Author: Peter Gardner

(first published in Sustain Nov-Dec Newsletter of the Baw Baw Sustainability Network)

We have just bought a battery powered electric lawn mower to mow our 1½ acre Garden and I think it is one of the best purchases we have made. We had done some research on them in preparation for when our petrol mower died, thinking that would be a long while away, but not so. Suddenly we needed a new mower and we had already found one locally.

We bought a 56 Volt Lithium-ion Cordless Mower with a 50cm cut, a steel deck, and a 5 year warranty.  It’s lighter than our old mower of the same size and much quieter. There is no smell of petrol and you can stop and start it in an instant. No pulling on starter cords, especially the ones that need lots of pulls! You just press the green button and pull back the bar at the top of the handle  and hold the bar against the handle as you mow. As soon as you let go of the bar it stops.

When   you finish mowing, you fold it up and you can hose off all the excess grass then put it away for next time. There’s no oil or petrol to leak out and it’s very compact to store in the shed. We use ours as a mulching mower, but it comes with a grass catcher (a mesh bag that clips on the back). The battery lasts about 30 – 40 minutes on one charge, and takes about the same time to charge up. That suits me fine, as I can mow while I’m doing other tasks in the garden, or have a break and a cuppa which is rather nice after 30 minutes mowing. When charged the battery slips easily into a lidded compartment on the top of the mower.

This mower cost $899. Very comparable to a good quality petrol mower, or maybe cheaper.  The cost of a second battery is $299 so certainly not worth getting. It will be interesting to see how long before we need to replace the battery, as although we are saving on petrol, oil and servicing, a new battery is quite expensive. Maybe in 3 years they will be cheaper. We’re very happy to be reducing our carbon footprint by using our solar panels to mow the lawn.

 

 

Over a hundred diesel generators are in the process of being placed on the site of the old Briquette Factory at Morwell, (decommissioned in 2009), in order to provide back-up electricity supply on the really hot, high demand days of the coming summer. Despite our local Latrobe City Councillors trying to make a big deal of this when the Minister overrode their discretion to object, it really is not something to be too concerned about for the following reasons.

1. The probability of them not ever being turned on is 61%

2. The probability of them being run for a maximum of 8 hours in the three months they will be there is just 32% and the probability of them being run for longer than 20 hours is almost zero. These probabilities were calculated on an analysis of the likely weather conditions, the existing generating capacity and other measures to abate demand on extreme weather days

3. AEMO made the decision to install the generators here, based on the scientific imperative

4. It is only ever intended to run these generators as the very last resort and a lot of things would have to go wrong before this happens

5. The siting at Morwell as opposed to at Hazelwood is because it is right near the lower voltage – 22 kV power lines that used to connect the briquette factory. The Hazelwood power lines carried loads of up to 660 kV, which would be unsuitable for the 102 MW output of the combined generation capacity for these diesel generators.

6. If the generators were activated, it would be when north winds were blowing and would take the noise, exhaust fumes and particulate matter away from the Morwell township and in any case the amount of pollution would be less than any of the coal fired power stations, notwithstanding that the pollution is exhausted from stacks at almost ground level compared with the 100 metre stacks of a power station

7. Extreme demand only ever lasts for spikes of at most 3 hours.

8. The hierarchy of events to respond to higher demand on extreme weather days is  a) Power up the coal fired plants to maximum capacity b) Increase the amount of hydro power c) Fire up the existing gas fired peaker units that exist around the state d) Import power from Tasmania via Basslink and the other states by one of the inter-connectors e) Demand Damping, whereby customers voluntarily agree to reduce their demand and get rewarded financially for doing so.

The important thing to remember is that these generators are a transitional arrangement and are only potentially needed because there is not enough dispatchable power in the system; things such as pumped hydro and solar thermal power stations with storage. These facilities are being built now and should ease the situation next summer and progressively more so over the years as more renewable energy comes online over a wider area of the country. This will ensure that the electricity grid is more constantly supplied with those very useful electrons.

The following is taken from the Shire’s recent EnvironmentConnect publication:

“At the November 21 meeting, Council resolved to pledge its support for the Victorian Government’s TAKE2 initiative as follows:

“East Gippsland Shire Council is committed to tackling climate change. We have a role in maintaining, protecting and enhancing the regions environment. We do this by using our resources more efficiently, by reducing our everyday impacts, planning for changing conditions and encouraging the people of East Gippsland to do the same.”

“TAKE2 has been developed as a part of the Victorian Government’s commitment to climate change. It is a collective pledge and community awareness program to help Victoria reach zero net emissions by 2050 to keep global temperature rise to below two degrees.

“There is already strong community support for the TAKE2 initiative with businesses and individuals across East Gippsland already participating in the initiative. Across East Gippsland 93 pledges have been made, giving East Gippsland the highest number of pledges across the Gippsland region. With the top three pledge actions being: buy products that include recycled content; install insulation in ceilings, walls and/or floors; and install solar photovoltaic panels.

“We encourage East Gippsland individuals, business, government, educational and community organisations to visit the TAKE2 website, make the pledge and make a difference to help Victoria reach net zero by 2050.

The Take2 pledge is a small step in the right direction. It is a recognition that climate change exists, is a problem and that something must be done about it. As usual there was opposition from some members of this very conservative body to take this small step. Until Labors’ election in 2014 local government was the leader in climate action – a role that has largely been taken over by the State of Victoria.

The Bairnsdale Advertiser (1.12) noted Cr Ben Buckley “questioned the fear factor of the pledge” although he did not elaborate on what this ‘factor’ was. Ben is of the school that current climate change is a natural phenomenon and not induced by human activity – demonstrably untrue as I hope to show in a later blog. He is certainly not alone in this as almost half the population of Gippsland incorrectly attributes climate change at least partially to natural causes. This shows a widespread lack of knowledge about the greenhouse effect. Even so Cr Buckley voted for the motion to sign.

Cr. Ellis in turn was worried that a change of government in 12 months (elections are due November 2018) would have a deleterious effect on the shire if it signed. It then emerged that it was more likely that the shire would suffer financially if it did not sign and a planning officer stated “that it’s not unusual for government to link grant funding to policy issues…We do it ourselves, through our community grants.”

Again this is a small step in the right direction and we thank the Shire for taking it and Sustainability Victoria for making it available. But let us bring the ‘netzero’ target forward to 2030.

A recent blog of mine pointed out that having an opinion on climate change is irrelevant as far as the eventual outcome is concerned. The point being that even if we don’t do something about it it’s going to happen anyway. This also applies to the opinions of all climate denialists – those that completely disregard, ignore or even fight against the science and the evidence.

On the other hand personal opinions have a very strong influence on politics. And whilst in the long run the opinions of the ‘do nothings’ and ‘don’t knows’ does not matter politics is the battlefield on which we must fight the issue now. Vested interests and those fighting change have long recognised and used the fact that to influence public opinion is vitally important.

Recently Sustainability Victoria commissioned a highly reliable survey of the attitudes and opinions of Gippslanders on climate change. See here.  The results are interesting. The good news is that an overwhelming 94% of locals accept that climate change is happening and thought that it is at least partially caused by humans. A further 69% indicated that climate change ‘requires urgent action now’. They are concerned about the impact of climate change on bushfires (83%) drought and water supply (70%) and heatwaves (63%).

Unfortunately climate change is at the bottom of our list of priorities. The other bad news is there is a major disconnect between the recognition that climate change is happening and what is causing it.  Only 9% correctly think that current climate change is a direct result of human activity. A further 26% think that it is mainly caused by human activity and a whopping 48% think the causation is partly human and partly natural, 11% think it is mainly natural and 4% entirely natural.

These opinions probably arise from a number of misconceptions including confusing climate with weather.  But the failure to ‘connect the dots’ indicates a widespread misunderstanding, or ignorance, of the role of the greenhouse effect. Accepting the cause is natural or that nature is even partly responsible removes much of the incentive for action.

Our political representatives, both state and federal across greater Gippsland are either Liberals or Nationals. Both these parties are reluctant to adopt climate mitigating policies and include a small number of vocal and powerful climate change deniers. New England is an area that is at the frontier of fossil fuel development of both coal and CSG in Australia. As the by-election there indicates the Nationals are very hard to budge and may be the last to change even though their actions in promoting coal and CSG are harmful to all electors including their supporters and the direct opposite of what is urgently needed.

We need politicians – either independents or a party that has some conservative appeal and is not perceived of as ‘left’ – to contest the seats of these parties and of the ‘climate deniers’ in their ranks in particular. But even they will not gain much traction until much larger numbers of country people realise that climate change is being caused by our own activities. In particular burning fossil fuels.

The Bairnsdale Advertiser (BA) of December 1 noted, under the header “Mother Nature’s Gone Mad” on the unusual weather we are currently experiencing. A hot dry spell for most of November was, according to predictions from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) to be followed by a “significant rain event”. The BA noted that “Mother Nature is playing havoc with East Gippsland; it’s been hot, there are bushfires, it smells, and the heavens are about to open.”

The newspaper is describing the effects of global warming on our weather and for “Mother Nature” substitute weather. East Gippsland has been dry and relatively warm for most of the year with record breaking heat in November. These factors meant an early fire season with the first bushfires in late September (admittedly escaped controlled burns) with the fire bans being brought in on October 16 – also a record. The same day that the BA article was published a substantial bushfire was still burning at Cann River. The smell – methane from rotting vegetation on the shores of Jones Bay – was caused by lower water levels and combined with the heat and an easterly breeze wafted the ‘bad egg gas’ smell across town.

The BOM predictions were fairly accurate despite a bad press and criticisms in the social media, almost all from Melbourne. The good news is that town and country received a general soaking rain of about 90mm spread across three days – the mid-point of the BOM predictions for Gippsland of 60-120mm. Thankfully predicted floods did not eventuate as thunderstorms, and hence very heavy downpours, did not occur. The rains will definitely assist our farmers and dampen down the fire season for a week or so, although already strong westerly winds are drying the countryside.

The weather has been showing many of the influences of climate change including long dry periods followed by less frequent but heavier rainfall events. With each degree of temperature increase the atmosphere holds as much as 7% extra moisture. Likewise the long hot and dry spell is typical bushfire weather with much longer fire seasons predicted. This is already happening. Since global warming is the result of humanity’s production of greenhouse gases it follows that we need an ‘emergency effort’ to firstly stop producing the gases (using fossil fuels) and then drawdown the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to safe levels as quickly as possible.

It is ominous that the BOM predictions for the rest of this month indicate that there is more than an 80% chance of coastal Gippsland (including Bairnsdale) “exceeding the median maximum temperature”. See image above. In other words it looks like another hotter than usual month.

Letter published Bairnsdale Advertiser (1.12)

Dear Sir,

I write in response to the full page advertisements by Kalbar Resources in the East Gippsland News (22.11) and Bairnsdale Advertiser (24.11)

The advertisement claims that the Fingerboards mineral sands project will “create jobs and protect the environment.” This is so much ‘greenwash’.

Missing from the ads and not required in any Environment Effects Statement is the amount of greenhouse gas – mainly carbon dioxide – that the project will produce. Estimates of this are over 200,000 tons per annum.

For those of your readers not familiar with the basic physics (like some recent correspondents) the greenhouse effect is what keeps our planet warm. Since the industrial revolution the burning of fossil fuels has increased the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by more than 40% and the planet has warmed by an average of one degree.

Whilst this may not seem much it is already heavily influencing extreme weather events, especially heatwaves, and is causing an unknown number of fatalities amongst the young and elderly in Gippsland. The heatwave preceding Black Saturday in 2009 caused an extra 370 fatalities in south east Australia on top of the 172 tragically killed by the bushfires.

With the warming also comes ocean expansion and sea level rise. Even the modest rises predicted by 2100 will see Lakes Entrance regularly going under and the Gippsland Lakes doomed. Well before this date climate refugees in their millions will be fleeing from low lying lands in Bangladesh, China and many other places. The last time greenhouse gas concentrations were at current levels (about 4 million years ago) the sea level was 26 m higher than it is now.

This means that all major projects in Gippsland should aim to be carbon neutral. Perhaps as a community service Kalbar can produce a ‘carbon budget’ showing how this neutrality will be achieved. To paraphrase well-known barrister Julian Burnside if you can’t fix climate nothing else matters.

 

 

(Press Release from Lowanna College first published in ‘Sustain’ Nov-Dec Newsletter of the Baw Baw Sustainability Network)                      

Lowanna College, Newborough has been selected as a finalist for the 2018 Zayed Future Energy Prize. This annual award celebrates achievements that reflect impact, innovation, long-term vision and leadership in renewable energy and sustainability.  

A group of dedicated students, assisted by Lowanna’s Sustainability Representative Judith Stewart, have formulated a plan to deliver the school approximately $2.5M in energy savings over the next 25 years. This represents a financial saving of approximately $100,000 per year, and a significant step in the transition to renewable energy.

The plan was submitted to the Zayed Future Energy Prize panel, the foremost international organization recognizing achievements and innovation in renewable energy and sustainability. Zayed’s selection panel reported that Lowanna’s students had demonstrated innovation, leadership, and long-term vision in their submission. The students have also forged meaningful links with students from last year’s winning high school; Huonville High School in regional Tasmania.            

Judith hopes other schools will follow Lowanna’s example, as Zayed’s Oceania Global High Schools category is open to all high schools world-wide with students between 11-19 years of age. There are also categories for corporations, not-for-profits, and individuals. The global high schools category awards $100,000 to each winning school, with Lowanna planning to spend the majority of the money on a solar panel installation which will boost to the school’s clean energy and sustainability resources.  

The winners of the Zayed Future Energy Prize are chosen by a prestigious jury that includes former heads of state, leading energy experts, and world-renowned personalities – all committed to accelerating the adoption of renewable energy and advocating sustainable development. More information about the Zayed Future Energy Prize can be found here.

 

 

A question people frequently ask is “Do you believe in climate change?” But questions of science are not matters of opinion. They are either true or false, right or wrong, a fact or an opinion. The validity of such a ‘fact’ can be clearly demonstrated, and the demonstration repeated with the same outcome. Do people ever ask “Do you believe the earth is a globe?” or “Do you believe in gravity?” “Do you believe in climate change” is definitely the wrong question.

That climate change has happened many times before in Earth’s history is documented and not in dispute. The differences between natural climate change with the earth slowly changing between periods of hot and cold and today’s global warming are twofold. In terms of geological time the warming is happening in an instant, not over thousands or even millions of years as would naturally occur. And the evidence is overwhelming that it is man-made.

Despite this the general public remains poorly informed about simple aspects of science – partly through an inadequate education system and partly through the lack of reliable information (or even worse – misinformation) in a largely ignorant, or even antagonistic, media. In a recent blog on a balanced and fair media I mentioned that that some of the letters to the editor of the Bairnsdale Advertiser (BA) on climate change are belief or faith based and have complete disregard for even the most basic science. Some, I suggested, were bordering on being ‘completely loony’.

An example of this was recently published in the letters column of the BA. It was thankfully short but opened with the sentence “99.9% of climate change is related to the relationship of the Earth to the Sun and also any variation in the Earth’s angle of its axis to the Sun, which has been caused by earthquakes.” The letter went on to dismiss the role of the greenhouse effect in keeping the planet warm. Whilst it is true that our energy comes to us in the form of radiation from the sun the earth is kept warm by a ‘blanket’ of trace element gases the most important of which is carbon dioxide. These gases allow the radiant energy to pass through but trap much of the energy reflected back off the earth’s surface.

Unfortunately these ‘opinions’ on climate change are common and to be found amongst the highest elected officials in the land including our own elected representatives in Gippsland, both state and federal. Our politics and government should always be based on fact, certainly on ‘best science’. Without it we are in big trouble.

 

A Gippsland journalist recently stated on the social media that their work they should be “balanced, fair and impartial”. It goes without saying that the media should be ‘fair and balanced’ in their approach to controversial issues. A number of points can be made about this and journalism in general.

From the outset it should be noted the Murdoch media is neither fair nor balanced and continues to pursue an ultra-conservative political agenda and in the case of climate change an anti-science one. Before the invasion of Iraq Murdoch media around the world editorialised in its favour in 172 of its 173 papers. Fairfax’s Melbourne Age at least tried to present a balanced view on this which extended to the letters column and resulted in the publication of some strange correspondence.

The ‘two sides to every story’ if taken to extremes can lead to absurdities, such as giving equal time and space to someone stating the earth is flat, thus creating a false or contrived debate about established science.  This is precisely what has happened with global warming with the media utilising lies, distortions and uninformed opinions (false news?) to make the balance. This approach also allows the media to be manipulated and pressurised by its owners – both the government owned and privately financed media – for political purposes.

What is a fair and balanced view on climate change? Certainly not whether it is happening or that it is human caused – both of which are clearly established in the science. A balanced approach should give the whole range of possible scenarios including the worst case. This outcome hardly gets a mention at the moment anywhere in the media but is the most likely with business as usual.

Locally I can comment only on the East Gippsland News (EGN) reporting where, except for the letters column in the Bairnsdale Advertiser and during election times, any discussion on climate change is absent from its columns. The ‘balance’ in the letters columns means a range of views from the well-informed to the completely loony. In the four EGN papers there has been a vacuum on this issue for more than 10 years.  One exception to this – which made the headlines – was a joke by science guru ‘Dr Karl’ about sea level rise being a tourist attraction as Lakes Entrance goes under. This in turn was treated seriously by the editor and so given prominence.

By comparison with climate change same sex marriage – a minor question – has dominated our media for several months. Following the plebiscite – a waste of $120 million for political purposes – the Melbourne Age on 16 November carried the first 8 full pages on this issue. Popular yes, but hardly balanced. No one will die from this issue but people are already being killed by climate change influenced extreme weather events in Gippsland.

 

Bairnsdale is a tree friendly town. It has a treed median strip along the Princes Highway and Main Street from the western edge of town almost to the river with natives to the west of the hospital and exotics in the garden in the main part of town. Along the Mitchell River the Bairnsdale Urban Landcare Group (BULG) are gradually restoring the native vegetation and on the south-west side from the old port there is a wonderful avenue of plane trees.

I have written frequently of the importance of trees as a ‘carbon store’. See here and here. It is an often repeated slogan that trees are the only form of ‘carbon capture and storage’ that actually works. I have made a few calculations of the carbon stored in some of the town’s trees. The avenue of 14 well established plane trees – a deciduous hardwood – are of indeterminate age. Each stores about 32 tons of carbon or 100 tons of CO2 equivalent. The remnant eucalypts (see image above) along the river of which there remains a small number store upwards of 90 tons of carbon each. As a carbon store the hardwoods almost double the softwoods and this difference increases with age. In another example seven attractive Eucalypts (spotted gum?) found at the north end of Pyke Street store about 5 tons of carbon each.

The plane trees as well as being a carbon store provide both shade and have a cooling effect via transpiration. The leaf area of a mature plane tree is many times the size of that of a eucalypt of comparable age or size. On a very hot days being under the plane trees by the river is the coolest spot in town. The expansion of the flying fox population from their main roosting site near the junction of McCulloch and Riverine Streets may be a threat to these magnificent trees. This expansion which has occurred the previous three summers (but so far not this year) may possibly be influenced by climate change but more probably is directly related to the food supply. Each time the plane trees suffered substantial leaf loss but have since recovered.

Trees such as the plane tree offer a double effect in terms of climate with mitigation via temperature moderation and with the removal of the most potent greenhouse gas – carbon dioxide – from the atmosphere. This is commonly known as carbon drawdown. Whilst the various local governments and volunteer organisations like BULG have done an admirable job there is plenty of ‘room for improvement’. The number of trees in the urban area could easily be doubled with an emphasis on shade trees near bitumen and built up surfaces combined with a mixture of natives where space is available.