Gippsland Climate News

Bairnsdale 8.12.2014

In this election I have been careful not to run a scare campaign. Perhaps I should have. Ten years ago (i.e. 2004) I wrote the following:

“Several things about global warming are already certain. Firstly the “greenhouse effect” exists for without the presence of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere there could be no life on earth as we know it whatsoever. The planet would be too cold with low CO2 in the atmosphere. Secondly Carbon Dioxide is a prominent Greenhouse gas (though not the only one) and the amount of this gas in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing over the last 150 years. This increase is a result of human activities – in particular the burning of fossil fuels. Finally computer models have been predicting for more than 30 years that this increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to increased average global temperatures commonly referred to as ‘global warming’.”

This is what is happening and is measured by the CSIRO, BOM and other reputable agencies around the world. My 2004 words continued:

“Some of the predictions made 20 years ago are already occurring: the average earth temperature is at its hottest since measurements began; the summer of 2003 was the hottest in the northern hemisphere for 500 years; many glaciers and ice caps are in retreat or thinning. Thus we are living in the middle of a global experiment. The debate between scientists is over. Will the changes be on the conservative side and manageable or on the high side and disastrous? The relationship between lung cancer and smoking is a classic, and forbidding, example. The vested interests pursued a strong campaign of misinformation, significantly delaying the general acceptance of scientific evidence on the dangers of smoking – a rear guard action, and it was many years before the obvious became accepted fact.

“The political power of the oil and coal industries is far, far greater than that of the tobacco lobby. Currently they have the most senior politician of the most powerful country (on earth) in their pocket (George Bush). And they no doubt fund many organisations to search for so called “scientific” information favourable to their cause. They have the power to delay ameliorating changes almost indefinitely, thus eventually exaggerating the effects of global warming. Perhaps we all should be preparing for a worst-case scenario.” (to be continued)

A recent media release from Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council (WPPC) and the Save Westernport group was on the threat to the marine environment from the increase in shipping due to the Kawasaki brown coal to hydrogen project in the Latrobe Valley (see MR here). The good news is that shallow vessels will be exporting the hydrogen as “the trial (pilot) project involves ships with shallow draughts entering Westernport to pick up” the hydrogen. Thus, the immediate threat to the marine environment of Westernport Bay is limited.

The bad news is that the whole process is energy intensive and that the hydrogen “has [to be] trucked to Hastings and converted to liquid, by freezing to -250 degrees centigrade. The hydrogen must be kept at this temperature as it’s shipped to Japan” – energy that is still mainly supplied by our dirty, greenhouse gas generating, brown coal power. The hydrogen process will only be carbon neutral or ‘green’ when all the steps of production and distribution are supplied by renewables. I have blogged on this on a number of occasions (see here and here).

The media release noted this “project has involved $50 million dollars each by State and Federal Government and $400 million from Japan. This does not include government spending on carbon capture and storage which is going ahead in parallel. It is not part of the trial but is proposed to be part of a commercial stage if it goes ahead. Environment groups including Ninety Mile against Carbon Storage are vehemently opposed to this associated Carbon Capture and Storage. So-called ‘blue hydrogen’* projects, that rely on unproven CCS technology, would entrench the unnecessary use of fossil fuels in energy production.”

Julia Stockigt, Secretary of Save Westernport noted the “$500 million project to convert brown coal to hydrogen is by no means a green energy project. $100 million towards the trial is funded by Australian taxpayers – there’s no future in brown hydrogen, and it is putting Westernport Bay at risk”, and “It’s money that would be far better invested in truly valuable “green energy” projects that protect our future, and that global energy markets increasingly demand.”

I have long been of the opinion that market forces would mean that projects such as this would not proceed. However, the direct funding of the project by both State and Federal governments and indirect funding via the carbon capture and storage distorts the normal economic process. This is another fossil fuel subsidy making our ability to help control the climate emergency more difficult. The time has come to phase out all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies as soon as possible – starting with this increasingly absurd brown coal to hydrogen project.

*blue hydrogen usually refers to hydrogen made with fossil fuel gas.

Following the passing of offshore wind legislation in Federal Parliament* the boom in this industry in Gippsland is taking off. There are now four companies with coal fired generator scale projects off the Gippsland coast – a location with the advantages of some of the best wind speeds in Australia and a close proximity to infrastructure. Just before Xmas Bluefloat Energy became the latest company to announce a 1300 MW offshore wind project in Gippsland although its exact location is not known.

Renew Economy noted Bluefloat’s “first project will be the Greater Gippsland Offshore wind project located within the Bass Strait. The project will seek to serve as a renewable energy replacement for the region’s brown coal power stations slated to close and take advantage of the established electricity network infrastructure in the region.”

The Victorian government is also promoting offshore wind with grants to three of these companies. The most advanced is the Star of the South – awarded $19.5 million for “pre-construction development activities for the 2200 MW project” -situated off the Ninety Mile beach in South Gippsland. The Star of the South is the oldest and most advanced of these projects.

The Macquarie Group’s Great Southern Offshore Wind Farm is a recipient of $16.1 million for “Pre-feasibility works to investigate the potential for a 1000 MW offshore wind farm off the Bass Coast. If constructed the project could result in a total investment of approximately $4.0 billion and the creation of over 1,500 jobs.

Flotation Energy’s Seadragon Offshore Wind Farm is a recipient of $2.3 million. Interestingly the grant is to complete “scoping studies and surveys for a 1500 MW offshore wind farm off the Gippsland coast (Seaspray), including working with oil and gas facility operators to assess the potential for onshore and offshore asset re-use”. The company noted the “Gippsland Offshore Wind Farm is a nationally significant energy transition project. It offers the potential for oil and gas asset re-use, re-purposing, and new employment for the capable local energy workforce. It will produce renewable baseload power to supply the grid and enable green hydrogen…projects to proceed.”

It estimated that there will be a total of over 7000 jobs during construction – not counting the latest Bluefloat Energy project. The projects take 6 years or more to come to fruition and there is a need for them to be fast tracked so that our brown coal fired generators can be retired much earlier than currently predicted. Unfortunately our local parliamentarians – both State and Federal – have been missing in action.

*this legislation was delayed for years by the Coalition government. See here.

In an article ‘Time is running out’ by Philip Heath published in the Bass Coast Post the dire predicament of the Inverloch surf beach was examined in detail. Heath claims that the “next few months are critical in the fight to save the Inverloch surf beach” and “at the current rate, the dunes will be gone in four years. Once the dunes are gone, we will lose the beach, as the dunes are a reserve supply of sand for the beach.”

Philip noted “Our research indicates the main contributing factors for the rapid changes are increases in the frequency and intensity of erosion-inducing storms and bigger ocean swells, combined with rising sea levels. Storms are now occurring so frequently that the dunes don’t have time to recover, as may have occurred previously. In addition, sand eroded from the surf beach has been pushed into Andersons Inlet, where it cannot assist with surf beach replenishment.”

And “These factors are very likely linked to climate change, which we expect will be confirmed by the current Victorian Government Coastal Hazard Assessment, due to report in early 2022. The Assessment is important work that will form the basis of a long-term adaptation strategy for Inverloch and adjoining sections of coastline. However, the report will not be released until at least the end of March 2022. Meanwhile, the surf beach dunes have eroded a further 10 metres since the announcement.”

Philip Heath is calling for a number of short-term solutions including “proposing dune renourishment over the Wreck Creek and Flat Rocks sections of coastline, importing a total of around 17,500 tonnes of sand to restore the dune profile to what existed in 2018. The renourishment needs to be completed in early 2022, before the onset of the autumn and winter.

I have a lot of sympathy with these proposals but recognise the conflict between short and long-term solutions. Inertia in the climate system means sea levels will continue rising for many years (see here and here). The rapid collapse of the ‘Doomsday’ glacier in Antarctica is predicted to give up to 60cm of sea level rise in a relatively short time. This spells disaster for coastal communities such as Inverloch and the energy expended (and money spent) on short-term solutions is probably wasted.

Philip Heath is aware of this conundrum and noted that over “the past decade, up to 70 metres of the vegetated dunes that existed behind the 2-kilometre-long Inverloch Surf Beach in 2012 have been swept away. This is the most rapid change recorded along the Victorian coastline in European historical times.” This almost certainly will be a continuing and worsening battle along our coasts. In the long-term, it will involve a retreat from the coast and in the case of Inverloch substantial property and infrastructure loss. Time has already run out for us to counter our rising seas.

Many of the myths (read propaganda) of the Murdoch media about our Black Summer bushfires can be ‘put to bed’. They were obvious to those on the ground. One is that the fires were all started by lightning and not by arsonists. In late November 2019, dry lightning storms ignited a number of bushfires in very dry, isolated, and inaccessible mountainous country. These quickly joined to form four major bushfires of about 10,000 hectares each with massive perimeters making them impossible to control and threatening a catastrophic fire season before the commencement of summer.

A recent study by CSIRO scientists has found a direct link between bushfires and climate change and “that these fires were far from normal. Our new analysis of Australian forest fire trends just published in Nature Communications confirms for the first time the Black Summer fires are part of a clear trend of worsening fire weather and ever-larger forest areas burned by fires.” They found that the “main driver for the growing areas burnt by fire is Australia’s increasingly severe fire weather, accounting for 75% of the variation observed in the total annual area of forest fires. This is consistent with predictions from climate change scenarios that severe fire weather conditions will intensify due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Another piece of Murdoch propaganda was that prescribed burning could have controlled the fires and that the authorities were negligent in this regard. Aside from noting the confusion in the media between ‘controlled’ or ‘prescribed burns’* (and debatable effectiveness of this anyway ) and back burning the CSIRO asked, “Could fuel loads or prescribed burning be to blame? No. We looked for trends in these factors, and found nothing to explain the rise in burnt areas.”

In a recent trip from Lakes to Eden, my first since the fires, I was able to observe the effects of the 2019/20 summer. After Orbost, the signs were quite clear – the Bellbird Hotel for instance, had been ringed by fire, but survived. After Wingan River signs of crowning were evident with numbers of completely dead trees, reminding me of how hot these fires were and of the New Years Day 2020 catastrophe at Mallacoota.

The CSIRO report concluded: “While many factors contribute to catastrophic fire events, our Black Summer was not an aberration. Rather, it was the continuation of fire trends beginning more than two decades ago. It is now clear that human-induced climate change is creating ever more dangerous conditions for fires in Australia. We need to be ready for more Black Summers – and worse.”

*burning off during the cool season to remove any build-up of inflammable materials whilst back burning is employed during a fire in an attempt to control its spread.

There are many easy things you can do to support climate action. Here are four that come to mind you can do during the festive season (except the last). First, wear a badge or t-shirt. I have a number of favourites with messages like ‘I want climate action’ and ‘I support climate action’. These badges, made in Bairnsdale on thin slivers of polished and lacquered waste wood, are attractive, and eye catching. They can be purchased at the Foundry in Bairnsdale but if they are not to your liking, there must be lots of others out there being pushed by your local climate group. Alternatively wear one of the climate action t-shirts that are floating about. I have a number of badges and t-shirts as small gifts and I try to wear one every day.   

Second, put up a poster. I have a corflute designed by Nola Kelly of Metung in the front window of our unit. I have noticed a number of these in town in front yards and on front fences. Further, afield the posters of climate independents in some of the coalition held electorates in Melbourne are going up everywhere – in particular the bayside suburbs of Melbourne Ports and South Yarra and Kooyong.

Third, usually over Xmas there is the opportunity to discuss climate change with your family and such discussions will probably arise naturally especially if you are wearing a badge. We assume, of course that you have done your homework, are well informed, and can answer all the standard questions and objections. We are probably well past the standard ‘Do you believe in climate change?’ question. As with most family discussions the main subject can often be diverted or head off at a tangent so it is wise to be aware of this and to persevere. If your family has a closet ‘denier’ at the very least you should try to sow some ‘doubt”.

Finally, in the near future everyone will have the opportunity to vote climate. With the federal election looming early next year the campaigning has already begun – as with the climate independents above. The state elections are in November. The option to vote climate in Gippsland is limited. There is a ‘Voices’ group in Monash but it is not clear whether they will nominate a candidate. In Gippsland it may mean a green or independent vote (make sure any of the latter candidates you might vote for is strong on climate) before Labor and the coalition. As a final gesture, I believe that you can write on your ballot paper and it will still be a valid vote. If you write the message ‘climate action’ on your ballot, make sure the paper is clearly marked with a number in every square. It won’t change the result in Gippsland but it may make you feel a bit better.

A recent article in The Conversation by Graeme Beardsmore* of Melbourne University outlined the potential for geothermal energy in Gippsland – a subject I have blogged on before (see here and here). When I ran on a platform of geothermal energy under the coal in the 2010 State election in the seat of Morwell I envisaged that the geothermal heat would replace brown coal as the power for electricity generation. I considered this the near perfect solution for Victoria with the dirtiest generators replaced by clean energy at the same location, utilising established infrastructure and limiting job loss and relocation problems. This has not occurred and the increasing supply of emissions free energy is coming from the decentralized source of solar, wind and batteries.

Beardsmore noted the “hot aquifer was first reported as long ago as 1962, when government geologist J.J. Jenkin noted many “occurrences of high temperature waters in East Gippsland”. We now know the hot water underlies about 6,000 square kilometres of Gippsland, from Morwell in the west to Lakes Entrance in the east, and holds the equivalent of Au$30 billion of heat at today’s natural gas price”. And “beneath the Latrobe Valley, thick coal layers act like a blanket, which makes the underlying aquifers hotter than aquifers in other locations. The result is unusually hot natural water without needing to burn any fossil fuels – emissions free. At deeper depths we can capture natural steam, and use it to turn turbines for a generator”.

Other than the established Aquatics centre in Traralgon there are only a few projects planned. At Traralgon the geothermal energy is cheaper than the natural gas alternative and perhaps this form of heating will eventually be adopted at other pools, possibly Bairnsdale and Lakes Entrance in east Gippsland. The Metung Hot Springs are supposed to be opening in March next year and there is a large hot springs project at Seacombe west on the banks of Lake Wellington. Currently there are no geothermal exploration permits for Gippsland.

There are some indications that the remaining brown coal generators may be gone as early as 2032 bringing the transition from coal to renewables to the fore again. Beardsmore is working with “the Latrobe City Council, the Latrobe Valley Authority, the Geological Survey of Victoria, local business and community groups – to help realise the potential of this massive, undervalued source of clean energy” and currently involved in mapping the geothermal resource.

Earlier this year I wrote whilst “these advances are interesting, it is disappointing that this huge and sustainable energy resource remains untapped. Instead, our region remains stuck with the declining energies of the past and the criminal exploitation of our most valuable carbon store – native forests.” Nothing much has changed.

*Beardsmore is a senior fellow in ‘crustal heat flow’ at Melbourne University and author number of articles and reports on the geothermal energy potential of the Gippsland basin. An interesting study completed in 2017 examined the use of geothermal energy to support the “recreational barramundi fishery in the Hazelwood Pondage” after the closure of the station. For more on this see here.

A Pledge is defined as a “solemn promise or undertaking to commit to a certain action”. In an era of political lies on a grand scale, it may be a very handy tool for climate independents to differentiate themselves from the pack in the run-up to the next election. There are a number of options open in this regard. My personal preference is for a science pledge* and I noted previously that it “can be signed by a few, by many or even one. Rather than requiring action or changes from the higher authority it is a statement by the signatory declaring how he or she will alter, modify, or carry out their activities”.

Some years ago “I circulated a ‘Science Pledge’ lifted from Shawn Otto’s War on Science (Milkweed Editions, 2016)  and, as he noted “Science builds on the latest recorded knowledge…and makes and tests bold predictions. Science is our very best tool against prejudice and unexamined attitudes… (p.185)” A pledge to follow the best science is not only applicable to climate but equally to the current pandemic (see also here and here).

Ruth McGowan in Get Elected offers a different ‘Politicians Pledge’ (p.175-6). The pledger agrees that “In the pursuit of power I will Act in good conscience… (and) Act to merit the trust and respect of the community.” In the exercise of power she or he will “Give effect to the ideals of democratic government and represent the interests of my electorate”, “uphold the rule of law” and “discharge the duties of public office with dignity care and honour” amongst a number of others. This pledge is an ethical one – outlining a mode of behaviour the modern party system has critically damaged.

To make their climate credentials clear candidates can also sign the Climate Emergency Declaration Petition as did the late Deb Foskey – Greens candidate in Gippsland in 2019. Whilst it is certainly not as compelling as a pledge, it is a precise indication that urgent action is needed on this existential crisis. I suggest that independents sign one or both these pledges and if they want to emphasise climate as their priority the Climate Emergency Declaration as well. A statutory declaration of this action should then be signed outlining (and legalising?) your pledge actions giving a clear indication how you will act if elected. This should then be promoted and broadcast during your election campaign.

*I signed (and made a stat. dec. on) the Otto science pledge during the 2016 election

When promoting climate independents one of the main questions from those rusted on to the major parties is where are your preferences are going? And then whether they are eventually directed to the ALP or the LNP, they are immediately attacked by the other side. There are a number of solutions to this problem. The first is not to issue any ‘how to vote cards’ (htvc) at all, but a major implication of this is that the candidate has little support in the electorate. Another is to issue a card asking for the primary vote and then suggesting that voters arrange the order of their own preferences (image) as I did in the 2014 state election, but widespread support of volunteers at the booths is still needed. A third is to issue a split ticket for voters of the two major parties.

The way a candidate allocates preferences depends specifically on their strategy. The aim should be to get as many first preferences from those normally voting for the major parties. Giving preferences to opposition candidates may be self-defeating (except in very safe seats) as it may turn away otherwise sympathetic voters. It is essential that the independent candidate polls well in primaries and must be in the first three candidates, preferably one or two, and if third on the list a very close one. The second aspect of the strategy is that preferences must be very tight and hopefully the candidate is preferenced before the majors. As it appears that coalition seats are the most vulnerable to climate independent in the coming election this means they will need the preferences of the ALP and the Greens.

Having said all that it is surprising how many Australians do not understand the preferential voting system. At the pre-poll booth in Bairnsdale in 2014 a young voter approached the Conservative incumbent and enthusiastically endorsed him. On returning some time later from the polling booth he stated that he had voted for him “but didn’t vote for any of the other bastards though” – a very amusing informal vote. On another occasion, a farmer acquaintance indicated that he had put me second after the incumbent, little realising that, for me, it may as well have been last.

Ruth McGowan in Get Elected noted that “Love it or hate it, you need to get a handle on preferencing if you want to get elected” and “Preferencing deals are an important campaign tactic which can make or break your chance of getting elected. Ultimately, if you have a high number of first preference votes, backed by a preference flow in your favour of second and third votes you can get over the line…”

A htvc indicates to the elector that you are a serious candidate and are worth considering for their first preference. In a recent blog on competing Indies in the electorate of Hughes I suggested that one of the candidates should drop out before the election but, if not, it is essential that they swap preferences. As someone recently pointed out on twitter the htvcs don’t decide how you vote – you do.

The Guardian recently ran an article on two climate independents already up and running in the Hughes electorate in Sydney. Hughes, of course, is the current home of Craig Kelly, serial climate change denier and now beneficiary of the Clive Palmer bankroll and all the baggage that contains including provoking the anti-vaxxer demonstrations influenced by right wing extremists. No doubt Kelly is one of many current MPs overdue for the dustbin of history and hopefully by the end of next year he will be gone. Rest assured that there will probably be a ‘football team’ field of candidates in his electorate and it will be interesting to see where the preferences go.

As the name indicates there is no guarantee how many Independent candidates will present themselves in any electorate and two or three is quite common, along with a few of the minor parties. In my first foray into federal politics at the 2013 election, there were 10 candidates in the seat of Gippsland. Without a large band of volunteers, how to vote cards (htvcs) and strong media presence the task for Independent candidates is formidable. Few of them issue htvcs. Out of the seven elections I have contested I did so only once – in 2014 and struggled to maintain a continuous htvc volunteer presence at a single polling booth (pre-poll) in the large Gippsland East electorate. As Ruth McGowan emphasised in Get Elected organisation and a large supporter base is essential for any chance of success. More on the matter of preferences on htvcs in a later blog.

Whilst The Guardian article noted “that disunity is death in politics” the problem in Hughes with its two groups with similar aims, similar policies and already announced rival candidates can be overcome. There is plenty of time for one to pull out in favour of the other and in the short term the rivalry helps publicise and promote the need to vote climate and to make this the main campaign issue. But when we finally get to election time the importance of the issue is paramount and leaves no room for personal ambition or rivalries. Good guides to a preferred climate candidates may be Independents CAN or Climate 200, and perhaps Vote Earth Now. Meanwhile it would be nice to have a similar problem in Gippsland.