“Earth Hour” will be held around the world on March 27. The event is organised by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and involves participants switching off their lights for the hour as a symbolic declaration of support for environmental action.
The Earth Hour website is sponsored by, among others, Woolworths Limited, the giant supermarket and retail corporation. With the amount of waste and pollution associated with the retail industry in frivolous consumption, built-in obsolescence and so on, this would seem an odd choice for sponsor.
WWF has a shocking record for quite uncritically accepting sponsorship from polluting industries. Back in 2002, Counterpunch co-editor Jeffrey St. Clair exposed WWF’s links with logging corporation Weyerhaeuser, writing that WWF “rakes in millions from corporations, including Alcoa, Citigroup, the Bank of America, Kodak, J.P. Morgan, the Bank of Tokyo, Philip Morris, Waste Management and DuPont.”
In November 2009, more than 80 environmental organisations from 31 countries signed a letter attacking WWF’s founding role in the “Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil.” The letter said: “WWF’s involvement is being used by agrofuel companies to justify building more refineries and more palm oil power stations in Europe.”
The palm oil industry is a leading cause of destruction of tropical rainforests. Currently, WWF is one of the key “environment” organisations in Australia promoting “clean coal”. This hypothetical technology is the main prop in the Australian coal industry’s smoke-and-mirrors trickery to keep the public off its back.
Clearly, WWF is a willing aide to corporate polluters who want to be seen to be cleaning up their act. How much does the environment get back? Whatever WWF ekes out for payment in its bargaining with the devil, it isn’t working for the environment.
The Earth Hour website includes a link to a calculator where visitors can work out their own personal carbon footprint. If you follow links for what you can do after the event to “make Earth Hour every hour” you will be directed toward various governmental awareness raising schemes and green power providers.
If the event simply raised people’s awareness a little, it would be better than nothing. But sometimes “not enough” is worse than nothing: it’s a false hope. The direct links to our climate-criminal government, as much as any donations from polluting corporations, are like telling people to go back to sleep, not to get up, when the house is burning down.
Although individuals will gain positive feelings from participating in Earth Hour, climate activists have to channel popular concern about climate change into rebellion, not tokenism. Or our whole planet will burn down around us.
Read the whole article
Showing newest posts with label Sellout. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label Sellout. Show older posts
Mar 11, 2010
Jan 30, 2010
Australia shows how not to stop climate change
Australia’s Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, has announced a target of a 5% cut in Australia’s carbon emissions by 2020, relative to emissions in 2000.
A January 27 statement from Wong’s office says this unconditional target will not be increased above 5% until the rest of the world’s commitments become clearer. Wong said that targets may be increased to “up to 15 per cent and 25 per cent both conditional on the extent of action by others”.
Action that Wong is expecting from the rest of the world includes “specific targets of advanced economies and the verifiable emissions reduction actions of China and India.” India’s emissions per person were 1.3 tonnes in 2006, in the most recent data from the United Nations (Millenium Development Goals Indicators). China’s were 4.6 tonnes. Australia’s 2006 emissions per person were 19 tonnes. That’s per person, per year. It doesn’t include emissions from the coal and natural gas that is exported from Australia.
Even 25% reductions by 2020 is well below the lowest amount suggested by leading climate scientists as what is necessary for the world to avoid catastrophic climate change. Germany, whose carbon emissions stood at 9.7 tonnes per person in 2006, is aiming for a (still modest) cut in emissions of 40% by 2020. This is despite the European Union not yet committing to upgrade its overall reductions target from 20% to 30%.
Even after announcing a 5% target for emissions reductions, it is unclear how Australia will achieve this. The one piece of legislation to achieve such a target is the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) which so far has failed to pass parliament. Even if it passes this year (which seems unlikely at this stage), Wong has publicly refused to guarantee that the CPRS will actually reduce emissions.
Greens Senator Christine Milne said in a January 28 press release that "Minister Wong cannot guarantee that her CPRS will reduce Australia's emissions because she knows full well that, in its current form, it won't. The Government's own modelling confirms that the CPRS will pay Australia's polluters to keep polluting while hiding that fact with unlimited, and potentially dodgy, carbon offsets from overseas.”
But it appears that meaningful action on any scale is difficult for Rudd’s and Wong’s government. The January 27 Melbourne Age published an investigation of the government’s record on its energy efficiency policies for its own departments and buildings.
The article by Ruth Williams and Mathew Murphy says that “although Rudd promised ''decisive action'' on the issue, the Labor Government's efforts at improving energy efficiency in its own operations appear to have been anything but - featuring missed deadlines, a vanished ''interdepartmental committee'' and promises that have sunk without trace.” The article can only point to a handful of minor changes in government departments.
This is contrasted with the ALP’s 2007 election promise that ''A Rudd Labor Government to tackle climate change by example''.
Read the whole article
A January 27 statement from Wong’s office says this unconditional target will not be increased above 5% until the rest of the world’s commitments become clearer. Wong said that targets may be increased to “up to 15 per cent and 25 per cent both conditional on the extent of action by others”.
Action that Wong is expecting from the rest of the world includes “specific targets of advanced economies and the verifiable emissions reduction actions of China and India.” India’s emissions per person were 1.3 tonnes in 2006, in the most recent data from the United Nations (Millenium Development Goals Indicators). China’s were 4.6 tonnes. Australia’s 2006 emissions per person were 19 tonnes. That’s per person, per year. It doesn’t include emissions from the coal and natural gas that is exported from Australia.
Even 25% reductions by 2020 is well below the lowest amount suggested by leading climate scientists as what is necessary for the world to avoid catastrophic climate change. Germany, whose carbon emissions stood at 9.7 tonnes per person in 2006, is aiming for a (still modest) cut in emissions of 40% by 2020. This is despite the European Union not yet committing to upgrade its overall reductions target from 20% to 30%.
Even after announcing a 5% target for emissions reductions, it is unclear how Australia will achieve this. The one piece of legislation to achieve such a target is the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) which so far has failed to pass parliament. Even if it passes this year (which seems unlikely at this stage), Wong has publicly refused to guarantee that the CPRS will actually reduce emissions.
Greens Senator Christine Milne said in a January 28 press release that "Minister Wong cannot guarantee that her CPRS will reduce Australia's emissions because she knows full well that, in its current form, it won't. The Government's own modelling confirms that the CPRS will pay Australia's polluters to keep polluting while hiding that fact with unlimited, and potentially dodgy, carbon offsets from overseas.”
But it appears that meaningful action on any scale is difficult for Rudd’s and Wong’s government. The January 27 Melbourne Age published an investigation of the government’s record on its energy efficiency policies for its own departments and buildings.
The article by Ruth Williams and Mathew Murphy says that “although Rudd promised ''decisive action'' on the issue, the Labor Government's efforts at improving energy efficiency in its own operations appear to have been anything but - featuring missed deadlines, a vanished ''interdepartmental committee'' and promises that have sunk without trace.” The article can only point to a handful of minor changes in government departments.
This is contrasted with the ALP’s 2007 election promise that ''A Rudd Labor Government to tackle climate change by example''.
Read the whole article
Oct 15, 2009
WWF: WTF?
I had the opportunity on October 1st to listen to a panel consisting of Tony Maher and Sharan Burrow of the ACTU along with Paul Toni from WWF (all Southern Cross Climate Coalition member groups). They were addressing a forum entitled "Just Transitions: Energy, Employment and Environment" in Morwell, organised by the Gippsland Trades & Labour Council. It was quite illuminating, in a perverse kind of way: here is a report.
Maher and Burrow have their own contradictions, but it was Paul Toni from WWF, speaking last, who as an “environmentalist” gave the most appalling presentation.
The three emissions reduction strategies that Toni advocated be prioritised were reducing energy use, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) and geo-thermal power. CCS, he claimed, is proven from the last ten years of its use by Norway. The ETS, he claimed, was critical to smooth the transition for the coal industry, delivering $600 million for CCS deployment and testing, $3.9 billion direct financial assistance to electricity generators, and $200 million for “structural adjustment packages”. He said that the geothermal and CCS technology needed to be tested – especially in the Gippsland basin.
I asked one of the first questions in discussion: given that ETS is not projected to reduce Australia’s actual emissions until after 2030, and that both CCS and geothermal plants in Australia are at least ten years away (and then only if we’re being very optimistic, in the case of CCS), how do they propose to address climate change in the meantime?
Toni gave the Peter Garrett defence where the ETS is concerned: you can “never be sure what will happen” with a law once it is passed, it will be “revisited”! He said we have to peak emissions well before 2030, and would like to see CCS up and running and a Feed-In Tariff as well as the Renewable Energy Target (I guess Garrett will get that one up for us too). He expressed hopes for “big renewables” like wave power, geothermal and solar thermal. Of which, I should point out, only the last is at a stage of actually being built at commercial scale anywhere in the world right now. (Wave power shows great potential, but it hasn’t been put into practice yet. Likewise, Australia’s geothermal reserves are not the standard type that is already used for power in many parts of the world: our geothermal potential is HDR – hot dry rock – which requires extensive testing before successful power generation can occur from it.)
Mark Wakeham from Environment Victoria, in the audience, cited prior studies showing there may be only 40 years of CCS storage from the power stations in the Gippsland basin – which is just one generation of power stations (they usually last about 40 years). Toni’s response (also undermining Maher’s figures) was that the most conservative estimates of the capacity in Gippsland now exceed 40 years’ storage, but 40 years is all the transition period we will probably need.
Maher said he didn't believe we'd ever get a "green economy" and just hoped it would be "more sustainable". He did foreshadow the need for economic restructuring of every industry and economy on the planet in about ten years, but didn't elaborate exactly what he meant. He said it was immoral to refuse 3rd world development - "they want their iPod too!". He did then admit that there would be no future for the coal industry if it didn’t clean up it’s act. He suggested that coal’s share in our energy generation mix would go from 90% down to 40% by 2050 – and here’s the best part! – only if CCS “becomes commercially viable” – quite an admission from such a strong supporter of the technology!
To balance things out, Maher blamed the Australian Coal Association (ACA - "barnacles on the arse of progress," he called them) for the jobs scare in the coal sector. He blasted the Victorian private power generators who paid about $10 billion for the industry and are now asking for $10 billion in compensation for the ETS! He said that if they get anything, it should be conditional on investment in emissions reduction technology (by which I think he means CCS). On the other hand, despite blaming the ACA for jobs scares, he cautioned that green criticism of coal “risks a split in the community”!
We wouldn’t want the community and the coal companies to have a falling out, now, would we?
It was interesting to see how quickly the speakers went into retreat after a couple of questions. In response to my question above, Burrow pointed to the subsidised home insulation program that the SCCC had added to the government’s stimulus package. She said the ACTU would have preferred a carbon tax over the ETS, but it was too late to worry about that any more. As it seems I have been hearing for years from union officials, she wished the government would have a serious “industry policy” to build up industry here.
Wishes and hopes, but what program of action? Back to the Peter Garrett solution I guess.
From the audience, Cam Walker of Friends of the Earth nailed it when he suggested that the plan outlined was really just status quo plus CCS, not a transition. He said that it looked like just another empty promise to the Latrobe Valley (of which there have been many). Burrow’s response was that CCS was just one measure, there is no “silver bullet” and all measures must be tried. She said that energy demand keeps shooting up and there is no peak in sight. Given that the “other measure” (the solar plant at Mildura) is in deep trouble, yet government funding to CCS research continues unabated, one wonders what serious other measures she is thinking of!
Toni’s response was simply that to keep temperature rise under 2 degrees, it is essential to use CCS technology and there is no other way. To which I could respond, if we are relying on an unproven technology over ten years away from implementation to save us, then we may as well give up now and save ourselves the effort!
Lucky that I (and many others) don’t believe that coal industry propaganda. Why do our unions let themselves be fooled by it? As climate change deepens, I don’t think their members will reward them for their stance. Will Rudd and the ACA still be around to look after their careers?
Read the whole article
WWF: no clean energy technology needed for next 10+ years
There are various plans on how to prevent dangerous climate change, with varying degrees of optimism, and various levels of radicalism. On the other hand, there is wishful thinking, which is the most charitable comment I could make about this forum and particularly WWF’s contribution.Maher and Burrow have their own contradictions, but it was Paul Toni from WWF, speaking last, who as an “environmentalist” gave the most appalling presentation.
The three emissions reduction strategies that Toni advocated be prioritised were reducing energy use, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) and geo-thermal power. CCS, he claimed, is proven from the last ten years of its use by Norway. The ETS, he claimed, was critical to smooth the transition for the coal industry, delivering $600 million for CCS deployment and testing, $3.9 billion direct financial assistance to electricity generators, and $200 million for “structural adjustment packages”. He said that the geothermal and CCS technology needed to be tested – especially in the Gippsland basin.
I asked one of the first questions in discussion: given that ETS is not projected to reduce Australia’s actual emissions until after 2030, and that both CCS and geothermal plants in Australia are at least ten years away (and then only if we’re being very optimistic, in the case of CCS), how do they propose to address climate change in the meantime?
Toni gave the Peter Garrett defence where the ETS is concerned: you can “never be sure what will happen” with a law once it is passed, it will be “revisited”! He said we have to peak emissions well before 2030, and would like to see CCS up and running and a Feed-In Tariff as well as the Renewable Energy Target (I guess Garrett will get that one up for us too). He expressed hopes for “big renewables” like wave power, geothermal and solar thermal. Of which, I should point out, only the last is at a stage of actually being built at commercial scale anywhere in the world right now. (Wave power shows great potential, but it hasn’t been put into practice yet. Likewise, Australia’s geothermal reserves are not the standard type that is already used for power in many parts of the world: our geothermal potential is HDR – hot dry rock – which requires extensive testing before successful power generation can occur from it.)
CCS: the cheque’s in the mail!
Tony Maher told the audience that the latest CCS study he has seen (not yet published) shows that the Gippsland basin has the capacity to store all Australia's CO2 emissions, from all sources(!), for the next 100 years. Needless to say this came up for questioning from the audience!Mark Wakeham from Environment Victoria, in the audience, cited prior studies showing there may be only 40 years of CCS storage from the power stations in the Gippsland basin – which is just one generation of power stations (they usually last about 40 years). Toni’s response (also undermining Maher’s figures) was that the most conservative estimates of the capacity in Gippsland now exceed 40 years’ storage, but 40 years is all the transition period we will probably need.
Maher said he didn't believe we'd ever get a "green economy" and just hoped it would be "more sustainable". He did foreshadow the need for economic restructuring of every industry and economy on the planet in about ten years, but didn't elaborate exactly what he meant. He said it was immoral to refuse 3rd world development - "they want their iPod too!". He did then admit that there would be no future for the coal industry if it didn’t clean up it’s act. He suggested that coal’s share in our energy generation mix would go from 90% down to 40% by 2050 – and here’s the best part! – only if CCS “becomes commercially viable” – quite an admission from such a strong supporter of the technology!
To balance things out, Maher blamed the Australian Coal Association (ACA - "barnacles on the arse of progress," he called them) for the jobs scare in the coal sector. He blasted the Victorian private power generators who paid about $10 billion for the industry and are now asking for $10 billion in compensation for the ETS! He said that if they get anything, it should be conditional on investment in emissions reduction technology (by which I think he means CCS). On the other hand, despite blaming the ACA for jobs scares, he cautioned that green criticism of coal “risks a split in the community”!
We wouldn’t want the community and the coal companies to have a falling out, now, would we?
Smoke and mirrors and no substance
The presentation seemed to be aimed at an audience that weren’t educated about the speed at which climate change is progressing: just sell “clean coal” CCS to them and they’ll stop worrying. Burrow did the best to go beyond this, pointing out that even with the difficult goal of restricting climate change to two degrees, island nations like the Maldives would be wiped out, as would the Great Barrier Reef, but she left it pretty much there.It was interesting to see how quickly the speakers went into retreat after a couple of questions. In response to my question above, Burrow pointed to the subsidised home insulation program that the SCCC had added to the government’s stimulus package. She said the ACTU would have preferred a carbon tax over the ETS, but it was too late to worry about that any more. As it seems I have been hearing for years from union officials, she wished the government would have a serious “industry policy” to build up industry here.
Wishes and hopes, but what program of action? Back to the Peter Garrett solution I guess.
From the audience, Cam Walker of Friends of the Earth nailed it when he suggested that the plan outlined was really just status quo plus CCS, not a transition. He said that it looked like just another empty promise to the Latrobe Valley (of which there have been many). Burrow’s response was that CCS was just one measure, there is no “silver bullet” and all measures must be tried. She said that energy demand keeps shooting up and there is no peak in sight. Given that the “other measure” (the solar plant at Mildura) is in deep trouble, yet government funding to CCS research continues unabated, one wonders what serious other measures she is thinking of!
Toni’s response was simply that to keep temperature rise under 2 degrees, it is essential to use CCS technology and there is no other way. To which I could respond, if we are relying on an unproven technology over ten years away from implementation to save us, then we may as well give up now and save ourselves the effort!
Lucky that I (and many others) don’t believe that coal industry propaganda. Why do our unions let themselves be fooled by it? As climate change deepens, I don’t think their members will reward them for their stance. Will Rudd and the ACA still be around to look after their careers?
Read the whole article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
