Australia's carbon budget is being whittled away

T

he World Wildlife Fund, or WWF, yesterday released analysis suggesting that if the world were serious about limiting global warming to 2 degrees, Australia would consume its remaining allowable budget for carbon emissions within 11 years.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, the global carbon budget is an attempt to quantify the cumulative amount of greenhouse gases the world’s people could emit if we wanted to have a reasonable probability of keeping temperature rise to a particular level.

Read Tristan Edis’ story on the Climate Spectator - “11 years left on Australia's carbon budget.”

A U.S. disconnect between energy and growth attributed to technology and government policy

A

 disconnect between energy and growth in the U.S. has been articulated by Climate Spectator’s Tristan Edis.

Edis, the Editor at Climate Spector, attributes the disconnect to technology and government policy.

He writes: “The report projects that U.S. energy use will grow at an insipid 0.3% per year from 2013 through to 2040 far below expected rates of economic growth (2.4%/year) and population growth (0.7%/year).”

His story - “Energy demand disconnects from economic growth” – is illustrated with graphs and charts.

'Open for business' - but carbon ideology holds the door ajar

Climate Spectator
editor, Tristan Edis.

Yes, Australia is, as the PM Tony Abbott says. “Open for business”.

And it is, but only for those within the confines of narrow Abbott-ideology that favours the carbon intensive way of life, ideas embraced by his coalition-cohort.

Australia’s renewable energy industry does not register with the coalition’s ideological views of how Australia should develop and has drawn a rather sharp response from Climate Spectator Editor, Tristan Edis.

Writing in a story headed: “Slashing the RET – it’s about defending mates, not consumers” he says, “This is definitely not about power prices, it’s about defending the corporate establishment against change they should have seen coming.”

An example of the damage cuts to the renewable energy target have caused is illustrated in a story published in this week’s issue of the Weekly Times.

A story headed: “Keppel Prince at Portland to cut 100 jobs due to RET uncertainty" says: “Engineering company Keppel Prince, based in Premier Denis Napthine’s electorate, today announced it would sack 100 staff.”

'Infrastructure PM' or "destruction PM?'

Opposition leader,
Tony Abbott -
infrastructure
Prime Minister?

A massive upgrade of our public transport infrastructure is the least we can do to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

However, the leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, wants to be known as the “infrastructure PM” taking Australia in precisely the wrong direction and deeper into the climate change embrace.

As the “infrastructure PM, Mr Abbott wants more roads and associated facilities to enhance the wealth of private enterprise and let those of us who depend upon public transport to wrestle with a vastly inadequate and crumbling edifice.

Tristan Edis wrote in Climate Spectator in his story headed: “Abbott’s infrastructure tunnel vision” that the Opposition leader’s 21^st century vision seems singularly focussed on 20^th century roads.

“I would like to think that should we win the election, I will be known as an infrastructure prime minister, because we need the infrastructure of the 21^st century if we are going to have the prosperity, if we are going to have the productivity Australian people need,” Mr Abbott said.

Smith overlooks the simple answer - energy not used is effectively energy saved

Last night’s “Ten Bucks a Litre” was, some have argued, an attempt by Dick Smith to shock people out of their complacency.

Tristan Edis.

Tristan Edis, of the Climate Spectator, saw that as useful, but beyond that a series of omissions during the program made the challenges of understanding the challenges confronting us seemingly more daunting than the really are.

Edis argued that the most important of omissions was Smith’s failure to discuss and acknowledge the importance of energy savings.

Saving energy, the root of the climate change conversation, is, like saving money, arrives from not using it in the first place. And with money, if it is not spent in the first place, then it is effectively saved.

Edis ends his story: “Where Dick Smith went wrong”, with the thought: “Once we look at a combination of technologies, starting with energy efficiency, the challenge of decarbonizing energy becomes far more manageable.”

Dick Smith discussed Australia's energy dilemmas on an ABC program - “Ten Bucks a Litre” on Thursday, August 1.