Bureaucratic restrictions on resource use inhibit emerging technologies

A “Conditional Approval” system would seem to be a sensible step to allow for the development of new and emerging technologies to enable the kinds of changes we need over the next 10-20 years if we are to in any way manage the “runaway train” of global warming and its flow on implications. I firmly believe that while Government needs strict regulations preventing environmental harm and enforcing greenhouse gas reductions, they also need to get out of the way and permit innovation.

I have previously mentioned coastal aquaculture located in high wind areas that would like to power their pumps with wind turbines but this is not permitted because they are too big to be domestic and too small to be commercial. Bullshit is about the only comment that I think fits!

I sat in on the summary and outcomes session on coal seam gas water at the EcoForum. This was a fascinating insight on how Government needs to be able to be more flexible in some of their regulations and a bit of across States consistency would help!

There is a large amount of water in the coal seams and it is regarded as a waste under rigid EPA restrictions and, although it is much needed, it is only allowed to be put into evaporation ponds. They would even be in breach of their licence if they use the “waste” for jobs like dust suppression around their own mine site.

The discussion brought out very interesting State differences and strongly overlapped with a discussion of water resource management. Australia is a Federation made up of what were originally separate colonies and the legacy at times seems to present difficulties in establishing sensible management of national issues like water (not to mention hospitals and education!).

The water issue is huge in Australia. A lot of people want the water and if the gas is to be extracted, the water must be also. Power stations need to be cooled. Some use treated sewage effluent, some cool with sea water and some use dry fans. As it is logical to locate power stations near the coal and gas they are fired by, cooperation with this water would seem logical.

There was interesting discussion around the different rules between States and contrasting with overseas experience also. Queensland does not have the concept of environmental water flows that is the norm in most states. In the ACT the miners would have to pay to be allowed to evaporate their water – it would be regarded as a valuable resource to be cleaned and used, not a waste. In South Africa if a miner extracts water or uses it, they have to replace it.

Kwinana in Western Australia was mentioned as an example of organisation between neighbouring businesses so that the companies trade their waste with each other on the principle that one man’s waste is another’s treasure.

If we can’t even agree about sensibly managing our water how in the **** are we going to get the 50-80% reductions we need in greenhouse emissions, the 50% reduction in available water, cope with an increasing population (50% increase was mentioned) and increasingly unstable weather patterns.

Get real Government and get a razor gang onto red and green tape!

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 28th, 2008 at 5:10 pm and is filed under Global Warming, Climate Change & Energy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.