The Gunns Show  

The US election results have many people in the mainstream press wondering if impeachment proceedings can now begin - over Iraq, totalitarian behaviour and inaction on climate change. Guilty on all 3 charges if you ask me.

A moderate Republican senator, Arlen Specter, who has often been critical of the Bush Administration's determination to ride roughshod over Congress, fears the Democrats will now use their majority in the House to wreak revenge on Mr Bush.
"There have been questions about this Administration's relationship with Congress, but in this election everything has been subsumed by the war in Iraq," he said. "I do think we need to chart a new course.

"What I fear is what the Democrats will do with their control of the House. There is talk from senior Democrats about impeaching the President. That would just produce chaos and in the end it wouldn't work. But they are going to run out of subpoenas for witnesses for all their planned inquiries by the sound of things."

Ms Pelosi, who will become the first woman Speaker of the House and who was demonised by the Republican Party as a "San Francisco liberal" determined to implement a liberal agenda, has said she would not favour impeachment proceedings against Mr Bush. But with Democrats in control of House committees, she has said there will be investigations into the Bush Administration's "illegal wire-tapping program", its misuse of intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq, its climate-change policies and the waste and alleged fraud of billions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction programs.

I saw the Rodent on TV tonight uttering some classic nonsense - he was sorry that the Republicans lost (strike one for diplomacy - the correct phrase is "I welcome our new Democratic overlords"), sorry that Rumsfeld has resigned ("great bloke", or words to that effect) and didn't view the result as a verdict on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but as a negative reaction to "large budget deficits". Errr - Johnny, I know you were a disaster when you were Treasurer, so perhaps numbers aren't your forte, but maybe you could have a guess at which desert hole all the US budget money is going down ? (Presumably there is a Halliburton constructed tunnel leading from the bottom of the hole back to Dick Cheney's secret lair of course, so the money hasn't been entirely lost to the USA)



In good news for the US military, they have won their first convincing victory in a number of years, allying with the anti-war types to drive Donald Rumsfeld into the sea (with the scoop from Comedy Central of all places - though I guess Rummy's reign has been pretty much a farce from day one). Robert Gates will replace him - Billmon points out he is another Iran-contra old boy, so he should fit right in with the rest of the B team.

US Defense Sectretary. Donald Rumsfeld will resign today. President Bush is set to make the announcement momentarily. In related news, here's today's NYT editorial: "First, Out With Rumsfeld." Former CIA head Robert Gates will succeed him.
LOL and behold, Comedy Central's blog broke the news last night.

Boing Boing notes that in the wake of the election results conservative fears about liberals are about to be realised. I'm not so sure if Bllmon is joking when he says the Republican party should be declared an crimal organisation and banned though.

BoingBoing reader Tom Polley and friends created a 25-point manifesto for the new Democratic Congress (and, maybe, the Senate), which shows many of the right's assumption's about the left to be true. Brace yourselves for change, America:
# Comatose people to be ground up and fed to poor
# Quarterly mandatory abortion lottery
# Jane Fonda to be appointed Secretary of Appeasement
# Outlaw all firearms: previous owners assigned to anger management therapy
# Ban Christmas: replace with Celebrate our Monkey Ancestors Day

Wired has a look at the US election results from a science and environment point of view, and largely considers them good news (though I think a Democratic Congress and lame duck Administration that thinks it has the ability to make unilateral decisions on everything is quite possibly a recipe for gridlock).

Climate change and energy security are essentially two ways of talking about the same thing: America's polluting, oil-based economy. For the most part, Republicans in the last Congress refused to act on the now voluminous scientific data that shows global warming is not only real but caused by human activity.

Several bills introduced by Democrats and moderate Republicans to impose mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, improve automobile gas mileage and divert major funding toward clean energy were held up or killed during the last session. But Republicans will be unable to disregard science so glibly in the new Congress.

The question is: Can Democrats reach a bipartisan agreement with their colleagues on climate change? To do so, Democrats, particularly in the House, will have to emphasize the need to improve America's energy security by weaning the country from foreign oil and spurring energy production from renewable domestic sources such as wind, solar and biofuel.

Adopting clean coal technology, in which carbon emissions are sequestered underground, could become a position both parties agree on. Democrats may also look to compromise with Republicans on increasing nuclear power generation.

From an environmentalist point of view, Tuesday's election was a mixed bag.

On the plus side is the re-election of Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), one of the most environmentally friendly politicians in Congress. Cantwell, who cruised to an easy victory against Republican challenger Mike McGavick, is a strong protector of America's waterways, which includes Puget Sound in her home state. She has also made energy independence one of her pet causes, which benefits biofuel producers and hybrid car manufacturers.

The oil and gas industries, which had enormous profits during the Republican congressional era, worked hard to defeat her. Cantwell has pushed hard for increased transparency and accountability in the energy markets and will likely continue to do so.

Another victory came in Montana where Democrat Jon Tester narrowly defeated incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns, whose campaign took a hit when his ties to crooked lobbyist Jack Abramoff came to light. Tester's victory is also a victory for the advocates of wind power, which has a strong presence in Big Sky country. Tester helped create a state renewable energy standard, an effort he hopes to repeat in the U.S. Senate.

The big loser in Montana: big oil.

In California, Democrat Jay McNerney becomes the new U.S. Representative from the 11th District, ousting rancher Richard Pombo, the bête noir of environmentalists across the country. McNerney, a renewable-energy consultant and mathematics and engineering Ph.D., brings to the House an informed and forward-looking position on addressing America's oil addiction. He wants to redirect subsidies for oil companies to renewable energy programs.

More important, Pombo, the head of the House Resources Committee and a man who tried to undermine the Endangered Species Act, open the entire U.S. coastline for offshore drilling and turn national parks into condo parks, leaves Washington and returns to animal husbandry.

The G20 meeting is due to start in Melbourne soon, with energy insecurity top of the agenda.

THE world's top finance ministers and central bankers will meet in Melbourne next week to discuss attracting $US8 trillion ($10.4 trillion) in energy investments to avoid production shortfalls.

The startling forecast of the 30-year investment funding needed to bolster inadequate oil and gas capacity - which implies that the oil price could soar far above yesterday's $US59 a barrel - is in an International Energy Agency report commissioned by the G20, which is to meet on November 18 and 19.

The agenda is yet to be finalised but the finance and central bank chiefs are certain to raise concerns about nationalisation of petroleum production across vast swathes of South America, Africa and Russia.

They are also likely to take issue with a string of bilateral energy deals signed recently, particularly by China.

The trends to protect national energy supplies have increased uncertainty and stymied efforts to create a transparent energy market - creating an unattractive market for private sector investors. Martin Parkinson, executive director at the Treasury department, told Australian Business Economists in Sydney that energy security will be at the top of the G20 agenda.

The G20 meeting is uniquely qualified to address energy security because it includes the world's largest petroleum producers - Saudi Arabia and Russia - as well as the world's largest consumers, China and the US.

Dr Parkinson said rapidly growing demand for commodities, particularly among developing countries, had clear implications for inflation and growth - and had triggered misguided energy security policies. "This explains why this issue can sometimes be viewed through a narrow strategic prism, which results in policy prescriptions that focus on rushing to lock up and monopolise available energy and mineral resources," he said. "History suggests that such a strategy is neither new nor likely to be effective."

Quoting John Maynard Keynes in the aftermath of World War I, Dr Parkinson said a scramble to tie up energy resources would leave a "black" industrial future and "the prospects of revolution very good".

Byron King at the Daily reckoning is just one more writer to have made the link between peak oil and global warming - though he has still fallen for the misconception that peak oil may mitigate global warming slightly, not realising that if people reach to low EROEI alternatives like heavy oils, coal to liquids, tar sands and even, scraping the bottom of the barrel, shale oil, then the problem will actually accelerate (which is why I do my broken record act about some peak oil solutions being global warming anti-solutions from time to time).

- The intellectual content of the Association For The Study Of Peak Oil And Gas (ASPO) conference was truly like taking a drink of water from a fire hydrant. I mean it. There was so much there that I was learning something new with almost every presentation.

- The first evening of the ASPO conference kicked off with three lectures on the subject of global warming (GW). Why global warming? Because it is what you get when you burn up lots of fossil, carbon-based fuels and load the atmosphere with excess levels of carbon dioxide (CO2).

- GW is the other side of the coin of Peak Oil. That is, in the process of rapidly depleting the Earth's supply of fossil fuels, mankind is also playing a life-threatening experiment with the Earth's atmosphere. Life-threatening? You had better believe it. If you are not worried, get worried.

Up until now, "The Australian" has mostly been on the Peak Energy blacklist due mostly to its biased pro-resource war political coverage and little nest of global warming denial vipers. After Rupert's recent change of tack over climate change, it seems they will now have content worth pointing to, such as this interesting report (admittedly a reprint from the FT) on the difficulty of achieving coordinated worldwide action on global warming. They helpfully point out that if you apply the 80/20 rule, there are 20 key countries to focus on if you want to make meaningful progress.

Resolving climate change requires solving a collective-action problem of enormous proportions: perhaps only managing the seas is as difficult. Resolving this problem also requires some way of dealing with free-riders. Yet, what seems free-riding to others is seen by the actors themselves as a legitimate exercise of sovereignty.

In resolving the challenge, policy-makers also have to settle a series of intractable distributional questions: between the countries that emitted most in the past and those who will emit more in future; between relatively invulnerable rich countries and the most vulnerable poor ones; and between those who are alive today and their descendants.

The time-periods involved make action even harder. Every year of delay raises the stock of greenhouse gases by about 2.5ppm. These gases will stay up for centuries.
Curbs will fall heavily on energy-intensive sectors and particularly on those whose ability to reduce carbon emissions is small. Politicians will be pressured to grant exemptions where they are least desirable. Finally, there remain huge uncertainties - what Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, called "unknown unknowns".

Some still contest the science. Others offer widely divergent forecasts of possible consequences. Equally, the technologies that may transform the possibilities in the decades ahead are, by definition, unknown.

This is just about the hardest of all imaginable challenges for policy-makers. Yet, all is not hopeless.

First, there is, if not universal, at least quite wide awareness of the dangers.
Second, the number of countries that need to contribute significantly to emissions reductions is quite small: the top-20 emitters account for 80 per cent of emissions.
Third, some of the steps to be taken will also help meet the aims of energy security or the need to conserve oil and gas. Reforestation and carbon capture and storage do not fall under these categories, but increased energy efficiency and use of nuclear power and renewable energy do.

So how might the world proceed to achieve the cuts in greenhouse emissions discussed in the report? The starting point would have to be with a shared understanding of the nature and significance of the challenge. The world is not there yet. Sceptics would say "rightly so". But recent movement - even in the US - has been rapid.

Then, we will need to do five things: first, create a suitable world price for carbon; second, invest in and then spread new technologies across the world; third, use regulatory standards to stimulate change; fourth, compensate poor countries for their part in solving a problem they have, hitherto, played no part in causing; and, last, create enough long-term certainty to stimulate the necessary investments in plant and technology.

Consider these briefly in turn...

Of course, the Oz will still run the Howard party line of "clean and green nuclear power is good for you", so there is still a way to go before they completely resign from the forces of evil.

FOSSIL fuels will still be the dominant source of world energy in 2030, even under the lower greenhouse gas emissions projected by the International Energy Agency.

However, a greater role for nuclear energy to curb greenhouse emissions is flagged in the IEA's new world energy outlook, as well as increased use of renewables and energy efficiencies in consumption and generation.

Global consumption of coal, oil and gas is predicted to increase by about 1 per cent a year until 2030, even if all current greenhouse abatement policies are adopted, with the push driven by developing countries that "shift the centre of gravity of global energy demand".

Under this scenario, greenhouse emissions would rise from 26 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year now to 34gigatonnes in 2030, with global coal demand 24 per cent higher, although emissions would slow after 2015.

The report said nuclear power would still be more expensive than coal-fired plants, and would require governments to facilitate investment in the technology.

John Howard welcomed this increased recognition yesterday as a vindication ofhis growing advocacy for nuclear energy as a low-emissions solution for Australia.
"The world is facing twin energy-related threats: that of not having adequate and secure supplies of energy at affordable prices and that of environmental harm caused by consuming too much of it," the report warns.

"Safeguarding energy supplies is once again at the top of the international policy agenda. Yet the current pattern of energy supply carries the threat of severe and irreversible environmental damage -- including changes in global climate."

The report says reconciling these competing demands will require $US20 trillion ($25.9 trillion) investment in energy supply infrastructure until 2030. It says that by using known technologies the lower emissions policy path would be self-funding, with higher spending on more expensive equipment and buildings offset by power, fuel and generation costs.

The report flags the potential role of biofuels to make a significant contribution to global transport energy needs, but only if new technologies using non-food sources were developed.

One of our local power plants (Delta Electricity's at Vales Point on the Central Coast) had a rather large explosion yesterday which took one of the units offline (it should be running back at half capacity again tomorrow). There was little effect on electricity prices due to the mild weather. Its these sorts of random accidents which always make me dubious about nuclear power plants - its not just the unlikely scenario of reactor meltdown you need to worry about. The state opposition are wondering if maintenance cutbacks were the cause of the accident (which seems to be pretty hypocritical given that they'd likely privatise the things if they were in power).

While Delta are suffering the blues, I must admit that they were the inspiration for me placing my Melbourne Cup bet on a horse presciently named "Delta Blues" on Tuesday - I'm still smiling over my winnings.

WORKERS had to be evacuated after a huge explosion ripped through a power station yesterday. The blast at the Vale Point Power Station in Mannering Park, on the northern NSW Central Coast, shook windows 10km away about 10.30am (AEDT) yesterday.

Delta Electricity corporate relations manager Margaret Miller yesterday said all workers had been accounted for following initial reports that a number of workers were missing after the explosion. She said a 660mW generator was destroyed in the blast but there had been no interruption to the local power supply.

Residents 10km away yesterday said their windows and doors were rattled.

The NSW Government handed a $52 million contract to Delta Electricity five months ago to clean up the power station's air filters and reduce emissions. Ms Miller said the explosion was not related to the ongoing filter work, due to be completed in December 2007.

NSW Maritime Authority experts were yesterday helping to clean up a small oil spill in Lake Macquarie which had leaked from the exploded transformer into a water canal used to cool the generators.

A little bit further up the coast in the coal mining region of Newcastle, the local city councillors have voted to cap coal exports and declare a moratorium on opening new mines. Unfortunately they don't have the ability to make any of this actually happen, but its a nice gesture. At least they aren't being hauled off to prison for pretending they belong to the religious right in the US, unlike their local member of parliament.

COAL might be mother's milk to Newcastle, but as far as the port city's council is concerned, it's weaning time.

Labor and Green councillors have voted 7-3 against any increase in the city's exports of coal as part of the fight against climate change. The council called for exports to be capped at current levels by the NSW Government, recognising "the urgent need to protect local and global environments from increasing greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce Newcastle's role in that increase".

In a separate vote, won 6-4, the council called on the Iemma Government to impose a moratorium on new mines. While acknowledging that the city council did not have the power to take the steps itself, Labor councillors Marilyn Eade and Paul Scobie supported the motion by Greens councillor Michael Osborne.

"Coal has reached record levels of export at 80 million tonnes a year," Mr Scobie said. "It's projected to go to 100million tonnes so it's rapidly increasing in its export and meanwhile we've got glaciers melting, we've got permafrost melting, (there's) every indication we've got a 1000-year drought in the Murray River. All these things are clearly (indicating) that climate change is real and it's starting to turn the corner very quickly."

Ms Eade said the council was not proposing to close the coal industry in Newcastle, but "maybe enough's enough".

Mr Osborne said nobody was closer to the coalface of the coal industry than the people of the Hunter region. "The fact that the government of the region's major city is prepared to support no expansion of coal exports through the port is a huge statement that should send a clear message to state and federal governments about how serious Australians now are about facing up to the challenge of climate change."

While the state government here generally bends over backward to keep the coal industry happy (and I should say hello to my new readers from Centennial Coal who have been studying up lately), I was pleased to see they made a surprisingly positive announcement today about increasing the mandatory renewable energy target.

The New South Wales Government has announced that within four years, 10 per cent of the electricity used in the state must come from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. The mandatory figure will rise to 15 per cent by 2020. The Government says the changes will cost the average household about $1 a week.

It also announced it will spend $220 million on a 63 turbine wind farm to be built at Tarago, near Queanbeyan, in the state's south.The Government says the changes will slash greenhouse gas emissions and boost the renewable energy sector.

Environmental groups have welcomed the announcement but say more still needs to be done. Jane Castle from the Total Environment Centre says is a good start, but she had hoped for more. "Twenty-five per cent by 2020 would bring $9 billion of new investment and 4,000 new permanent jobs to New South Wales, obviously this target falls short of that," she said.

The head of the Renewable Energy Generators Association (REGA), Susan Jeans, says the 10 per cent target is realistic. "We're more than capable of meeting the target that New South Wales has set," she said.

The Federal government target is still a pitiful 2% of course (though the states are now largely bypassing this) and they once again are ruling out the most important trigger for clean power (or even "clean coal") take up - a carbon tax. I actually think the long term interest for the coal miners here might be to ask for regulations mandating the phased decommissioning of dirty coal fired power plants and their replacement with IGCC generation - otherwise a carbon tax will one day get implemented that makes them completely obsolete.

The Federal Government says it is not about to impose a carbon tax on business. Speaking at an energy conference in Hobart today, Greg Hunt, the parliamentary secretary to the Environment Minister, said a carbon tax would drive up electricity costs with no discernible change in consumer use.

Mr Hunt says the way to tackle climate change is to invest in technology "and to go straight to the source of cleaning up the power source. The wrong way is to take Mr Beazley's option of imposing petrol and heating taxes so that's pensioners, low income families who'll suffer. What happens is because these are essential services they'll continue to spend and so it will hurt them as families without driving down the demand."

Mr Hunt says 8 per cent of Australia's power is generated using renewable sources. This will rise to 10 per cent by 2010.
Wentworth report

Meanwhile, a new report suggests that carbon emissions in Australia can be cut significantly without having a dramatic effect on the standard of living for residents.The report has been released by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

The group's Peter Cosier, says the strong economy and living conditions in Australia could be maintained, even if there were a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050. He says if nothing is done to reduce emissions the projected average annual salary of Australians in 2050 will be $185,000 and if action is taken the salary will be $177,000."A very small sacrifice, an infanticibly small sacrifice," he said. "If people could just imagine what they would do with an income of $177,000 and whether they are prepared to sacrifice or risk the world's climate system for a little bit more, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

"We will have spectacular growth in the economy and we can fix the climate system. It dispels the myth that stabilising the world's climate system is a contest between economic growth and the environment and it is not."

The most dedicated foe of the environment in Australia isn't the Federal Government however - it's timber company Gunns, who have been busy suing every environmentalist they can find to try and stop criticism of the company's logging practices, thus far unsuccessfully. SourceWatch has an excellent summary of the antics of these clowns.

Timber giant Gunns Limited held a sometimes heated annual general meeting in Launceston today. The plan for a pulp mill in the north of Tasmania dominated proceedings and the delivery of thousands of protest letters from United States school children drew an angry reaction from the company chairman.

The chairman of the Tasmanian timber company Gunns Limited, John Gay, says the company is prepared to spend up to $2 million on the so-called 'Gunns 20' case. Mr Gay made the comments at the company's annual general meeting this morning.

Gunns is attempting to sue a group of environmentalists on the basis that their anti-logging protests have damaged the company. The wife and son of one of the defendants attended this morning's meeting and questioned the action.

Mr Gay says Gunns has already spent $750,000 on the case and expects to spend $2 million in total. At a news conference, he defended the cost of the action. "The board decided that it needed to do something on this issue and we've done it," he said.

One of the Australian companies that does like the environment is Bendigo Bank, which got a glowing review in TreeHugger today (though its unfair to say they are the only bank that is aware of global warming - Westpac has also been quite active on this front, along with insurance company IAG).

Maybe you recall the post about the Australian rural city, Bendigo, that will possibly run out of drinking water within a year? It happens to be home to one of the more progressive banks in the country. (Certainly in comparison the the Big Four banks, who still haven’t even heard of climate change.) Bendigo Bank provides innovative financial services to rural communities. But in a more directly green move, the bank instituted a series of eco-oriented loans back in 2002. Green Personal Loans are available for a dozen environmentally friendly products, including double glazed windows, greywater systems, solar hot water systems, 5 star environmentally rated cars, energy saver whitegoods and even wind turbines.

In a similar move, they can provide a 0.5% reduction in variable rates, with no monthly fee for a Green Home Loan, where your home meets the energy efficient standards of various state governments. They reckon a 'green' mortgage can save more than $48,000 AUD. But it’s not a case of ‘do as we say’, more ‘do as we do’, because the bank has begun constructing a new headquarters, which was recently awarded a 5 Star Green Star – Office Design v2 Certified Rating by the Green Building Council of Australia. Only the 18th such building in Australia to do so, and significantly the first in regional Australia. Due to be finished in May 2007, it will sport blackwater and greywater recycling, roof top solar water heating amongst a host of other initiatives.

TreeHugger also has a post looking at EEStor and their ultracapacitor technology (which I like to check in on from time to time).

We finally find out about the science behind the secretive EEStor Capacitors from the Austin American Statesman:

Think of it as a grilled-cheese sandwich: The bread holds opposite charges. The cheese helps maintain the opposing charges, even as it separates the bread and keeps those charges from canceling each other out. Then you stack one layer atop another.

"It's real simple," Hebner said. "It's just two pieces of metal with some material in between them. You put a voltage across them and they store a certain amount of charge."

The hard part is making them efficient enough to store more and more power. Most research has focused on ways to increase the surface area of the plates so they can hold a greater charge. To use the grilled-cheese example, the nooks and crannies of a rough piece of bread can hold more butter than a smoother slice of the same size.

Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said its researchers were developing plates made of super-small nanotubes that would vastly increase surface area on the same size plate.

Weir and Nelson [of EEStor] have gone the other direction: They're focusing on the cheese instead of the bread. Different types of cheese — and thinner slices of it — help store more powerful charges. EEStor's patent describes a method that takes a really good cheese and creates an extremely thin layer of it.
Read the whole story at the ::American Statesman via ::Clean Break

"AutoBlogGreen" points to a story on a Nevada based geothermal-powered biodiesel plant that will use oilseed or algae feedstock.

A newly announced biodiesel plant in Nevada will use a geothermal energy source. The plant, to be built by Infinifuel (cool name, that) will build the biodiesel plant as part of facility that generates 5 MW of electricity from two production geothermal wells and seven power production units, while the 220 degree steam will be used in the production of biodiesel. All of this geothermal power will be able to produce five million gallons of biodiesel a year, made from oilseed and/or algae (Infinifuel is in discussions with the University of Nevada Reno Agricultural Extension and the Desert Research Institute to find the best feedstock). This will be the first geothermal power plant in Nevada, Infinifuel says.

Nuclear programs seem to be breaking out all over the middle east, with Egypt now announcing that it will build reactors with Chinese help.

The agreement was announced in a joint communique following talks Tuesday between Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, the official Xinhua news agency reported. The agreement comes at a time when both have announced plans to step up their nuclear energy capacity.

China has an ambitious plan to increase its combined nuclear power capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, a plan that will require about two 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plants to be built annually for the next 15 years.

Egypt, meanwhile, is reviving its nuclear program two decades after it was frozen, following an accident at the Chernobyl power plant in what was then the Soviet Union. According to reports, Egypt is now looking to build at least one nuclear power station within 10 years.

On a tinfoil note, Cryptogon (and Kevin isn't alone in this - I saw at least one other conspiracy theorist recommend voting Republican before the election on the basis that the Democrats would be even worse) thinks the Democrat victory won't make the slightest bit of difference. Personally I think they're worth taking a chance on, but hey - who knows...