Cyclone Andrew Bolt?

With extreme storms (Katrina, Larry, Sandy etc) becoming more frequent due to climate change, there's an idea (and a petition) to name these events after the high-profile people who reject the climate change science and obstruct meaningful action.


Will changing the name reduce the disastrous damage these events cause? No. But it might give us a reminder of what causes these tragedies to be so horrific - our inaction on climate change. Perhaps then we might stop listening to such people, and get on with the job of tackling climate change - and preventing these storms from getting even worse.

Join me in signing the petition.

Also, find out which of your friends are unlucky enough to have a cyclone or hurricane named after them.

PS. The title of this post was inspired by Gruen Planet - who mentioned this idea in last night's episode.

Are you paying more than your neighbour?

It turns out the answer to this question is the biggest motivator to save energy.

Alex Laskey, through his company opower, has enabled households to save 2TWh (2,000,000,000 kWh) of electricity this year.

That's a heap of energy. The equivalent of burning 34 wheelbarrows of coal every minute of every day, for a year.



It's inspiring stuff. I find it amazing how much we can save just by not wasting energy. He estimates that 40 billion dollars is wasted in the US alone - just to light empty rooms and air-condition empty houses. That's a lot of money to waste.

Thanks to my work colleague for sending this to me. I recommend you watch it.

Ten Bucks A Litre - Review

Even the name of this documentary focusses the mind on the fact that we simply must rethink the way we use energy.

It provides a basic summary of a number of alternate energy sources. But I felt that host Dick Smith, now almost 70, talked up his favourite options (notably ones that gave him nostalgia for the past) without even looking at viability. Conversely, he was deliberately suspicious of those he didn't like, even to the point of dismissing an expert report.

Climate Spectator (also critical of his slightly misleading presentation) points out that energy efficiency was only talked about briefly at the end. If energy efficiency is looked at first, then everything else becomes easier. Even the options Dick Smith didn't like.

Sucked in by sticker price

Spotted this outside my local Kmart on the weekend. Looks cheap, doesn't it? I'm sure they sell much less if the true cost was on the sign.

The star rating sticker (with the disappointing 1 and a half stars) tells me this fridge consumes 250 kWh/year. At the current electricity price that's $73.50 per year. After a couple of years, the power would have almost cost more than the fridge itself.

To put it another way, over 10 years (assuming 10% price increase each year) it would cost $1170 to run this "cheap" fridge.

A classic case where paying a few bucks extra for a more efficient fridge can save you big money - as well as reducing greenhouse emissions. Everyone's a winner.

PS. Compare the costs of various fridge models at energyrating.gov.au

2 charts in 1

1. Increasing electricity prices mean that energy efficiency is better value than ever. 2. The carbon price is a very small part of home electricity.

Previously I needed two charts to make these points, but now this chart does both.

Clearly, there has been a significant increase over the years (and these prices don't include the 10% goods and services tax). So the savings you make by choosing the energy-efficient fridge / feezer / TV / hot water system / light bulb etc are greater than ever.

Also, the carbon price is that little grey sliver above the black bit. Yes I know - it's way smaller than you might have thought judging by all the over-inflated talk over the past couple of years.

Even though it's small in the overall price we pay for electricity, it is significant in comparison to the black section (the cost of making energy) so that encourages the electricity generating companies to use more renewables and less coal.

Sydney's Great Plan

The City of Sydney plans to produce 30% renewable energy by 2030, and reduce electricity-related emissions by 70% with tri-generation (producing electricity, heating and cooling from the one energy source). In the future, the trigeneration could even be powered from waste material.



Other plans include switching 6,500 park and street lights to LED lights. It's estimated that this will save $800,000 per year. Well done Sydney. Keep up the good work.

The wind saved the farm

"Going into a cold winter with 5 months of no rain ... If it wasn't for the wind money coming in, I don't think we be here."

ABC Canberra interviewed this farming couple who've experienced the hardship of drought and the uncertainty that brings for a farming income. They found a secure livelihood with wind power - making even more productive use of their land.

While I like most ideas that help reduce carbon emissions, I particularly like the ones like this that are also good for the individual and the local economy - as well as the planet as a whole.

Solar Scorecard

An Australian election could be called any day now, so it makes sense to find out which politicians (and parties) are actively supporting renewable energy - and which aren't. To help you do this, the 100% Renewable group have developed the Solar Scorecard.

You can compare the parties, see where your MP ranks on the overall list, and who makes it into the Top 10 (or bottom 10).

I'm sure there'll be more of this kind of stuff (analysing where the various candidates stand) as the election draws closer, but this is a very good start. Check it out.

Happy Birthday Carbon Price

It's one year today since Australia started having a price on carbon - and it looks like it's having the desired effect.

Energy efficiency and cleaner energy combined to bring down emissions by 7.4%. We now consume 13.3% less brown coal and 4.2% less black coal. Renewables were up by significantly. Or to put it simply:

The last comment refers to the naysayers last year who were saying that towns would be wiped off the map, and that a carbon price would be a 'wrecking ball' through the economy. So how has the economy done this past 12 months?

According to Business Spectator, since the carbon price was introduced:

• Real GDP is up by 2.5% pa
  
• 157,400 more people are employed
  
• The stock market is up 17% ($205 billion)
  
• Wages are increasing by 3% pa

Sounds like a price on carbon has been a great idea. Good on you Australia. Now China is also giving it a go. Let's hope the USA follows too.

Keep The Promise Kevin

In the past day or so, Kevin Rudd has become Prime Minister of Australia. When he was previously in the job, he described Climate Change as the "greatest moral challenge of our time" and promised strong action.

350.org is now reminding him of this promise.

You can also send him this reminder / challenge.

The Australian public elected you in 2007 because of your promise to act on climate change now you have a second chance to deliver on that promise. I’ll be putting climate first at this year’s election. Can you demonstrate that you’ve got what it takes to earn my vote?

State of Origin Score

At this time of year in Australia, there's a lot of talk about the State of Origin. But for a more important measure of which state is better, I'm putting up the State of Origin Solar Scoreboard.

I give a point for every 10,000 homes with solar panels. Between the two states, there are over half a million solar power homes. As in the traditional State of Origin, Queensland does very well for its smaller population.

Solar stats are from Every Rooftop, where homeowners can lease a solar panel system and start saving from day one.

Where does all that heat go?

Now that a quarter through this decade has passed, the Climate Comission has updated it's report The Critical Decade.

Here's a stat i found interesting. Even though we focus a lot on the Arctic melting, the increase in air temperature, and the Greenland ice sheet - that's only part a small part of the story. Almost 90% of the extra heat from global warming is stored in the ocean.

So while it's shocking that we've melted half the Arctic ice - there's also 90 times that amount of heat already stored up in the oceans. It's this extra heat that makes hurricanes, cyclones and flooding more intense.

The Climate Commission also reports that 80% of the worlds fossil fuels need to remain in the ground, if we are to avoid the global target of keeping warming under 2°C.

[More graphics from the report]

Future Fund out of fossil fuels?

Should Australia's 'Future Fund' be investing in fossil fuels? Morally, with climate change, it's ironic for a 'Future' fund to be investing in making the future much worse. Financially, it risks taxpayer's money in the carbon bubble.

The Australian Greens (after their successful campaign to get the future fund to divest from tobacco) are now campaigning to get the Future Fund out of the fossil fuel business.

They're inviting you to write to the Future Fund and suggest they sell their shares in fossil fuel companies - and invest in something a little more future-oriented.

China starts emissions trading

Today the city of Shenzen began the first of China's seven pilot emission trading schemes.

China does things on a large scale. These 'trials' will cover more than double the emissions covered under Australia's natiional carbon price. No wonder China is ranked 3rd in countries most ready for a low-carbon economy.

PS. I remember writing about this in 2010. It's great that it has now come to fruition.
PPS. According to the Climate Institute, China's emissions are 5.6 tonnes per person. The figure for Australia is 27.5 tonnes per person. Clearly we have work to do.

How the Premier doesn't understand maths

As Queensland's 2013/14 electricity prices were announced, the Premier and Energy Minister tried to shift blame from themselves. The innocent targets were renewable energy, the price on carbon, and solar households - described (falsely) as the "major cause" of the price increase.

The official figures tell a completely different story.

(Click the graphic for a larger version)
Overall, prices are going up by $268/year (for a household of average use). Of that increase, the three things the government blames are barely changing.

Carbon Price - an increase of $9/year
Renewable Energy - actually $6/year cheaper than last year
Solar Power - an increase of $32/year

In total, all these positive measures account for a mere $35 of the $268 increase. But for some reason, the government is ignoring the other $233 and focusing on the small change.

Personally, I think it's great that Australia now has 1 million homes with solar panels. If that comes at a price of about 50 cents/week, i think that's easily bearable. Particularly when these panels have saved $520 million in extra electricity infrastructure.

Graphic source: QCA Fact sheet
(QCA is the body that determines power prices in Queensland)

PS. Others suggest that the government's motive is to distract from the much larger increase in network fees. (Network operators are owned by, and deliver profit to, the state government).