In an interview with a Polish newspaper Lewandowsk said that:

“We already have overambitious agreements on CO2 emission reduction. There is a notion that the thesis that coal energy is the main cause of global warming is highly questionable. Moreover, more and more often there is a question mark put over the whole [issue of] global warming as such.”

He also expressed doubts about EU’s future climate goal saying the CO2 reduction targets “are too ambitious for the Polish economy” and that “a quick jump away from coal” would for Poland “be a disaster”. And this was no misquote from the Polish newspaper. A spokesman for Lewandowski even confirmed the accuracy of the statements later to the EU observer:

“His overall line is that it would be impossible for Poland to shift away from coal overnight. But he also expressed his doubts over climate change, in a personal capacity,” Patrizio Fiorilli told this website.

Environmental organizations and political groups are afraid that Lewandowsk’s science and climate skepticism will affect the drafting of the €130 budget that will form EU’s political course of action and structure between 2014 and 2020. But the Polish climate skepticism comes as no surprise. Poland helped block strong European leadership on climate during the Cop14 climate summit in 2008. And it’s an even less surprise considering the fact that Poland relies heavily on coal, around of 90%, for its electricity generation.

Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace UK, said: “It’s terrifying that the man in charge of Europe’s budget is someone you might expect to see in Sarah Palin’s Republican party.

“He has a huge influence over all of our economic futures and yet not only does he deny the overwhelming evidence of climate change, but he’s also opposing measures that leading businesses say would drive green growth and create millions of new jobs in Europe’s clean industries.”

The environmental organization WWF also expressed their worry about the climate change denying budget chief:

“It comes as a shock, especially following the commission president’s recent statements. So much for collegiality,” said Tony Long, director of the WWF’s Brussels office. “That degree of climate change scepticism is now rare in Europe, and even rarer among politician’s of Lewandowski’s seniority.”

“One can’t have much faith in the commission’s budget proposals if one of the chief architects admits in a private capacity that he has doubts over global warming.”

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso shows no sign of worry though. Saying that “the effects of climate change are – quite literally – all around us” and that the EU will stay it’s course on climate change. But one can only imagine how embarrassed Barroso must be from Lewandowsk’s anti-science statements.

There is an overwhelming global scientific consensus that global warming is real, man-made and must be urgently addressed, As adjudged from the rhetoric at the disastrous Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun (2010) climate change summits, most world leaders acknowledge the problem. However in practice politicians are still largely committed to disastrous “business as usual” (BAU) policies. Nevertheless most politicians must appear to be “tackling climate change” while in reality playing a BAU game acceptable to huge fossil fuel interests.

One such false, phony, politically disingenuous approach has been the Carbon Trading-based Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) approach. The ETS approach has been variously slammed as (a) empirically ineffective (despite ETS measures carbon dioxide, (CO2) pollution continues to increase remorselessly and indeed man-made global warming has been described by top economist Professor Sir Nicholas Stern as “the greatest market failure the world has seen”; (2) dangerously counterproductive (we are running out of time, CO2 emissions must cease by 2050 for the World and by 2020 for the US, and there is no point wasting time going down a route already demonstrated to be ineffective); and (3) utterly fraudulent ( the ETS approach has already engendered market manipulation fraud, involves selling licences to pollute that must ultimately be worthless, and fundamentally involves governments selling something they do not have the right to sell, specifically the “right” to pollute the one common atmosphere of all peoples). [1].

A further phony approach that is now being implemented on a massive scale around the world is a coal-to-gas transition on the basis that (1) gas burning for power typically yields half the carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution as coal burning per unit of electrical energy produced and (2) gas burning is associated with greatly lowered carbon particulates, sulphur dioxide (SO2), heavy metals and organics and an 80% reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (nitrous oxide, N2O, nitrogen dioxide, NO2, and nitric oxide. NO, these being collectively denoted as NOx). However, as set out below, the reality is that gas burning seriously threatens the Planet because (A) Humanity should be urgently decreasing and certainly not increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution; (B) Natural Gas (mainly methane, CH4) is not clean energy greenhouse gas (GHG)-wise; and (C) Pollutants from gas leakage and gas burning pose a chemical risk to residents, agriculture and the environment.

(A) Australia and the World should be decreasing and not increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution.

Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming – noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Already 16 million people (about 9.5 million of them under-5 year old infants) die avoidably every year due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease – and man-made global warming is already clearly worsening this global avoidable mortality holocaust. However 10 billion avoidable deaths due to global warming this century yields an average annual avoidable death rate of 100 million per year. [2].

Collective, national responsibility for this already commenced Climate Holocaust is in direct proportion to per capita national pollution of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (GHGs). Indeed, fundamental to any international agreement on national rights to pollute our common atmosphere and oceans should be the belief that “all men are created equal”. However reality is otherwise: “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent [CO2-e] per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included). [2].

However expansion of Australia’s exported GHG pollution is occurring through increasing black coal, liquid natural gas (LNG) and dried brown coal exports and increased pollution domestically through new fossil fuel power plants (coal and natural gas). Thus exports of brown coal from Victoria to Asia are expected to reach 20 million tonnes [Mt] per year (74 million tonnes CO2-e). [3].

If this is achieved by 2020 then Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 will be 1245 Mt + 74 Mt = 1319 Mt CO2-e = 149% of that in 2000. The Australia Federal Government’s derisory pledge of “5% off 2000 level by 2020” in actual reality seems likely to be about “150% of 2000 level by 2020”. [4].

Based on UN Population Division population projections, Australia’s 2020 annual per capita Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution is accordingly projected to reach 1319 Mt CO2-e / 23.4 million people = 56 tonnes CO2-e per person per year, 62 times that of Bangladesh, a densely populated country acutely threatened by inundation from mainly First World-imposed GHG pollution. [4].

Leading climate scientist Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber CBE (Director of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research [PIK], Germany and variously associated with the University of Manchester, University of East Anglia and Oxford University) has estimated that for a 67% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise (the EU target; would you board a plane if it had a 33% chance of crashing?) the World has to cease CO2 emissions by 2050. “All man are created equal” means that all human beings must be allotted equal shares of CO2 pollution until 2050. This means that high per capita countries such as the US and Australia must reach zero CO2 emissions by 2020 while low per capita emitters (e.g. India and Burkina Faso) can increase their emissions until finally reaching zero emissions by 2050. [5].

It must be noted that other leading climate scientists have reached similar conclusions about the urgency of achieving zero emissions. Thus Dr Vicky Pope (Head of Climate Change Advice, UK Met Office Hadley Centre):

“Latest climate projections from the Met Office Hadley Centre show the possible range of temperature rises, depending on what action is taken to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions. Even with large and early cuts in emissions, the indications are that temperatures are likely to rise to around 2 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. If action is delayed or not quick enough, there is a large risk of much bigger increases in temperature, with some severe impacts. In a worst-case scenario, where no action is taken to check the rise in Greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures would most likely rise by more than 5 °C by the end of the century. This would lead to significant risks of severe and irreversible impacts. In the most optimistic scenario, action to reduce emissions would need to start in 2010 and reach a rapid and sustained rate of decline of 3 per cent every year. Even then there would still only be a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rises below around 2°C. This contrasts sharply with current trends, where the world’s overall emissions are currently increasing at 1 per cent every year.” [6].

Similarly, Professor Kevin Anderson and Dr Alice Bows (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK):

“According to the analysis conducted in this paper, stabilizing at 450 ppmv [carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2-e, atmospheric concentration measured in parts per million by volume] requires, at least, global energy related emissions to peak by 2015, rapidly decline at 6-8% per year between 2020 and 2040, and for full decarbonization sometime soon after 2050 …Unless economic growth can be reconciled with unprecedented rates of decarbonization (in excess of 6% per year), it is difficult to envisage anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilization at or below 650 ppmv CO2-e… Ultimately, the latest scientific understanding of climate change allied with current emissions trends and a commitment to “limiting average global temperature increases to below 4oC above pre-industrial levels”, demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda, and the economic characterization of contemporary society.” [7].

Dr James Hansen, (head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, and an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University) has concluded:

“After the ice has gone, would the Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas , and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty”. [8].

However, achieving zero CO2 emissions is just the start. Many top climate scientists and biologists state that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (currently a damaging 392 ppm and increasing at about 2 ppm per annum) must be urgently reduced to about 300 ppm for a safe planet for all peoples and all species. [9].

At current CO2 pollution rates, in about 30 years the atmospheric CO2 concentration will reach 450 ppm, a level at which the Great Barrier Reef coral and indeed most coral around the World is doomed from the dual effects of warming and ocean acidification. [10].

The message from science is unequivocal. High per capita GHG polluter Australia is obliged top cease CO2 pollution by 2020. Accordingly any further expansion of Australian Domestic or Exported GHG pollution is absolutely contra-indicated.

A key part of achieving 100% cessation of CO2 pollution by 2020 is installation of 100% renewable energy. Professor Peter Seligman (bionic ear electrical engineer. University of Melbourne) has published a book, “Australian Sustainable Energy- By the Numbers”, setting out how Australia can get 100% renewable energy by 2030 at a cost $253 billion, his scheme involving a mix of wind, concentrated solar thermal and other technologies with hydrological energy storage for 24/7 baseload operation. [11].

An Australian engineering team called Beyond Zero Emissions has released its 5 year study on Zero Carbon Australia by 2020 (ZCA2020) Report) that shows how Australia can have 100% renewable energy by 2020 for $370 billion using renewable technologies of wind power and concentrated solar thermal with molten salts energy storage for 24/7, baseload operation. [12].

Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, California, and Mark A. Delucchi of University of California Davis have produced a plan for 100% renewable energy plan for the whole world by 2020. [13].

Unfortunately the clear message from top scientists is being ignored because of the lobbying power of “business as usual” and fossil fuel vested interests. Dr James Hansen in answer to the question “Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis?”, has stated: “Absolutely. It is possible – if we give politicians a cold, hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – “goals” for emission reductions, “offsets” that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual “cap-and-trade” mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual.” [14].

Gas (mainly methane) is not clean energy greenhouse gas (GHG)-wise.

The Australian Labor Government and the natural gas industry are utterly incorrect in their repeated assertion that “natural gas is clean energy”. However this untruth remains formally uncorrected and is now spreading through society, through media and even into the environment movement. [15].

The truth is otherwise – natural gas is dirty energy and on combustion is twice as carbon dioxide (CO2) polluting as brown coal on a weight basis. Further, in Victoria the carbon pollution currently ranges from 1.2-1.5 tonnes C/MWh for major brown coal plants and 0.6-0.9 tonnes C/MWh for major gas-fired plants – gas may be “clean-er” on this basis but is certainly not “clean”. [16].

However even the asserted “clean-er” status of gas as a fossil fuel is belied by the recent analysis by Professor Robert Howarth of Cornell University, New York, USA, who has concluded that : “A complete consideration of all emissions from using natural gas seems likely to make natural gas a far less attractive than oil and not significantly better than coal in terms of the consequences for global warming.” [17]

Natural gas (mostly methane, CH4) yields carbon dioxide (CO2) on combustion as does black coal (mostly Carbon, C) and brown coal (65% water, H2O).

The molecular weights of CH4 and CO2 are 16 and 44, respectively. The atomic weights of oxygen (O), carbon (C) and hydrogen (H) are 16, 12 and 1, respectively.

Burning 16 tonnes of CH4 yields 44 tonnes CO2 (i.e. burning 1 tonne of natural gas yields 2.8 tonnes CO2).

Burning 12 tonnes of C yields 44 tonnes of CO2 (i.e. burning 1 tonne of coal – assuming it to be 100% carbon – yields 3.7 tonnes of CO2).

Brown coal (that is burned to produce most of the electricity in Victoria, Australia) has a water (H2O) content of about 65% and thus burning 1 tonne of brown coal would yield 0.35 x 3.7 = 1.3 tonnes of CO2, or about 46% of that produced by burning 1 tonne of natural gas (2.8 tonnes of CO2).

Clearly, on a weight basis, burning natural gas (CH4) yields twice as much CO2 as burning brown coal. However proponents of gas burning assert that it is only 50% as polluting as black coal and only 30% as polluting as brown coal in terms of grams CO2 generated per million joules of energy.

Methane (CH4) has a molecular weight of 16 and carbon dioxide (CO2) has a molecular weight of 44.

When you burn CH4 you get CO2: CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O.

Accordingly burning 16 tonnes of CH4 yields 44 tonnes of CO2 and burning 100 tonnes of CH4 yields 100x 44/16 = 275 tonnes of CO2.

However if there is industrial leakage of CH4 (estimated to be at least 2.2% by the US EPA) then one must consider the greenhouse gas effect of the released methane (72 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year time scale).

Of our 100 tonnes of CH4, how much CH4 leakage (y tonnes) gives the same greenhouse effect (in CO2 equivalents or CO2-e) as burning the remaining CH4?

y tonnes CH4 x (72 tonnes CO2-e/tonne CH4) = (100-y) tonnes CH4 x (2.75 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4).

72y tonnes CO2-e = (100-y) 2.75 tonnes CO2-e

72y = 275 – 2.75y

74.75y = 275

y = 275/74.75 = 3.68 i.e. a 3.7% leakage of CH4 yields that same greenhouse effect as burning the remaining CH4 (check: 3.68 tonnes leaked CH4 corresponds to 3.68 tonnes CH4 x 72 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4 = 265 tonnes CO2-e . Burning the remaining 96.32 tonnes of CH4 corresponds to 96.32 tonnes CH4 x 2.75 tonnes CO2/tonne CH4 = 265 tonnes CO2). [18].

Recent re-assessment by the US EPA of US natural gas leakage has led to the estimate that “3.25 % of US natural gas production leaks into the atmosphere as methane gas”. [19].

There is no point spending billions of dollars replacing coal with natural gas and locking us into something essentially as bad as coal for decades more. Top climate scientists say that we must urgently reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from the current damaging 392 parts per million (ppm) to a safe and sustainable 300 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species.

Pollutants from gas leakage and gas burning threaten residents, agriculture and the environment.

Natural gas is not necessarily cleaner than coal for power generation in terms of greenhouse gas pollution (see part (B) above). However the bottom line in any analysis of any social policy is avoidable human morbidity (sickness) and mortality (death). That fundamental consideration and other environmental impacts of gas burning heavily inform the following numbered concerns about the threat of gas burning to residents, agriculture and the environment. [20].

1. It can be proportionally estimated from Canadian and New Zealand epidemiological data that about10,000 Australians die annually from the effects of carbon burning pollutants, the breakdown being about 5,000 (coal and gas burning for electrical power), 2,000 ( vehicle exhaust) and 3,000 (other fossil fuel combustion excluding bush fires). Accordingly any increase in fossil fuel burning is contra-indicated. [21-26].

2. International comparisons of fossil fuel-based power pollution deaths can be made. “Annual coal-based electricity deaths” [“total annual fossil fuel-based electricity deaths”] are 170,000 [283,000] (the World), 11,000 [13,000] (India), 47,000 [47,500] (China), 49,000 [72,000] (the US), 3,400 [6,900] (the UK), 4,900 [5,400] (Australia) and 2,700 [3,800](Canada) as compared to 110 [360] (heavily renewable-based New Zealand). These estimates of total fossil fuel-based deaths (i.e. from coal burning plus gas burning) are simply ball-park upper limits deriving from a crude assumption, in the absence of readily available data otherwise, of the same mortality from gas burning as from coal burning. In reality, since pollutants are much lower from gas burning (see #3 below) one expects deaths from gas burning for power to be lower than for coal burning. However while transition top gas burning might be expected to decrease mortality from fossil fuel burning for power, clearly gas burning will contribute to such mortality. A direct transition from coal burning to renewables is clearly highly desirable from the perspective of avoiding human and environmental impacts . [24-26].

3. Pollutants (pounds per Billion Btu of energy input) from gas, oil and coal burning are as follows: carbon dioxide (CO2) (117,000, 164,000, 208,000, respectively); carbon monoxide (CO) (40, 33, 208), nitrogen oxides (N2O, NO2 and NO i.e. NOx) (92, 448, 457); sulphur dioxide (SO2) (1, 1122, 2591); particulates (7, 84, 2744); and Mercury (0.000, 0.007, 0.016) i.e. deaths from gas burning for power may be expected to be lower than for coal burning. However CO pollution and NOx pollution from gas burning for power is about 20% of that from coal burning i.e. gas burning produces substantial quantities of dangerous pollutants. [27, 28]

4. In addition to methane and other aliphatic (non-aromatic) hydrocarbons, natural gas can contain toxic materials such as aromatic organics, notably those innately present or deriving from “fracking” mixtures used to help extract gas from fractured rocks or coal seams (e.g. benzene, toluene, ethylbenze and xylene), radon (and other radioactive materials), and organometallics (e.g. methylmercury , organoarsenic compounds and organolead compounds). Incomplete combustion and industrial leakage of natural gas (estimated by the US EPA to be at least 2.2% globally and recently assessed to be at least 3.3% in the US ; see section (B) above) will pollute the local environment with these toxic substances. Radon and other radioactive materials are mutagenic and carcinogenic. Aromatic organics are carcinogenic. Organometallics are fat soluble, leading to long-term storage in human fat tissue. Methylmercury is neurotoxic (e.g. as in Minamata syndrome). Organoarsenic and organolead compounds are variously toxic. Arsenic is toxic, teratogenic (yielding birth defects) and carcinogenic. [27].

5. Nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO) (collectively described as NOx) are major products from natural gas combustion. According to the US EPA: “NOx react with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form small particles. These small particles penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital admissions and premature death.” [28, 29]..

6. According to the US EPA: “Ozone is formed when NOx and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of heat and sunlight. Children, the elderly, people with lung diseases such as asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are at risk for adverse effects from ozone. These include reduction in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms as well as respiratory-related emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and possibly premature deaths.” [29].

7. Nitrogen oxides can seriously injure vegetation, bleaching or killing plant tissue, causing leaf fall and reducing growth rate. Ozone pollution damages photosynthesis by plants. NOx air pollution contributes to acidifying nitrate deposition (with fish kills and reduction in plant growth), causes excess soil nitrification in ecosystems (with damage to vegetation, loss of biodiversity, increased GHG pollution) and is regarded not just a s a threat to agriculture and forestry but also to as a major threat to national parks and wilderness areas . [30, 31].

8. Gas burning-based power generation at a circa 1000 MW level in an urban environment can have very serious health consequences. Thus the City of Sydney (New South Wales, Australia) has pledged to install more than 100 trigeneration gas-burning turbines which burn gas to generate electricity and then capture the exhaust to heat and cool buildings as necessary. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change has slammed this proposal saying that emissions from just 10MW of “co-generation” (a similar engine that heats but doesn’t cool buildings) could exceed health limits and that 200 MW generation would certainly do so: “On an hourly basis 330MW of gas-fired co-generation [the amount envisioned] could emit up to 660kg per hour of NOx; this is more NOx than the combined emissions from the Shell and Caltex oil refineries in Sydney…As a result there is little ‘headroom’ available to accommodate uncontrolled emissions from cogeneration without causing local health impacts.” The National Environment Protection Council sets a limit of 0.03 parts per million (ppm) for allowed levels of NOx release average over a year. By way of example, the current proposal for 1,000 MW gas-fired power plant to be built 1.5 kilometres from the Lockyer Valley town of Gatton (Queensland, Australia) is contra-indicated on the basis of NOx pollution health effects on the nearby community. [32, 33].

9. A further threat from gas fired power generation comers from the generation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. A study of pollution from a 70-year-old natural gas-fired power station in Canada stated:

“This paper presents the results of a risk assessment study made using CalTOX, a multimedia, multiple pathway risk assessment model. The case study is based on the Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) soil contamination resulting from the activities of a natural gas power station over a period of 70 years. It describes model characteristics and input parameters such as physico-chemical properties, landscape description, and human exposure factors. Model simulations and risk estimations corresponding to different remedial scenarios in an industrial zone are also presented. These estimations were based on soil contamination by 16 PAHs in the root-zone and vadose-zone layer. Results show that adult exposure (workers) to contaminated soil will lead to a potential health risk of carcinogenic effects, and to no potential risk of non-carcinogenic effects. On the other hand, the addition of 10 cm of clean soil over the contaminated soil (mitigated scenario) decreases the lifetime cancer risk to an acceptable level. The sensitivity analysis showed that the half-life of benzo[a]pyrene in the root-zone soil is the most sensitive parameter and that it contributes significantly to the variability of the cancer risk estimation. [34].”

10. A final major argument derives from cause and effect and the sources of the methane to be used. Australia and America are currently undergoing a gas exploitation boom that flies in the face of what top climate scientists are telling us. The film Gasland presents a deeply upsetting portrait of the devastation across America by the “frackers” involved in recovery of gas from fractured rocks and coal seams. In Australia, in addition to conventional offshore and on on-shore gas exploitation, there is a rapidly advancing coal seam gas industry involving “fracking” that has generated protest from both environmentalists and farmers. Whether the gas used in a gas-fired power station is on-shore- or off-shore-derived it is part of the total resource and accordingly no consequences of any gas extraction (e.g. environmental pollution as set out in “Gasland”) can be ignored. [35].

In summary, objections to the transition from coal burning-based power to gas burning-based power are that (A) Humanity should be urgently decreasing CO2 pollution to 300 ppm from the current dangerous 392 ppm and certainly should not be increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution (all fossil fuels must be kept in the ground if we are to save the Planet) ; (B) Natural Gas (mainly methane) is not clean energy, methane is 72 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time scale and, depending upon the rate of methane leakage, natural gas burning can be as dirty as coal burning greenhouse gas-wise; and (C) Pollutants from gas leakage and gas burning pose a chemical risk to residents, agriculture and the environment. Please use this article as a resource and tell everyone you can why we must oppose transition to gas-fired power.

Ecological unequal exchange, or the zero-sum model, can help us understand many things about the world’s international trade, political order and environmental degradation. It can help put out the air on a few misleading claims about our so-called postmodern western societies and help people understand that Europe is at the top because of ecological imperialism and an ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system.

To fully understand the idea of ecological unequal exchange one must first understand how the stratification system in the world works. This global stratification system, which can also be known as the division of labor, ranks nations into three different categories:

1. The top category is called the core. The world’s wealthiest nations who have enjoyed centuries of social and economic progress at the expense of poorer nations are placed here. Examples of nations placed in the core could be USA, England, Japan and the EU.
2. The second category is called the semi-periphery. Nations placed here mostly acts as a “middleman” to the bigger and wealthier nations in the core. Semi-periphery nations could for example be China, India, Russia and Brazil.
3. The last category is called the periphery. Poor third-world countries, most of who are from Africa and Latin America are placed in this category. These nations are characterized by their enormous exports of cheap labor and natural resources to the core.

Periphery nations are exporting large quantities of low-value products, such as metals and timber, to core nations for consumption. But the core nations are on the other hand not exporting these low-value goods. Instead they are exporting more high-value products such as cars and other technological goods. Simply put, the raw commodities are exported from poor nations to the core market in the rich world where the final product can be worth many times more when it’s been refined. The exported goods from the periphery also involve bigger ecological degradation than exports from the core. This degradation can for example be soil erosion, deforestation, polluted air and the loss of nutrients but also in a higher intensity of energy wasted and CO2 produced. Exports from periphery nations also involve a much higher intensity in underpaid human labor. So besides an unequal ecological exchange there is also an unequal exchange of embodied labor.

The European Union is a large importer of oil, coal, gas, minerals, metals, biomass etc. If you add the weight of all the goods together the EU imports four times more than it actually exports. Compare that to Latin America which exports about six times more than it imports and you can clearly see the difference. Colombia in Latin America imports every year around 10 million tons but their exports are about 70 million tons. Research has also shown that the EU-15 region exports are valued, in terms of money, at 4 times more than its imports. For periphery nations in Africa and Latin America one ton of import from the EU-15 region is worth 10 times more than one ton of export from these periphery nations to the EU-15 core.

You can see this stratification system in a more local environment as well. Consider for example a city and the countryside or even more local: the downtown of the city and its surrounding suburbs. Here the core is the city and the downtown. The countryside and the suburbs are the periphery. This global stratification system is dynamic. Good examples of this are Australia and Ireland who both have been former British colonies but now have advanced into core nations. But the system is still very much static and the unequal structure is kept intact mostly because of domestic political unrest and high levels of social inequality in the periphery nations, worsening terms of trade and unstable product prices on the global market. Many periphery nations also struggle with the legacy of imperialism and its postcolonial political institutions.

The rich nations are maintaining this unequal world system with the help from political and market-based ways. And what might be more shocking, or not, is that they sometimes even do this with sponsored or direct military power from the core nation itself. For example: The core nations are enforcing strong patent and intellectual property right laws and agreements that give a disadvantage to the periphery nations development. Worsening terms of trade, which I mentioned before, are also keeping the prices down on natural resources making it easier and easier for the core nations to keep importing and consuming. This means that periphery nations need to export more and more of their low-value goods to be able to pay for the high-value imports from the core. The USA is now importing more than half of the oil it consumes from nations outside its borders. Most of those imports come from Latin America. Venezuela and Bolivia who are both oil rich nations have lately tried to stand up against the energy and political influence from the core nations. The democratically elected Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has increased his nation’s control of major oil and energy projects from 40% to 60% in recent years. Chavez has used this extra income to raise his people’s living standards. Similar things are happening in Bolivia where the President Evo Morales have nationalized the countries energy industry. This has helped give Morales an approval rating of 80% back home. But core nations such as the USA are not happy over this as it might threaten their increasing oil imports. So both Morales and Chavez have been criticized by the core for their “weak commitment to democracy”. To secure future oil imports USA is now using “force to reassert dominance” via “state terror and coercion” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The nations in the core are, because of their overconsumption and production scale, the main greenhouse gas polluters. Nations in the periphery are also big polluters but they are, according to researchers, hindered to pursue a more efficient and environmental friendly approach. The reason for this is that they are strained by economic debts, lack of technological knowledge and an export dependency which is based on a limited range of production.

You often hear claims by people that the developed nations are moving into a more dematerializing, postconsumerist, postmodern or service-focused economy where they consume more services than actual materialistic products. Many people state that this is a “great environmental victory”. World Bank and WTO analysts claims that exports from developing nations are “continually being upgraded” and that these exports to the core nations are improving developing nations own economic growth and development. But research has shown that developed nations who have moved into this postmodern service-focused economy has not yet lowered emissions in any significant way. Models have also shown that developing countries that take part in the international trade emits more than other periphery nations that are not as actively involved in the trade. The developed world has basically been able to outsource its dirty industries and the worst ecological impacts of production to nations in the periphery.

References:

• Roberts, J.T. & Parks, B.C. (2006). “A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy”
• Hornborg, A., J.R. McNeill & J. Martinez-Alier, red. (2007).”Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change”
• Tabb, William K. (2007). “Resource Wars”
• Davis, Mike (2004). “The View from Hubbert’s Peak”

“This is not what I voted for,” Bill Maher said on his HBO show Friday night, arguing that Barack Obama has maintained his personal popularity but failed to make real progress on climate change, the economy and health care in USA.

And of course Maher has a good point. China is investing $12.6 million every hour to green their economy and they will impose stricter gas mileage rules than those Obama have proposed. And while China triples their wind power capacity and outpaces the USA you just have to wonder what Obama is doing.

Well it seems Obama’s solution to man-made climate change is to stick with the Bush climate ruling and paint our cars and roofs white. Although painting our roofs white to reflect the sunlight is a cheap way to fight global warming (some claim white roofs is the equivalent to taking the world’s approximately 600 million cars off the road for 18 years) reversing his pro-coal stance somehow seems like a better and more direct solution to the climate crisis.

And just like Maher said, “this isn’t what I voted for”, or why we endorsed you.

Before the global recession hit (and reduced the soaring price of fossil fuels), the “market cost” of the best renewables had become similar to that of coal burning-based power (see “Hope: best renewables cost same as coal power. “One Day Pathétique” Symphony painting”).

However an Ontario, Canada Government commissioned analysis has revealed that when you take environmental and human mortality impacts into account the “true cost” of coal burning-based power was 4-5 times greater than the “market cost” – this making the best renewables and geothermal much cheaper than the “true cost” of coal burning-based power (see “Ontario study identifies social costs of coal-fired power plants”).

Another way of seeing this is that it can be estimated (from arithmetic projection from the Canada study) that about 5,000 Australians die every year from the effects of deadly pollutants from coal burning (heavy metals, carbon monoxide, radioactivity, soot, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide) i.e. Australia sacrifices 5,000 lives each year on the altar of heavily-subsidized coal burning-based power (see “How many people die from Carbon Burning and Climate Change each year?”).

For the Text and Power Point Slide Presentation of a superb recent public lecture by Dr Peter Seligman (Bionic Ear engineer, Cochlear and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) entitled “The Bang for Buck Approach to CO2 Abatement” here is the link on the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website. This link gives the Text of a public lecture by Dr Peter Seligman; for the extremely effective Power Point Presentation accompanying this lecture scroll down to see the Attachment at the end of the lecture text. Dr Seligman discussed where you can invest your money most effectively to reduce your Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (e.g. roof top solar PV, solar/gas hot water, wind farms etc) – some of our favourite solutions do not bear up under his analysis. [In the following summary of his analysis, I have included but personally discounted nuclear power because, in addition to major security issues and costs, nuclear power introduction in a carbon-based economy carries a huge CO2 pollution component in the overall fuel cycle from the mining and processing to waste disposal and de-commissioning (see “The truth about greenhouse and nuclear power”)].

Thus, according to Dr Seligman the “cost of energy abatement including the cost of energy saved” in units of “A$/tonne CO2” ranged from a marvellous -$500 (Mornington, WA remote area solar PV), -$141 (Compact fluorescent lamp used 24 hrs/day continuously), -$139 (large geothermal), -$139 (IRIS sealed nuclear reactor), -$134 (Georgia USA nuclear power), -$130 (Portland wind farm), -$121 (Birdsville geothermal), -$118 (Hepburn Co-op wind farm), $111 (Cloncurry thermal solar), $93 (LED fluorescent tube replacement), $92 (Mildura power solar power) and -$90 (domestic gas/solar hot water service, HWS) to the very costly +$7 (Gorgon CO2 injection project), +$30 (Carbon Capture and Sequestration, CCS Otway basin trial), +$36 (More efficient fridge), + $269 (hybrid car extra cost), $417 (Fairview coal bed methane), +$458 (Rooftop grid connect solar PV system), +$682 (Solar/gas HWS holiday house, 10% occupation) and +$2,000 (shredding money). [I would discount the nuclear option for the reasons given above].

Not considered in Dr Seligman’s excellent analysis is conversion to biochar (charcoal) of waste biomass (from crop straw, grasslands and forest waste biomass), this product being useful in CO2 abatement through return of carbon to the soil and also through helping create “terra preta” soil with increased fertility (see “Biochar” and “Forest biomass-derived Biochar can profitably reduce global warming and bushfire risk”). [Other improved agricultural practices such as minimum tillage cropping are also significant ].

Biochar expert Professor Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University calculates that it is realistically possible to fix 9.5 billion tonnes of carbon per year using biochar, noting that global annual production of carbon from fossil fuels is 8.5 billion tonnes (see: Alok Jha, “Biochar’ goes industrial with giant microwaves to lock carbon in charcoal“, Guardian (13 March 2009) and Johannes Lehmann, Biochar for mitigating climate change: “carbon sequestration in the black”).

In an Australian context, Crucible Carbon is developing high efficiency, low O2 pyrolysis technology for the mass production of biochar. According to Inside Waste Weekly: “Managing director Matthew Warnken says … potential carbon abatement of 100-200 million tonnes annually is “extremely reasonable and would be very achievable”… first commercial demonstration plant, with construction to begin at a site in regional NSW early next year. That plant will process around 20,000-40,000 tonnes of feedstock annually, producing electricity and a biochar product that would be used to improve degraded soils … assuming realistic prices for the value of the biochar and energy outputs of the plant, a value of A$20-30 per tonne of carbon sequestered would allow commercial biochar plants to be built with a three-year payback period” (see Opposition throws support behind biochar, Inside Waste Weekly (27 January 2009)).

Professor Lovelock FRS has given a recent assessment in which he discards nuclear (“It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction measures”) and plumps for biochar, stating: ““There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste – which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering – into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast … The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes [550 billion tonnes] of carbon [carbon dioxide, CO2] yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes [CO2]. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won’t do it” (see Gaia Vince (2009), “One last chance to save mankind“, New Scientist, 23 January 2009: and http://biocharfund.com/…/20c02.pdf).

The World is running out of time but there is still hope that reason, science and rational risk management will prevail.

Back then the greenwashing campaign faced protests from environmental organizations such as Klimax and Greenpeace. And last week the “Yellow Army Fraction” liberated 44 of these yellow plastic men from one of Vattenfall’s offices in Sweden:

“Yellow plastic figures has been Vattenfall’s way to try fool the public that they’re actually doing something about the climate change other than pollution through large scale coal fire power plants. What they didn’t take into consideration was the fact that the figures would come alive and organize! Today the Yellow Army Fraction liberated 44 of their fellows in their struggle to crush Vattenfall and their dirty industry and saving the planet in the process. No more coal!”

Watch the liberation:

Their website: http://autonomarotter.net

Photo credit: World Development Movement

Top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen shares his thoughts about Coal River Mountain and Barack Obama’s coal policy in general in a letter titled: “Tell President Obama About Coal River Mountain“.

“Coal River Mountain is the site of an absurdity.

[...]The issue at Coal River Mountain is whether the top of the mountain will be blown up, so that coal can be dredged out of it, or whether the mountain will be allowed to stand. It has been shown that more energy can be obtained from a proposed wind farm, if Coal River Mountain continues to stand. More jobs would be created. More tax revenue would flow, locally and to the state, and the revenue flow would continue indefinitely. Clean water and the environment would be preserved. But if planned mountaintop removal proceeds, the mountain loses its potential to be a useful wind source.”

You can read and download the report that Hansen is talking about over at Coal River Mountain Watch.

Britain’s leading green commentator tackles the International Energy Authority’s chief economist, who reveals for the first time a startling and worrying prediction for the date of peak oil.

Watch the second interview on the Guardian!

In the third of his groundbreaking encounters with the figures whose decisions shape our environment, George Monbiot gives the head of the countryside watchdog, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, an unforgettable grilling, asking why it opposes windfarms – but not opencast coal mines

Watch the third interview on the Guardian!

Be also sure to check out the very first interview with Yvo de Boer, the current Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Photo credit: go_greener_oz

With Parliament in recession for Christmas and the Christmas-New Year holiday), the pro-Coal Australian Government that presides over the Developed World’s worst per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter and the World’s biggest coal exporter – climate criminal Australia – has finally announced commitment to a derisory “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020”.

This appalling decision has drawn trenchant criticism from Australian scientists and environmentalists (indeed a courageous young woman protestor who shouted “NO!” was hauled from the Australian PM’s press conference. This appalling decision is in stark contrast to the Climate Emergency Facts (from top Australian and world climate scientists) and the Climate Emergency Actions required to deal with the Climate Emergency that are summarized at the end of this article (see “Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions” on the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group’s website.).

I have presented below a very detailed critique of this appalling, irresponsible, selfish and incompetent decision by the extreme right wing, Bush-ite Rudd Labor Government – a decision which, if adopted globally, would be tantamount to Terracide (destruction of the Earth’s Bisophere) and global Climate Suicide. A top Australian climate scientist Professor Andy Pitman responded to the Australian Government’s “5% off by 2020” by saying that we need to keep atmospheric CO2 to below 450 ppm to avoid a catastrophic 2 degrees C temperature rise and that means global 25%-50% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020.

According to data from “Coal Facts Australia 2008” of the Australian Coal Association. Australia’s Domestic greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 totalled 559 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (Mt CO2-e) or about 1.24% of estimated global emissions (45 Gt CO2-e = 45,000 Mt CO2-e).

Australia’s greenhouse gas production in CO2-e in 2000 was 535.3 million tonnes (Mt) according to “Greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries. Where does Australia stand?” by Hal Turton (Discussion Paper 66, The Australia Institute, June 2004). Based on an annual growth rate of 2% this indicates a 2008 value of 627 Mt.

However Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and is also a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) that is Exported and thence burned to produce CO2 . Using a 2008 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimate of 627 Mt (derived from the 2000 value and assuming an annual growth rate of 2%) plus CO2 emissions estimates from exported coal and LNG in 2008 of 474.3 Mt and 28.4 Mt, respectively (see US Energy Information Administration data), one can estimate that Australia’s 2008 Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas emissions totalled 1130 Mt CO2-e or 2.5% of estimated global emissions.

Extrapolating from US Energy Information Administration data on Australian coal and liquid natural gas exports in the last decade (beautifully LINEAR and UPWARDS when plotted versus time and hence permitting qualified extrapolation), this decision of “5% decrease on the Domestic 2000 GHG pollution value by 2020″ and official Labor policy of “60% decrease on the Domestic 2000 GHG pollution value by 2050” means that Australia’s annual Domestic plus Exported greenhouse gas pollution (in Mt CO2-e = million tonnes of CO2-e) will INCREASE from 885 Mt (2000) and 1130 Mt (2008) to 1245 Mt (2020; an INCREASE of 41% over the 2000 value) to 1586 Mt (2050; an INCREASE of 79% over the 2000 value).

If one supposed that sanity broke out globally and that the rest of the world, except for Australia, immediately stopped any increase in greenhouse gas emissions, then it is estimated that Australia’s share of annual global GHG pollution would increase from 2.5% (2008) to 1245 x100 /44,115 = 2.8% (2020) and to 1586 x 100/44,456 = 3.6% (2050).

2000 per capita greenhouse gas production with land use change considered (or without land use change) was 25.9 (25.6) for Australia versus 3.9 (3.9) for China (see “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”).

However Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter, the worst per capita greenhouse gas polluter in the developed world, and one of the worst annual per capita greenhouse polluters in the world as a whole – and it accordingly would be disingenuous and indeed dishonest to IGNORE Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution in calculating Australia’s annual per capita GHG pollution. Thus if Australia didn’t extract fossil fuel and sell it then it this fuel wouldn’t get burned – we are responsible for our actions and the only way Australia would be innocent of the GHG pollution consequences of coal and LNG burning would be if it sold the coal and LNG overseas on the strict condition that it would NOT be burned).

Accordingly, in 2000 Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution (tonnes CO2-e per person per year) was 44.2 versus 3.9 for the annual per capita GHG pollution by China. Based on US EIA data projections and Labor GHG pollution policy (and assuming population stasis at 21 million) Australia’s Domestic plus Exported CO2-e pollution will reach 59 in 2020 (15 times China’s 2000 annual per capita GHG pollution value) and 75.5 by 2050 (19 times China’s 2000 value of 3.9; 33 times Pakistan’s 2000 value of 2.3; 40 times India’s 2000 value of 1.9; and 84 times Bangladesh’s 2000 value of 0.9) (see Wikipedia).

The extraordinary international disparity and the extraordinary current Australian “exceptionalism” (it is operationally OK for Australia but not for others; Australia will reduce its per capita GHG pollution only if China reduces its too) brings to mind other extraordinary mathematical statements of White Australian “exceptionalism” in relation to Chinese from Australia’s non-politically correct (non-PC) past.

Thus in 1947 then Labor Immigration Minister (and later Labor leader) Arthur Calwell notoriously stated that “Two Wongs do not make a White” (for context and documentation see p183, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability“:http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ )– however, as indicated above, current Australian Labor is evidently aiming for a circa twenty (20)-fold disparity.

Indeed way back in 1901, Edmund Barton (Australia’s first Prime Minister and Father of the notorious White Australia Policy aka the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act that was finally abolished by the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act) stated: “The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of an Englishman and a Chinaman” (for context and documentation see p179, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability“. See: janeaustenand.blogspot.com).

The effectively “business as usual” “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution level by 2020” must be unequivocally seen in the context that 16 million people already die avoidably annually due to increasingly global warming-impacted deprivation (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”: ) and that, according to top UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS (the Gaia hypothesis, “The Revenge of Gaia”), over 6 billion people will perish this century due to unaddressed man-made climate change.

Indeed the scale of the actual and potential lethality of First World tardiness in response to the Climate Emergency – exemplified by the appalling conduct of Australia, the worst First World per capita GHG polluter – and First World demands that they will reduce their extremely high per capita GHG pollution if Developing countries reduce their already very low per capita GHG pollution, demands a new Climate Lexicon e.g. Climate Racism, Climate Politically-correct Racism, Climate PC Racism, Climate Exceptionalism, Climate Terrorism, Climate Terrorists, Climate Terror, Climate Criminal, Climate Crime, Climate Criminality, Climate Injustice, Climate Justice and Climate Genocide.

Indeed in 2008 a formal complaint was sent to the International Criminal Court in relation to Australian involvement in Climate Genocide. Thus Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention states that

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

This formal complaint pointed out that

“Australia is steadfast in its refusal to reduce its world leading annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution and has a major responsibility for the accelerating Climate Genocide that, as estimated by outstanding UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS, will affect billions; as reported by the Royal Society: “Even if we act now Professor Lovelock believes that six to eight billion humans will be faced with ever diminishing supplies of food and water in an increasingly intolerable climate and wildlife and whole ecosystems will become extinct” (see his recent lecture at the Royal Society)”

and that

“Countries at major risk from sea level rises due to climate change include island nations in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific (some of which face total extinction) and countries with mega-deltas in Europe, Africa, the Americas and Asia (of which some face catastrophic loss of agriculture and massive population displacements). Such Nations will be receiving copies of this formal complaint and are urged to transmit formal complaints to the International Criminal Court”.

Australian “exceptionalism” is put into stark contrast by the following values of “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution” (tonnes per person per year) estimated for 2004 using data from the US Energy Information Administration: 19.2 (for Australia; 40 if you include Australia’s coal exports), 19.7 (the US), 18.4 (Canada), 9.9 (Japan), 4.2 (the World), 3.6 (China), 1.0 ( India),Pakistan (0.7) and 0.25 (for Bangladesh).

Of course “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived CO2 pollution” is but one – albeit a very important – indicator of climate impact. The Germanwatch Climate Change Index 2008, a comparison of the 56 top CO2 emitting nations, takes other parameters into account in ranking. In this ranking of 56 top CO2 emitting nations, Sweden and Germany are #1 and #2 for greenhouse responsibility, while shale-oil-rich Canada (a US ally), coal-rich Australia (a US ally), the USA and oil-rich Saudi Arabia (US-linked) rank #53, #54, #55 and #56, respectively.

To assist public understanding of the issue here are some key estimates relating to “annual per capita GHG pollution” and deriving from authoritative primary data provided by the US Energy Information Administration and the UN Population Division and taking into account the OFFICIAL Australian 2020 targets of “5% reduction on 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2020” and “60% reduction on 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2050”.

Australia’s “annual LNG exports” (Mt CO2 produced): 21.8 (2000), 28.4 (2008), 38.2 (2020), 62.8 (2050).

Australia’s “annual coal exports) (Mt CO2 produced): 327.6 (2000), 474.3 (2008), 609.7 (2020), 1255.4 (2050).

Australia’s “annual Domestic GHG pollution) (Mt CO2-e produced) : 535.3 (2000), 627.2 (2008), 508.5 (2020), 267.7 (2050).

Australia’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (Mt CO2-e produced): 884.7 (2000), 1129.9 (2008), 1245.4 (2020), 1585.9 (2050).

Australia’s population (Millions): 19.1 (2000), 21.0 (2008), 23.4 (2020), 28.0 (2050).

Australia’s “annual per capita Domestic & Exported GHG pollution” (tonnes CO2-e per person per year): 46.3 (2000), 53.8 (2008), 53.2 (2020), 56.6 (2050).

Australia’s “annual Domestic & Exported GHG pollution as % of 2000 value”: 100% (2000), 128% (2008), 141% (2020), 179% (2050).

As indicated above, Australia needs to REDUCE its “annual per capita Domestic & Exported” GHG pollution” by 90% to bring it back to the World average – but, in stark contrast, is set to INCREASE this under its quite FALSELY labelled “GHG pollution reduction” policies.

According to Professor Andy Pitman (University of New South Wales, a top Australian climate scientist and a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

“The basic science says we need to try to keep CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 450 parts per million equivalent, which is the bundle of all the greenhouse gases” (see ABC report).

In response to the Labor Government announcement of “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” Professor Pitman has stated on Australia’s ABC Radio National that we need to keep atmospheric CO2 to below 450 ppm to avoid a catastrophic 2 degrees C temperature rise and that means global 25%-50% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020.

The Australian Government’s falsely named “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” has a highly flawed Emissions Trading System (ETS) as an INDIRECT mechanism of Government intervention in “the market” to supposedly get “the market” (the actual source of the Climate Emergency problem) to moved to a solution. The Australian ETS is highly flawed Cap and Trade system and, in short, is based on a Cap that will destroy the Great Barrier Reef , ignores 2/3 of Australian GHG sources and absurdly RETURNS a large part of the Government receipts for “licences to pollute” to the major polluters (for detailed critique see “Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will INCREASE Carbon Pollution”) .

The self-absorbed and “exceptionalist” Australian Government, media, politicians and people simply don’t understand the International Legal principle that just as we are held responsible for out actions that damage others at a national level, so this also applies at an International level (as exampled by huge compensation cases for disasters associated with pollution from mining). Thus a UK organization Bring Climate Criminals to Justice (BCCJ) has an aim “To establish a legal process in the UK and abroad to facilitate the criminal prosecution of Government Ministers and key business leaders whose policies and activities contribute to the mass loss of life which Climate Change is certain to now cause” and is particularly concerned with ALREADY HAPPENING damage to Bangladesh and “Working to ensure UK environmental campaign groups re-focus campaigning, uniting to call for the criminal prosecution and imprisonment of the worst offenders” (see: http://climate-criminals.co.uk). As outlined above, a formal complaint outlining Australian complicity in Climate Genocide was sent to the International Criminal Court in 2008 (see: http://climateemergency.blogspot.com).

Sanctions and Boycotts were successfully applied to the Apartheid régime of South Africa for denying equal rights and one-man-one-vite to Africans, Chinese and Indians in South Africa. Australia, accordingly, must be at serious risk of Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariff and Reparations Demands over the damage it is already causing and the huge threat it poses to billions of people and the very existence of some Island States through its remorseless, world leading per capita greenhouse gas pollution.

A fundamental key issue is Public Honesty in Word and Deed. Thus it is egregiously dishonest for the Australian Government to call a scheme that will INCREASE Australia’s GHG pollution as a “”Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. Further, the Rudd Labor Government was elected in 2007 with Climate Change as a major public concern – however, in 2008 Australia’s annual Domestic and Exported Greenhouse Gas (GHG) pollution INCREASED by 2.1% from that in 2007 under the Coalition Federal Government and , barring recession effects, is expected in 2009 to have increased by 6.5% over that in 2007 (see “Australia INCREASED Greenhouse Gas pollution in 2008 by 2% over 2007”).

Even if we set aside the argument about required GHG pollution reduction between expert scientists VERSUS industry, the coal industry and the Liberal-Labor (lib-Lab) political consensus, there is a fundamental issue of public honesty and zero tolerance for lying (by omission or commission) that is absolutely required for rational risk management in the interests of public safety and national security. Unfortunately a Letter recently sent to about 3,000 State and Federal MPs, many non-science academics, media and other influential Australians – a Letter that made this fundamental risk management point with numerous examples of huge realities (including Climate Emergency realities such as the likely destruction of the Great Barrier Reef) that are IGNORED by Mainstream media, politicians and academics and pleaded for them to inform others (see “Climate Emergency, Exceptionalism & Ignoring Downunder. Letter to eminent Australians over public honesty”) – resulted in a mere 0.2% of recipients responding by saying that they would inform others about the shocking but IGNORED facts I reported.

Finally, the sheer IRRESPONSIBILITY, GREED and policy FAILURE implicit in the Developed World’s worst per capita GHG polluter, Australia, committing to a derisory “5% reduction on 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” is in STARK CONTRAST to the Climate Emergency Facts (from top Australian and world climate scientists) and the Climate Emergency Actions required to deal with the Climate Emergency that are summarized below (see “Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions” on the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group’s website: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/climate-emergency-facts-and-required-actions ; for other detailed, quantitative and well-referenced analyses relating to the Climate Emergency see the following articles and fact sheets placed on the Web by the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group).

Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions

Just as we turn to top medical specialists for advice on life-threatening disease, so we turn to the opinions of top scientists and in particular top biological and climate scientists for Climate Change risk assessment and Climate Emergency Facts and requisite Actions as exampled below (for detailed documentation of everything below see the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group website).

Professor James Hansen (top US climate scientist, head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies): “We face a climate emergency”.

Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty: “We are in real danger.”

Professor David de Kretser AC (eminent medical scientist and Governor of Victoria, Australia) “There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest problem confronting mankind at this time and that it has reached the level of a state of emergency.”

Dr Andrew Glikson (palaeo-climate scientist, ANU): “The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has … raised CO2 levels to 387 ppm CO2 to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO2 levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres.”

Major Climate Emergency Facts

1. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has increased to 387 parts per million (ppm) as compared to 280 ppm pre-industrial and is increasing at about 2.5 ppm per year with average global temperature about 0.8 degrees C above the pre-industrial.

2. Man-made global warming due to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution from carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides is already associated with major ecosystem damage (Arctic, ocean, coral reefs), melting of glaciers and Arctic sea ice, sea level rise, methane release from melting tundra and positive feed-back effects accelerating GHG pollution and warming.

3. Consequences of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase and warming to current 387 ppm: major ecosystem damage; current species extinction rates are 100-1,000 times greater than previously; to over 400 ppm: “new territory” not seen for millions of years with acute dangers from positive feedbacks; to over 450 ppm: major damage and death to coral reefs and associated fisheries; to over 500 ppm: major loss of ocean phytoplankton, ocean life, cloud seeding, the Greenland ice sheet and densely populated global coastal regions due to massive sea level rises.

Climate Emergency Actions URGENTLY Required

1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying.

2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO2 to a safe level of less than 350 ppm as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists.

3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.

PLEASE TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

Photo credit: izzie_whizzie

Yesterday it was revealed that on November 28 one activist managed to breach the coal-powered Kingsnorth plant, one of the most heavily guarded power stations in Britain. The activist singlehandedly managed to get in, stop the power station and get out the same way without being noticed or caught by the security on site.

The £12m defences of the most heavily guarded power station in Britain have been breached by a single person who, under the eyes of CCTV cameras, climbed two three-metre (10ft) razor-wired, electrified security fences, walked into the station and crashed a giant 500MW turbine before leaving a calling card reading “no new coal”. He walked out the same way and hopped back over the fence.

As a result the coal-powered Kingsnorth plant was shut down for hours, which apparently reduced the climate change emissions in the UK by 2%.

The police and climate activists are “mystified” about who the man dubbed “climate man” or the “green Banksy” really is and how he managed to pull it off.

Yesterday the hunt was on for the man dubbed “climate man” or the “green Banksy”. Climate activists responsible for hijacking coal trains and breaking on to runways said they knew nothing about the incident. Even veterans of some of the most audacious direct actions, such as the scaling of the Kingsnorth chimney, are mystified. The station operator E.On professed astonishment that a lone activist would be daring enough to try to do something so potentially dangerous.

[…]Should “climate man” ever show up, he will be feted for what activists say was the most daring individual action of the year. “We have no idea who he is – but we really want to know. Everybody’s asking ‘where were you on Friday November 28′,” said Ben Stewart of Greenpeace, one of six people arrested for climbing the 76 metre (250ft) chimney of the Kingsnorth station early last year but found not guilty of criminal damage in November. “We would never act anonymously,” he added.

This story creates lots of questions. But one thing is for sure. There truly exist many climate heroes in the UK.