
A 60% reduction in net emissions would mean GDP was 2.8% lower by 2050 than it would have been with no action. Consumption per person would be little affected.
The Climate Institute's chief executive John Connor said decisive Australian leadership would be a prudent investment and avoid the economic risks associated with playing catchup in the emerging global clean energy economy.
MICHELLE GRATTAN
06/12/07 Australia can lead the way on climate Kenneth Davidson, The Age; Opinion