More snippets from todays newscasts.

• Hybrid diesel has been developed in Queensland.  This is a hybrid between diesel and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and it radically increases fuel efficiency.  Apparently the conversion cost is arounf A$3,000 after the Federal government rebate.
• UK suggesting increased registration tax on vehicles that use more fuel. It was causing uproar among the 4 wheel drive Mums. There is a genuine problem with child safety seats as the smaller the person the more room they take up with the current range of child restraints. I don’t buy the story that you need to drive something like a truck to fit the kids and the shopping in and to share a car run does require more legal seat space than it did when my kids were small and there was less child safety. Don’t get me wrong - my car is also cluttered up with seats to hold my grandchildren safely I am all for keeping them safe but I suggest that there could be better design here so more efficient cars can also fit in kids safely.
  I am all for tax incentives to change behaviour but recognise the pain of families who can’t afford soaring petrol prices, increased registration and vehicle devaluation because of the tax change. Probably needs a slightly slower introduction.
• Dare I say we need better public transport - that is safe with seat belts on all seats. Or is it more cost effective to just patch injured people up than to pay for seat belt installation? Refer to my accident in a bus in November.

There are increasing new ideas for transport but unfortunately the prices of conventional fuel may need to cause us a lot of pain before it becomes economically viable to develop new technologies.

In fact humans are really inventive but they usually wait until it is too painful to stay the same before they decide it is a good idea to change.  It is time we got out of our comfort zone.

I was listening to an interview with a guy from HP discussing the problem of e-Waste this morning on the Sky News Eco Report. Although the major electronics companies are offering recycling and building their computers in a way that allows them to do so and retain some value so that the recycling becomes more cost effective ( screws not glue etc helps here), there are 1.6 million computers per year going to landfill in Australia. The problem, other than the waste, is the issue of the lead and mercury in the computers ending up in the groundwater. HP said that they have been offering recycling since the 1980s.

This problem needs to be a 3 way partnership between government to set the incentives, the computer industry to offer the recycling facility and the community to hand them in instread of putting them in the bin when they are past their use by date.

Provision of recycling facilities by industry is expensive and does need both the government incentives and the will of the consumers to pay the little extra to cover this. When people buy, they have very different proioroities. Some are interested in being sustainable, others want the fastest and best regardsless and others want the cheapest - plus many more criteria as well. Quite a problem for industry to supply what is wanted.

Mobile phones are another form of e-waste and there is an organization called Mobile Muster that deals with this but my old mobiles are still sitting in a bag waiting for me to find out where the nearest Mobile Muster station is. At least they are not in a bin. Recycling works better when it is easy. We are all so busy these days.

My local stationary shop has just put a big toner recycling bin inside their front door and they are astonished at how fast it fills up. It is a great service and people do stop and buy the extra bits there while they drop off the old toners.

There has been a mixed bag of reactions to the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’ discussions about coal sales to China, clean coal and what some people are calling the hypocrisy of our mining and selling coal to China.

I agree that the entire world needs to move completely away from fossil fuels but I am also a pragmatist and I realise the size of the industry here and the huge damage it would do to our economy if we suddenly stopped so I believe that the coal industry’s research efforts into developing clean ways to use coal make sense. And selling these technologies to China along with the coal also makes sense.

I know this makes some people very angry and someone recently said to me “clean coal – I’d like to see that!” The problem with being angry about something is that the people who are angry stop communicating and only tell. Unless the dialogue is two way, there is no communication and the differing viewpoints never meet to find the best outcome. It is a bit like swimming in a rip – fight it and you drown.

I believe we need a mix of energy sources and would like to see large scale development of solar because we have so much sun in Australia and especially at times when demand for air-conditioning is greatest. Our small scale domestic solar installations are very expensive to install and while great for the environment are out of the reach of most people.

The USA are installing very large scale and economic solar plants to power entire towns in Arizona and the large scale technology has been in use in California since the 198s and is well tested and reliable. There is a process using huge amounts of salt that can store the solar heat to enable the power generation around the clock.

When wind, wave, solar and geothermal energy is in mainstream use and alternative technologies are developed and economically viable together with attitudes and behavioural change we will able to reduce our energy use without much changing out quality of life. At that time the cost of coal and oil will rise to become uneconomical unless they can be audited as having worked out how to effective reduce their emissions. Their incentive will be the cost of their carbon emissions.

There are other very exciting new technologies emerging for retrofitting established buildings to make them energy efficient. I suspect there needs to be support to get these out into more visible demonstration sites.

Developing these technologies, including clean coal, and reducing dependence on coal and oil requires a national and global vision plus implementation and incentives.

Humans are very good at change and adaptation when they know their backs are against the wall but the problem is they do not all recognise the need for action now.

There is a growing consumer concern about climate change and increasing demand for “green” products. Consumers are waking up to the need to look after the environment and marketers are jumping madly on the bandwagon.

Marketers sell on emotion so they often stretch the truth to build that very emotion that connects with the buyers. It is their job.

Up to 50% of Australians will now investigate the origins of a product or service, and will pay more for a product that they believe is from a sustainable source. This is the crux of the problem. THEY BELIEVE it is sustainable.

All this confusion about what “green” really means is spawning a wide range of environmental certifications; generally product certifications. There is confusion about what they all mean and whether and what quality any auditing has. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has launched a crackdown on green claims with the release of its guidelines, Green Marketing and the Trade Practices Act, in November 2007. Under the act, there is maximum fine of $1.2 million for companies engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

The ACCC is already taking court action against car manufacturer Saab. Saab, being Swedish actually has a green production and management system but the marketers went too far. Woolworths has changed its packaging of Woolworths Select tissue products after an ACCC probe. An ACCC spokesman says that while large companies have been targeted so far, smaller businesses will be the subject of future investigations. That includes all of us.
While a product may be certified green by some organisation, it is more satisfactory to say, as so many overseas brands do, “produced by an ISO 14001 certified business” than trying to dream up various new standards. This is because the international standard for environmental management practices, ISO 14001 certifies that the business you are buying from has considered all its significant environmental impacts, including product and energy impacts of obtaining and handling all the products and services and can demonstrate that these are managed in a sustainable manner. ISO 14001 also brings real benefits to the individual business by increasing its efficiency and improving its environmental impacts.

Once we get into carbon, we come up with another “bag of worms”. The ACCC is set to release additional guidelines in the coming months for claims relating to carbon offsets, representing a reduction of greenhouse gases, and carbon neutrality, where the carbon emissions of the company or a product or service are negated by offsets. Interestingly, if you look on the web the airlines vary enormously in their reporting of the greenhouse gas emissions of the same aircraft flying the same route and in fact it does vary every trip depending on things like loaded weight, weather condition and time spent circling airports because of air traffic congestion.

The issues include the integrity of carbon offsets and measurement of the initial carbon emissions. A common mistake people make is to claim carbon neutrality for a product when the company has only considered emissions during manufacturing and not the total life cycle, which includes use and disposal. And this does not even touch on some of the tree planting practices to claim carbon credits. Some schemes are well run but others are not.

I was watching an interesting program today on TV. Apparently by 2016 all house (or was it new houses? - happy to be corrected) will be required to have zero carbon emissions. They are exploring all kinds of initiatives including solar tiles for roofs.

There is a lot of action and thought going into green roofs where, subject to structural checks, people are putting soil and plants on their roofs. Some were very interesting and beautiful The ideas including much improved thermal insulation and also CO2 absorption. This was especially suggested in cities.

So perhaps we will go forward to “caves” but high tech ones with plants on the roofs rather than back to caves as we reduce our energy use. A well designed high tech “cave” with heaps of light from skylights and huge double glazed widows around a courtyard and a wonderful roof garden would be the one thing that would tempt me out of my apartment - providing I found a location like where I live, on a bus route, within walking distance of the city CBD and of shops. I would LOVE to be involved in building and living in ssomething truly sustainable

Last week a bunch of drunks decided to steal a work-boat and go for a joyride on the harbour after midnight. Six of them died when they hit a fishing boat on its way to sea to do a days (or night’s) work. We hear a lot about what wonderful people they are but they were drinking at a pub, stole a boat and went joyriding with 14 people in a boat surveyed for 8!

I have deep sympathy for the bereaved families BUT my major sympathy goes to the fishermen who were terribly traumatized by this accident and to both boat owners who have lost a vital part of their business, possibly for months while the Coroner investigates the two, now impounded, boats.

Poor business owners is my take on this. I do and have done a lot of work on occupational safety in the fishing industry and I know how seriously fishers take this.  Sorry if I offend anyone but I was horrified by the behaviour of these 14 people. What goes around!

One of the very important parts of Module 1 in Enviro Action’s training program is about understanding and managing your need for environmental compliance.

Companies and managers face increasing liability from a range of environmental laws. The new National Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reporting Act 2007 is the latest.

The fact is that we need to comply with legislation in our business as well as in the rest of our live. If you drive over the speed limit with a hight alcohol level you do not expect sysmpathy when you get caught. Similarly with environmental law.

The worry for business is whether they are at risk from their employees and their contractors inadvertently breaking the law and leaving the owners and managers liable. This is an area tha tneeds to be taken seriously and Enviro Action can help here.

Last week Enviro Action had a stand at the Carbon Trading Expo in Melbourne. it was combined with a major safety expo and was a huge event. The number of people coming through was almost overwhelming. Thankfully I had two wonderful guys helping me.

Enviro Action is about reducing carbon and other environmental impacts which is the major step we need to take. We were very busy & I also spoke at the conference.

It was most interesting seeing what is on offer. The entire carbon trading area is still in a premature muddle with a mixture of tree planters and others. The auditing requirements are not yet set, the tree planters, while mainly very well meaning need to be clear on both how much carbon they really sequester and from when, the effect a bushfire will have on their operation and very importantly the ecological impact of their planting and what the ecology was of the land they are planting on. There are some horror stories about unsuitable trees being planted on what was an natural ecology that did not “look like forest” but actually worked better than the artificial community put there with wrong species.

I am NOT against tree planting and as a member of a volunteer group in the past, have planted thousands. I have responsibly collected local seed, dried it (taking over almost the entire northern side of a previous house I owned) and direct seeds and well as tending tube stock.

I have been a member of Trees for Life for around 15 years and am now a sponsor because I like the fact that they collect local seed, work with local landowners and are very ecologically responsible. But i fail to see how you can do accurate carbon accounting on this even though it is very good for the environment and the planedt.

The first 300 Australian companies start mandatory carbon reporting on July1. Interesting times. The figures will eventually be put on public view. It is estimated that businesses will have to spend $7bn on rebuilding corporate computer systems and overhauling workplaces to meet the federal government’s new greenhouse gas emission reporting requirements.

The real issue is reduction and there is a huge interest in this. The accountancy firms are taking on more people in their sustainability and assurance services and accounting sooftware firms like MYOB are apparently exploring how to help facilitate the process.

The big emitters like coal and oil are lobbying hard to try to be exempted ye gods! Predictable but ludicrous if they get away with it. I guess the big dilemma for the Labour government is their dual commitment to the people who voted them in for their perceived “green” credentials and promise to sign Kyoto vs their huge membership in the outer suburbs where there is limited public transport, major mortgage stress and petrol prices are very sensitive.

These two key greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere rose sharply in 2007, and carbon dioxide levels this year are literally off the chart, the US government reported today.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, rose by 0.6 per cent, or 19 billion tonnes last year. Reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in ts annual index of greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of methane increased by 0.5 per cent, or 27 million tonnes, after nearly a decade of little or no change.

Methane’s greenhouse effect is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide’s, but there is far less of it in the atmosphere. Overall, methane has about half the climate impact of carbon dioxide.

The primary source of carbon dioxide is the burning of fossil fuels, which is increasing, said Pieter Tans, who studies greenhouse gases at the laboratory. China was now the world’s biggest emitter, followed by the United States.