rosetta moon

What has become clear in the last six months is that Australia still dithers dangerously in the simple task of adopting a coherent national transport policy. The ALP continues to pull candy floss from the air, while a rather dull opposition slumbers ineffectively and quietly on the backbench. More reports wont fuel our cars, abate greenhouse gases or address the lack of past decision making which is the root cause of the pain. While such belly gazing once suggested concern and light at the end of the policy tunnel, recent pointed media satire reflects a growing sense of disquiet and alarm that our government lacks any clear direction despite the abundance of advice and available solutions.

Fortunately for Australia there are nations that have already experienced our pain (decades ago) after which they implemented well researched and considered policy to transit the fuel mix toward carbon-less energy forms. Given that our federal parliament has descended into the abyss of an unruly playground its timely to reflect on worlds best energy practice and fast-trek our defunct economy into a brighter and cleaner future. While Europe and the United States are not so well endowed with natural gas as Australia, they have adopted strategic clean energy pathways and roadmaps to ween their oil based economies off the dwindling supplies of liquid fossil fuel. As Hydrogen is accessible from renewable and non-renewable sources (and zero emission), pointing economies in this direction makes sense and bridging opportunities (such as CNG and biofuels) allows industry and government catchup time to provide sensible technologies which are aligned to the vision. The challenge for Australia is to adopt a strategic national energy policy in the first place and given the abundance of case studies and lack of policy action here, there is a strong case to promptly pull our heads out of the sand and adopt a hybrid energy policy based on borrowed success stories from elsewhere.

The San Francisco Chronicle article ‘Getting the Carbon Out’ discusses the policy direction for California to move away from liquid fossil fuels, and notes the limitations of carbon trading where costs will ultimately get ‘passed on to consumers’:

Eventually, consumers will have an array of low-carbon fuel and vehicle choices. low carbon fuel standard has two primary strengths. First, it creates a durable but flexible framework to guide the transition to a low-carbon future. Second, it stimulates innovation and investment in low-carbon and very-low-carbon fuels and vehicles. The first advantage is key to the second. Oil companies and automakers consistently tell us that they are amenable to carbon controls that are predictable and based on science. Indeed, several major oil companies tell us they support this proposal and believe it should be adopted broadly, beyond California. They say they prefer this approach over mandates for specific technologies and fuels. They appreciate the flexibility and certainty it provides, though they will undoubtedly quibble over the magnitude or speed of the emission-reduction requirements. The low-carbon fuel standard addresses not only global warming, but the intertwined problems of high oil prices and foreign oil dependence. It does so by stimulating private companies to develop new technologies and bring them to market. Thus, it will, for the first time, create viable alternatives to petroleum, which lessens the need for oil imports and undermines OPEC cartel pricing. The result will be less volatile and, yes, lower fuel prices. An alternative to this low-carbon fuel standard would be taxes or caps on carbon, possibly placed across the entire economy. However, these approaches would not effectively stimulate technological innovation in transportation fuels, an absolute necessity if we are to solve global warming and energy problems. Neither gasoline price increases in the United States in the last five years nor decades of very high fuel prices in Europe have caused the oil industry to begin to change their fuel sources. Under a cap-and-trade approach (emissions trading), fuel providers will almost certainly seek to buy credits elsewhere and pass the cost on to consumers.

In the process of re-teething the EPA to enforce air quality standards due diligence is required to ensure common sense and reason prevails above special interest and Schwarzenegger was aware of this:

The biggest problem that we have is that California is being run now by special interests. All of the politicians are not anymore making the moves for the people, but for special interests and we have to stop that.

In effecting policy progress in Australia it may well be worth adopting developed frameworks as well to ensure a ‘level playing field’ in relation to the issues we face and the emergence of a strategic transport fuel mix, for Australia, irrespective of the lobby groups we expected by now to be kept at bay. Australia is uniquely poised with its massive investment in natural gas pipelines and natural gas reserves, there is no need for us to endure a transport fuel problem at all. If our government and opposition cannot make sense of the obvious opportunities than it may be the time to stand aside and humbly accept guidance from countries that are taking real action to address greenhouse issues, clean air and the long term use and conservation of energy.

How easy to find a CNG Refueling Station in California

The Australian cartoonist Nicholson on the ball with bio-fuels

Not picked up in the local media as yet (??!) but this interesting story just landed on the rosettamoon news desk. One of our major allies and trading partners seems to have lost one of its states…Oklahoma has had enough of the union and in the lead up to the election has opted out to run its own show.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.”; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal
power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the
United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means
that the federal government was created by the states specifically
to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as
agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York
v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not
simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the
states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and
some now pending from the present administration and from Congress
may further violate the Constitution of the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government,
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers.
THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President
of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker

of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

While Oklahoma news services seem unaware of or are not reporting the story, this appears on the Whitehouse Press Release site:

Q All right. The Oklahoma House of Representatives, by a vote of 92-3, passed a resolution affirming Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, and serving notice on the federal government to cease and desist from any interference with how the state protects itself from illegal aliens. And my question: What is the White House reaction to this, dealing with the federal government?

MR. FRATTO: Yes, I don’t know. I wasn’t aware of that vote, Les, and not in a position to comment on it.

Q Can you take a look at it and give us some information on this?

MR. FRATTO: Maybe. Maybe I can.

Further Information:

Oklahoma House of Representatives…looks like the yeahs have it!

State House defends its sovereignty from D.C. intrusion

The full text and notice to served to the president

The Alex Jones Show: Oklahoma secedes from the union

Image sourced from Prison Planet site

Note: A search today of Australian mainstream media sites (Age, Australian, Sun) has failed to find any reporting of this fascinating and significant event suggesting this is either an elaborate hoax or the Australian news editors have been caught napping at the desk!

COALITION frontbenchers are pushing for a delay in the introduction of emissions trading in a move that threatens bipartisan support for the main mechanism to cut greenhouse gases and tackle climate change. The Australian, June 25, 2008, Liberal bid to delay emission trading scheme

With Ross Garnaut’s long awaited Climate Change Report due next week, the value of ‘emissions trading’ in the broader context of Australian Government environment policy deserves examination. While such a big ticket approach appears attractive on the surface, it may not be the golden bullet we are looking for and it may indeed distract attention from more immediate opportunities for government intervention. The premise of emissions trading or carbon trading, that the big end of town can clean up its act with the right mechanism may be overly optimistic. So while the Australian suggests emissions trading is the ‘main mechanism to cut greenhouse gases and tackle climate change’ others may suggest that practical regulation and guidance is more realistic in offsetting the costs (externalities) of the global economy which has become far too reliant on carbon heavy fossil fuels.

The most obvious problem is that market mechanisms to regulate market entitities (corporations) is not a proven concept and could spin out negative results, leaving us floundering on the question of ‘climate change’ which is the same question as ’sustainable development’. The concept of a polluter trading carbon obligations with non or less polluting groups raises questions of measurability, accountability, administration and unforeseen consequences, manifestations and manipulations we witness regularly in the market place. While our politicians continue bickering over this complex and unproven concept we could well be making real progress with direct measures to manage the aspects of the supply and demand equation which are at cause with the climate change issue.

Another major concern is that the political debate while focusing on the bouncing ball of ‘emissions trading’ is missing the boat on the practical economics underpinning the need for such a scheme, akin to shopping for a car without consideration of the journey ahead. If the debate paused and contemplated a moment the exact nature of the beast (economy) perhaps more sensible and realistic outcomes could arise, and the current government could resume business as usual without distraction by coalition and media camps lacking depth and analysis in relation to the environmental challenges ahead.

A comprehensive guidebook on what the Australian economy is and how it could be sustainably managed is neatly packaged within the Future Dilemmas Report, thoughtfully and comprehensively compiled by the CSIRO. Noting that the economy is in fact an overall entity comprising physical ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’, the report examines in micro-economic detail the costs accruing from the complete set of activities which is the Australian economy. Unfortunately for administrators and politicians, reading this report must seem like looking into the eye of mordor , leaving this idiots guide to sustainable development gathering dust somewhere in the parliamentary library. The report concludes that much of our economic activity is by nature unsustainable based on calculations showing the real costs hidden by outdated policies and politics which fail to account for costs to the environment. These costs should now be examined and dealt with rather than exhausting energy and parliamentary time on cliche distractionary economic gimmicks which have no proven track record or credibility.

While the media and parliament trivialise the debate (I think its an energy and resources debate?) without examining the core issues, Australians should be more than slightly concerned about their economic future and the environmental prospects for the country. There are myriad practical and achievable initiatives which we as a nation are expecting Rudd and team to sweep in, and foremost after Howard is an honest and above board approach to energy and resource management. Gimmick policies based on untested theories are no substitute for creativity and practical decision making which was the basis and expectation upon which the current administration was voted in.

ABC commentary on Future Dilemmas Report:

Its key message: Australia undervalues its resources. The foods and other products that Australians consume and export are all part of the envied lifestyle – but are heavily subsidised by the environment.

Each year this arid country effectively exports more water than is used in its cities and its towns – without getting paid for it. Meanwhile rivers and creeks are choking. When a grain shipment is sent overseas, no one pays for the wear and tear on fragile topsoils, let alone their repair.

It’s a wake-up call to policy-makers… but which politician is willing to demand another 20 cents on a loaf of bread to help save water or topsoil?

The study also prompts hard questions about whether Australia is selling itself short in big resource deals, for example, the much-heralded $25 billion, 25-year agreement to supply North West Shelf gas to China.

Further Reading:

Greenhouse plans went off the rails

Garrett No-show puts cloud over solar inquiry

No Polluter Left behind enny Wong’s Green Paper looks after some of the nation’s biggest polluters, writes Ben Eltham

Climate change strategy splinters Kevin Rudd cabinet (Australian June 28)

CSIRO Future Dilemmas Report

The Case Against Carbon Trading

Outsize Profits, and Questions, in Effort to Cut Warming Gases, New York Times, Dec 6, 2006

A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power

Cartoon sourced from Carbon Trading in Action

The National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) provides the community, industry and government with free information about substance emissions in Australia:

The Federal Government is preparing to launch a major assault on Asian petrol price subsidies in a bid to curb regional demand and bring pump prices down for Australian motorists. The Age June 15

In the wake of Fuelwatch fiasco and the Toyota Hybrid $70m gift, the latest announcement by the Rudd government that it intends to pursue a diplomatic offensive in neighbouring countries raises the question again, why is transport fuel policy being ignored?

the challenge of dealing with energy subsidies in our region is a serious one…requiring a concerted international effort… When it comes to energy, particularly oil, and increasingly gas, the world is retreating from the open markets and free trade we have worked so hard to achieve since World War II – Energy Minister Martin Ferguson

While fuel subsidy issues in the region may well be impacting their long term fuel supply, the announcement appears to be in denial of the subsidies in place in Australia which represent considerable supply constraints on alternative fuels and emerging technologies, including compressed natural gas (CNG).

Economists, including Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute, have looked at the cost of policy perversity in relation to the motor car and transport which is costing Australia billions.

The financial subsidy to road transport is estimated to be up to $20 billion per annum, excluding the cost of greenhouse gas emissions. The current system of vehicle and travel charges is inefficient and leaves major externalities unpriced, leading to a general overconsumption of travel. Further, alternate transport modes do not receive equal treatment, with rail-based transport covering a larger proportion of its total costs, compared to road-based transport. Consequently, all evidence suggests that there is overconsumption of road transport.

The slow road from rhetoric to reform: an analysis of road pricing policy in Australia

With so much reform yet to be discussed or canvassed in Cabinet its surprising that Australia should point the finger at Asia while homegrown policy options pointing to sustainable transport continue to be ignored. It would be more fruitful for Prime Minister Rudd and the Energy Minister to address the supply side of the fuel issue here through policy announcements related to domestic energy and excise then to continue with distractions, causing increasing frustration and inconvenience for business and Australian motorists.

Recent media:

Govt to pressure Asia to cut fuel subsidies ABC News June 15

Federal Opposition industry spokesman Eric Abetz says the announcement is good news for Australian jobs and the environment but has questioned the way the Government has handled the announcement.

He says he particularly wants to know if the deal that has been done with Toyota was also offered to other car companies, including Holden and Ford.

“It seems as though Toyota may well have been offered this money to secure a photo opportunity for the Prime Minister in Japan,”

“Of course that is another indication of the Rudd Government’s making policy on the run and what it also does is once again pre-empt the Bracks Review into the automotive industry.”

“Whether deals were made as to whether the Government would purchase a number of these vehicles for the Government car fleet, there are still a number of questions to be answered,” he added.

“I invite Mr Rudd to come clean, be transparent and open as he promised and not to be picking winners and favourites as it seems they’ve been doing.” Bigpond News

Eric Abetz raises some valid points in the wake of the recent Fuelwatch debacle. On an examined energy and economic level how much is this going to cost and how does it fit the bigger and more pressing issue of transport and fuel policy? Is government financial support for petrol electric hybrids a strategic direction or a diversion away from the real ‘bottom line’ surrounding the future of petrol? No arguments with the Toyota design and technology team but where did this decision arise and how well does it reflect on an overall transport strategy?

As Abetz points out it may have been smarter to announce an ‘Industry’ package , geared toward a strategic transport fuel mix offering economic and environmental benefit. Good and well to embrace new technology but where is the evidence or published advice that this initiative sits within a strategic policy framework? Once again, announcing a specific petrol related gimic like Fuelwatch or Hybrid draws attention away from the core problem facing Australia – that we lack any strategic direction in relation to energy management let alone a desirable transport fuel mix. Such expenditure could well have been directed toward the introduction of the Toyota CNG Camry, Isuzu CNG Trucks, or Mercedes CNG Sprinter van. Enabling and sponsoring such vehicles would represent wise government investment without the public outcry which has accompanied this announcement.

And why is a government that embraces deregulation and the free market filling the coffers of a profitable company that would follow the direction of technology and the market anyway?

“It would have happened regardless and we wouldn’t bring it to market unless we’re going to make money,”

“It’s always nice to have support but it comes back to a business decision.”

Toyota Australia spokesman Mike Breen The Age

This $70 million could have offset revenue forgone in infrastructure and conversion subsidies for organisations and individuals that followed government strategic fuel policy direction. This has been the simple winning formula worldwide and no car makers are booned millions for no reason. In fact this sum of money would represent the funding of over 30 major CNG refueling stations which would be a major move in the right direction to support car manufacturers business planning without the need to throw away government revenue.

The trend of recent headline announcements concerning fuel reveals that a certain degree of policy window dressing is occuring further delaying the modernisation and strategic re-shaping of the Australian transport sector.

Recent Media:

Labor’s $70m hybrid gift to Toyota - The Australian June 11

Opposition industry spokesman Eric Abetz said serious questions had been raised by Mr Watanabe’s revelations,

“Inevitably, it raises questions about the need for the Australian taxpayer to invest in this project,”

He said the Coalition had reservations about Labor’s clean car fund because,

“car manufacturers are moving towards these sorts of cars anyway” due to consumer demand and soaring petrol prices.

Guy Beres asks…Is this protectionism or is this investment?

Hybrid cars ‘cost $50 more to run’ The Age, June 25, 2008

Greenlivingpedia for a sustainable future – Green Cars

Car giants ‘laugh at Aussie suckers’

THE American owners of local Ford and Holden plants will be laughing at the Australian “suckers” who have handed them a $6.2 billion industry assistance package, former car company executives say.

Expressing disappointment yesterday at the latest industry handout, industry veterans said the money would ultimately end up back in Detroit rather than bolstering needy sectors of the local industry.

Former managing director of Mitsubishi Australia Graham Spurling said the car companies would get a “free ride” from the Rudd Government on research and development.

“They will say: ‘Aren’t we suckers’,” said Mr Spurling, who led a South Australian government special automotive industry taskforce.