Gippsland Climate News

I am sometimes criticised when I claim the Renewable Energy Party is the only registered single issue climate party in Australia. ‘What about the Greens?’ I am frequently asked. Some with strong ‘green’ loyalties even see single issue parties such as the REP as a threat and not as an organisation trying to achieve similar goals. Whilst it is obvious the Greens have by far and away the best ‘climate’ policy of all the major parties they are certainly not a ‘single-issue’ party as they have a range of ‘other’ policies on the issues we are facing.

Many of these ‘other’ policies are unrelated to the problem of climate change and frequently they obscure it completely in the day to day political ‘argy bargy’. The animal liberation movement for instance has some influence on their policies and many farmers and country people confuse these groups seeing the greens as closet ‘animal libbers’. Rightly or wrongly the greens are also seen as a party of the left and are therefore unable to fulfil one of the most important requirements of a single issue party – that it appeal across the political spectrum.

This appeal should be centrist and not left or right. The party should equally appeal to the conservative as to a green or labour voter.  The ‘climate’ party should be working to influence the political process and setting the political agenda rather than aiming to get people elected to parliament. Quite possibly some candidates will eventually be elected if the mainstream parties continue to ignore the issue.

The question remains as to how best to influence the political process. My preferred option is to target the climate deniers in parliament, to take votes off them and make their seats unsafe or vulnerable, even, at best, losing them. To do this you need an attractive or well-known candidate, a sympathetic media and a substantial budget – preferably all three. Further there is the thorny question of preferences. To maintain the centrist position a three-way split ticket is probably necessary and divided between those for whom climate change is an overriding issue and Labor and the Liberals. And yet to achieve the end result the preferences need to be directed away from the climate change deniers.

The seats that should be targeted are becoming increasingly obvious such as those of our ex-PM, our current deputy PM, and a large chunk of the Liberals and Nationals. The party should, as a matter of course, support climate independents in seats they are not contesting. They should also not contest seats in which a strong climate candidate already exists, such as Tony Windsor in New England.

 

We occasionally see the term ‘tipping point’ in the mainstream media when discussing climate change. Frequently it is misused to describe change or abrupt change and various analogies are offered to describe it. One from a Melbourne ‘safe climate’ activist described it as slowly pushing a wineglass full of wine away from you. At a certain point gravity takes over and the glass crashes, spills and breaks.  As this analogy indicates the ‘tipping point’ is a ‘point of no return’. It is the change from one state of climate to a new one and from which there is no going back.

Barrie Pittock in his Climate Change (CSIRO Publ. Melb. 2005 pp.37-8) quotes Richard Alley, chair of the Committee on Abrupt Climate Change who wrote in 2002: “Large, abrupt climate changes have repeatedly affected much or all the earth, locally reaching as much as 10 degrees C in 10 years. Available evidence suggests that abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies”.

Pittock notes that Alley is writing about “abrupt climate changes that can occur when variables that are gradually changing push the earth across some instability threshold. He likens this to how the slowly increasing pressure of a finger can flip a light switch from off to on” and it “should be added that such a switch cannot readily be turned off again, due to large delays or inertia in the climate system: it is more like one of those sensor switches used for lighting, which can be turned on by some sudden movement but only turn themselves off in their own good time.”

The possibility of a ‘tipping point’ being passed threatens our civilisation and our lives. Whether the threat is the high wet bulb temperatures which I have mentioned previously here and here that makes parts of the earth uninhabitable, whether it is catastrophic sea level rise as posited by James Hansen (see below), whether it is the continuous drought that created the Syrian crisis, floods of biblical proportions or some raging bushfire that eats around the edges of our cities consuming homes and lives we cannot know. Quite possibly all of them may affect us one after another. We do know that global warming is an existential threat and, if people stopped to consider, realise we are in a climate emergency.

With hindsight we should have been acting on the momentous challenges posed by global warming and climate change thirty years ago. It is definitely time to act now.

 

Since there are now charging points for Electric Vehicles (EVs) in Traralgon, Sale, Bairnsdale, Metung and Marlo (for Telsa EVs anyway), you might think they have arrived.  In fact we are still in a very early stage which relies on early adopters who are willing to perhaps be at the bleeding edge.  And EVs are in no way all alike, they cover the full spectrum from mundane and practical to exciting/exotic/ultra-expensive, so whether or not to consider an EV depends on what you are trying to achieve.

If you have the means, and don’t mind taking a risk with your money, the currently available Tesla S is a new type of transport.  They are so unlike a regular fossil fuelled car they can’t be directly compared.  They are smoother, quieter, much simpler to drive, much simpler to make, much simpler to maintain, and just fun because of the instantaneous thrust of an electric motor.  You can’t sense how different without actually driving one, it feels totally different to a conventional car.

However, and unfortunately, the rest of the EV pack is less far less exciting, and although somewhat more affordable, in no way an attractive proposition compared to a conventional car, yet!

If your aim is to be environmentally responsible in the present, it is also difficult to fill your EV with renewable electrons to reduce your global warming impact.  To use your own solar energy you need to be prepared to spend thousands on a solar system at your house, plus an inverter, and unless you want to leave your car plugged in and going nowhere when the sun is shining, you also need a separate battery to time-shift the power.  And even if you purchased a 10 kWh battery for your home, it would only top up about 10% of the car’s capacity each night (50 kms of range), these cars have big batteries that take a lot of charge.

So at the present time you are still dependent on the electricity grid to charge your car, and in Victoria that means you are using brown coal generated electricity.  Even though an EV is very efficient, the overall CO2 emission is not as good as, and certainly no better than, an efficient diesel powered conventional car.  So, you aren’t going to save the environment by buying one either, yet!

What you are doing by buying an EV now is accelerating the future.  If no-one is willing to accept the financial penalty and potential inconvenience of owning an EV, then no-one is going to make EVs, and then there is no future change.  Someone needs to step up and be at the leading/bleeding edge, and it could be you!  It hurts the wallet to buy a Tesla, but from then on it is fun, fun, fun and about 500,000 people have already made that decision, that is the size of Tesla’s order book.  Yes there are other EVs around, but they are in a different ball game and difficult to find anyway as they are a dalliance of a fossil-fuelled car manufacturer who is just putting their toe in the water.

 

In primary school more than half a century ago we were taught a distorted version of King Canute and the tides. The king, the story went, was very foolish having his throne placed on the sea’s edge at low tide and commanding the tides to stop, which of course, they did not. Canute’s action was almost certainly the opposite of this story – he was demonstrating to his followers and acolytes that he was not omnipotent and no matter what he said or did he could not stop the tides. His was a wise rather than a foolish action. More recently I used the correct version of the fable in a speech at the declaration of the polls in Sale (in 2013). The point of the speech was that natural laws takes no note of human endeavours, and that our inaction on the best science on global warming was going to land us in deep trouble.

I have been warning of the problem of sea level rise that the Gippsland region faces for some time. Five years ago I wrote a long essay “The Gippsland Coast in 2100” and have modified or updated parts of it on 3 further occasions. The problem with making predictions of this sort is at least twofold. The sea level rise on the Gippsland coast is a steady 3mm a year, hardly discernible by human observers over the short to medium term. Almost all the predictions are based on the rate of doubling of the rise and much of this is guesswork as, as far as I am aware, no such rate has been satisfactorily established. There is also the possibility of abrupt change which cannot be included in any modelling or predictions.

The most well-known of climate scientists is James Hansen. His recent predictions, for a worst case scenario, are now about 2.5 metres. See here and here. Every one of the estimates I made in my 2012 paper are within this figure except the worst case figure of over 3 metres for the catastrophic scenario, and it should be remembered that I was factoring in a certain amount of coastal subsidence into the equation as well. It should be noted that no significant subsidence has been detected on the coast.

Unfortunately in large parts of the western world power is in the hands of those than deny the science of climate change. To not take note of the basic physics – the greenhouse effect has almost as long a science history as gravity – is pure folly. The ignorance, or deliberate deception of many of our politicians on this issue is appalling. Where, oh where, are the Canutes of our time, to try to get us out of the mess our politicians, egged on by the fossil fuel industry, have made of this huge problem?

Our sea levels continue to slowly creep up. If it takes 10 years for a container of water to be filled with the amount doubling every year, after 9 years it is still only half full.

I have been asked to present a brief talk on burning and climate change to the Community Fire Forum in Bairnsdale today. Presumably I have been asked because of my frequent pieces here on the burning question in Gippsland. By necessity I must emphasize that Climate Change is much more than an environmental problem.

As I have outlined here frequently I consider it an existential crisis threatening the whole of humanity. I intend to go through the basic physics of the Greenhouse Effect with the brief history of Fourier in 1827 whose calculations suggested the earth should be 30 degrees colder than it was (without the greenhouse effect the earth would be a ball of ice) through the important works of Tyrell and Arrhenious emphasizing that we work on best science.

The greenhouse effect means that as the gases are increased the temperature of the earth increases. The last 10,000 years, known geologically as the Holocene has seen benign temperatures in which civilisations developed. Since the industrial revolution with the combustion of coal, and later oil as an energy source, the greenhouse gases have been steadily increasing and the average temperature of the earth is rising. There are a number of eminent scientists – James Hansen, Peter Wadhams – who consider we are already in a climate emergency.

So what has this to do with our forests? Forests are one of the major stores of carbon on the planet. When burned – like fossil fuels – they produce greenhouse gases. All burning produces energy, usually in the form of heat, and carbon dioxide. There are currently a number of burning practices involving the local community which produce greenhouse gases – controlled fuel reduction burns, logging coupe burns and bushfire prevention and control.

Most of these practices were established well before climate change was seen as a problem. Now it is obvious that the practice of clear fell logging is essentially harmful with their contribution of greenhouse gases outlined below. The practice only continues because of the status quo and the influence of big business. With regards controlled fuel reduction burns, once clear fell logging is terminated the need for it will be considerably reduced. The question remains whether these burns protect the forest from severe or crowning bushfires. No doubt there will still be the need for some burning for protection of property and person.

I have used the example of the burning of logging coupes in a recent blog. There I calculated that for each hectare logged of mature ash forest and with coupe burned produced a minimum of 1700 tons of carbon dioxide. If a nominal value is placed on this pollution of $30 per ton as in the carbon tax, then the value, or subsidy if you like, is over $50,000 per hectare. Multiplied by an average coupe size of 24 hectares sees a ‘value’ of over one million dollars.

 

In 1999 I wrote an article with the same title for a different publication.  This article listed food production, windbreaks and six other benefits that trees provide for us. It concluded: “Planting and nurturing a tree is a positive act in terms of humanity (as others will benefit from your act), the environment… and even in personal power. It is an act of love for the earth, nature, your fellows and yourself.” The article was primarily about planting and reafforestation though it did mention our native forests as “a thing of beauty”.

However it just made a single mention of perhaps the most important benefit – forests as a carbon store. Growing trees as a carbon sequestration is, as various memes in the twittersphere point out, the only form of carbon capture and storage that actually works. For some years whenever I found a massive tree I would measure its circumference and make a rule of thumb calculation as to how much carbon was stored in that particular tree. The calculation was done by measuring the tree circumference at shoulder height then applying this figure to a table to give a return of carbon in kilograms stored. For example a young hardwood tree with a circumference of one hand (28cm) indicated a carbon storage of 33 kilograms; a circumference of 4 hands (100cm) more than 1 ton of storage and a very large tree with a circumference of 3 arms widths (5m) stored about 90 tons of carbon. It is easy then to comprehend that mature ash forest store more than 1900 tons of carbon per hectare.

Shade from trees and their cooling effect is another aspect relevant to a warming climate. Using trees in towns to help mitigate warming is something I hope to look at soon. In the meantime various government departments appear to be doing their best to destroy and remove these precious assets. I have blogged on the need to cease the logging practices of this government which destroys large areas of these stores and produces prodigious amounts of greenhouse gases. This is done to protect a small number of jobs making clear fell logging doubly damaging to our climate. Other departments are clearing trees such as those along little travelled roads for flimsy reasons such as fire protection.

Trees should be protected and preserved to the best of our ability. Severe penalties should be applied for any illegal removal. No tree should be removed without a very important reason and for each tree felled by necessity one hundred should be planted in its place. Landowners should be compensated for forests protected on private property. Planting and protecting trees is the easiest cheapest thing you can do to at least partially offset your personal contribution of greenhouse gases. If you have any space plant now, nurture them, and replace those that die.

 

(1st published in Sustain July 17 Newsletter of the Baw Baw Sustainability Network)

The Scorecard is an Australian-first home energy rating program. The Scorecard will enable you to obtain a star rating for your home, in the same way as a fridge or washing machine has a star rating. The star rating is a representation of the running cost of the fixed appliances in your home. It will guide you to make home improvements efficiently and cost effectively.

Accredited assessors can be engaged to deliver a Scorecard assessments for a fee. They will use the government supported Scorecard web tool to rate the energy efficiency of your home’s construction, fixed appliances and other key features such as solar PV energy production. The two page rating certificate also recommends upgrade options to improve your home’s rating.

The Scorecard also rates your home’s performance during hot weather. This important feature helps you understand and improve the comfort of your home in summer.

Many Victorian homes have high energy bills simply due to the way their home is built. The Scorecard will help householders understand and improve this performance.

The program is being rolled out through not for profit organisations only this year but is planned to be open for commercial release sometime in 2018. BBSN is engaged already and we have one accredited assessor with 2-3 more in the process of applying. We are currently offering a Scorecard rating as part of our home assessment service so if you’d like to have your home done, please contact Malcolm on 0417 364 615 or at mckel@dcsi.net.au

The cost is $250 but if you are a pensioner, health care card holder, in community housing or on an energy concession there are subsidised programs available now and into 2018 that mean you can access a Scorecard assessment for free. Contact Malcolm for these too.  More information is available here.

 

My previous article on wet bulb temperatures possibly making the earth uninhabitable is by far the most read on this website, attracting attention from around the world. It looked at the existential threat of these temperatures and how they may eventually make large swathes of heavily populated areas of the earth uninhabitable. The article concluded that high wet bulb temperatures had already killed a substantial number of people in Pakistan in 2015 and in India in 2016.

Recently I tweeted a youtube video with more up to date detail on the same subject. The video closely examines an area loosely defined as ‘South Asia’ and looks at a very large part of the earth where the residents were under the possible threat of death from high wet bulb temperatures. This area extended from the Middle East to the Phillipines and included some of the most heavily populated areas on earth – India Pakistan, Bangladesh and south China. The video also highlighted that the people living here were those most vulnerable to these temperatures and the least able to do anything about them. It should be compulsory viewing.

Most certainly the deaths already caused by high wet bulb temperatures have not been confined to India and Pakistan, as parts of Iran and other Persian Gulf localities have experienced similar temperatures during heatwaves. The whole of the tropical region is under threat and this area, itself, is gradually expanding with global warming. It is imperative therefore that we transfer away from all fossil fuel use and look for ways to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as quickly as possible. This is being called in enlightened ranks the ‘climate emergency’.

When these temperatures are considered along with a myriad of other results of global warming – floods, sea level rise, epidemics – the existential threat becomes starkly apparent. On top of this we may reach a ‘tipping point’ where temperatures keep rising no matter what action we take, such as from the release of massive amounts of the powerful greenhouse gas methane from melting permafrost. Countries like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Iran already suffering from global warming will probably be besieged on all sides. Where will the refugees from these climate catastrophes flee to? Is the death and destruction caused by a warming globe, now and in the future, worth the jobs of a few thousand workers in the Latrobe Valley or even the fewer numbers employed in the logging industry?

And what is a ‘high’ wet bulb temperature? People start dying when it passes 28 degrees. When it reaches 35 degrees for more than a few hours without artificial cooling we all die. That is an existential threat.

Following an Antarctic research expedition in 2001 I returned to Australia and took up a job to help build and operate the Bairnsdale Power Station (BPS). I became the Manager in 2002 and left that role in 2016 to become self-employed.   Not many people know (even local community) that Bairnsdale has its own power station. Due to the noise enclosures, the gas turbines are usually pretty quiet & with advanced control technologies you can barely see the heat shimmer from the exhaust stacks. It was also a pretty clean place to work which was nice.

The station has 2 x 45MW gas turbines that can generate about 90MW in winter & about 70MW in the heat of summer. The air is denser in winter hence the better output. 90MW equates to roughly 90,000 toasters all on at the same time. The local Bairnsdale area typically uses about 1/3 of its capacity, the rest gets exported down the line.

The primary function of BPS is to support the local AusNet services distribution grid for voltage support. Its secondary function is its fast start response to increased energy demand on the National Energy Market.

In 2001 BPS generation was usually 2 hrs per day on a single turbine. In recent years that number has at least trebled & without much population or industrial growth in the local area, but I have noticed how big the new houses are & how many appliances are inside them these days.

Retiring older coal fired generators aside my curiosity is exploring alternate energy management during extreme weather events in summer & winter. I like the idea of using less energy during these periods and building less generation to cope with the situation. One of the reasons for high energy prices is that expensive generation occurs during very hot and cold conditions.

Usually when demand outweighs supply the distributor load sheds a whole area & all our power goes out for a bit. I was wondering what the community response would be if it could be performed in a less dramatic way but without increased power generation.

It would cost a bit to implement initially but what if using smart technology our domestic switchboards were split into vital and non-vital supplies & via the smart meters they could be controlled remotely by the distributer. I’m not going to list every household electrical item but say for example the fridge / freezer & a few lights are on the vital circuit but the TV, dishwasher, air conditioner, & computer was on non-vital.  During an event our non-vital systems get turned off temporarily.

An event might only last 30-60 minutes but instead of us all blacking out it could be a little less dramatic than building more power stations or battery banks the size of sea containers. It’s just a thought.

An article in the Gippsland Times on Monday 31 July noted the Wellington Shire had pledged to tackle climate change. The article stated: “Wellington  Shire Council has signed up to the state government’s TAKE2 pledge to tackle climate change and assist Victoria reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Council has pledged to provide leadership to the Wellington Shire community to help manage climate change and move towards environmental sustainability.”

It added that the  “Council wants to take action and support local action by using resources wisely and reducing the impact on the environment” and “Council has committed to undertaking 30 actions in the areas of natural and urban environment, culture and leadership, community, transport and fleet, waste, renewable energy, strategic and statutory planning and energy efficiency.”

The TAKE2 pledge is organised by Sustainability Victoria – one of the forward looking departments of the Victorian State Government. However as in many large organisations there are competing and conflicting interests within the Government and this small ray of enlightenment remains mostly overshadowed.

The Government is yet to recognise that their achievements in reigning in greenhouse gases are minimal and token if they are unable do anything about coal, where they are keeping their options open for further mining and not planning for the rapid phase out of brown coal generation in the Latrobe Valley. Similarly they hold on to the clearfell logging of our much depleted native forests where huge amounts of our carbon store are lost to the atmosphere in the process each year. And in the case of the Wellington Shire a guest blogger recently noted the huge amounts of CO2 the Esso Longford Gas plant operations put into the atmosphere.

The pledge is admirable and a small step in the right direction. It recognises the science – that climate change is happening and that we are causing it. However one must eventually understand the process and realise that drastic steps need to be taken to drawdown our production of CO2. Each day we fail to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and fail to protect our carbon stores, brings us closer to the climate emergency. Bring the target date for zero emissions forward to 2030 and we may have some chance of avoiding it.