Federal Budget 2015: Environment Experts React

climatechangedispatch.com

by Ian Lowe, Griffith University; David Pannell, University of Western Australia; Frank Jotzo, Australian National University, and Tony Wood, Grattan Institute, The Conversation: http://theconversation.com/federal-budget-2015-environment-experts-react-41706

Environmental and energy issues did not feature heavily in the Budget, although there was a A$400 million total package of assistance for drought-stricken farmers (particularly relevant in the week that the Bureau of Meteorology called an El Niño), as well as an extra A$100 million in funding for the Reef Trust, aimed at safeguarding the Great Barrier Reef.

Below, our experts react to the budget’s environmental and energy measures.

Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science at Griffith University

The 2015-16 Budget is very disappointing in the broad area of environmental protection. Last year’s cuts to important bodies like Environmental Defenders Offices have not been reversed. Even the funding of a core Coalition initiative, the “Green Army”, has been cut by A$73 million over four years.

While there is an extra A$100 million over four years for measures to protect the Great Barrier Reef, the cuts to Landcare and the continued promotion of the export coal industry put the reef under increased pressure. There is no new money for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which has been making a real difference.

Critically, the Budget shows no sign of the government taking seriously our responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The allocation for the Emissions Reduction Fund will not meet even the present inadequate target, let alone the sort of goal Australia will be expected to take to the Paris talks later this year. There is no funding for urban public transport, but they will spend billions on roads; the Budget even retains A$3 billion for the cancelled East-West Link road project.

It is the Budget of a government that still thinks that the integrity of our environment is an optional extra. Have they perhaps been advised by Maurice Newman?

Tony Wood, Energy Program Director, Grattan Institute

There were few, if any, expectations of initiatives for the energy sector in the Budget - and those expectations were met. Energy policy levers, where they have been pulled, are covered in the recent Energy White Paper even as that document failed to provide a long-term vision for energy policy in Australia.

There were also no new initiatives regarding climate change. Environment minister Greg Hunt has previously made it clear there would be no increase in the budget allocation to the Emissions Reduction Fund and it remains to be seen whether his optimism regarding achieving our current 2020 target is justified.

Finally, the prospects for future negative impacts on export revenue that could arise if the world turns against fossil fuels remain ignored, but anyway are beyond the time horizon of federal budget considerations.

Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National University

The government is planning to spend around A$400 million per year paying some businesses for projects that are presumed to reduce emissions. If we had emissions trading, it would bring money into the budget, in the order of A$2 billion per year.

That is twice the most recent aid cut. And it would provide an economy-wide incentive to cut emissions, not piecemeal subsidies.

The Climate Change Authority gets funding until the end of 2016. It has an important role to fulfil in advising on policy settings. To what extent government listens to its advice on a post-2020 emissions target will be revealed by July. Greg Hunt has stated that “the speed limit has been lifted” on Australia’s climate action. But it is not clear how greater ambition could be delivered. The government is not likely to heed the advice on an emissions trading scheme that the Climate Change Authority will deliver next year.

David Pannell, Director, Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Western Australia

After many cuts and a number of questionable changes to environmental programs in 2014, the 2015 environment budget includes few initiatives or significant cuts. One substantial new cut is a 10% reduction in funding for the Green Army - an initiative that many in the environment sector have reservations about in any case. And it still has funding of A$700 million over the next four years.

On the other hand, there is an additional A$100 million over four years for the Reef Trust, on top of the A$40 million that had already been committed. While the increase is welcome, this level of funding is still leaves overall budget for the Great Barrier Reef well short of the level that would be needed to achieve the sorts of improvements in water quality that the community expects.

There is a reduction of A$22.7 million over two years for water buybacks, although this is a modest cut in the context of this large program. Other cuts for environment in this budget are small.

In an interview with the ABC, The National Irrigators’ Council chief executive Tom Chesson was critical of the government’s failure to commit to funding for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) beyond 2016-17.

The CEWH is actually Australia’s largest owner of water rights, so there needs to be significant ongoing investment in an organisation that is responsible for allocating and managing the environmental water that the government owns on behalf of all Australians. There is time to fill the current funding gap before the existing funding commitment runs out.

In the agriculture portfolio, there is about A$330 million of new funding for drought assistance to farmers and drought-affected communities. An interesting question is whether this could be considered to be a response to climate change. Perhaps, although it is not explicitly flagged as such in the budget papers.


Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor, School of Science at Griffith University.
David Pannell is Director, Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy at University of Western Australia.
Frank Jotzo is Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at Australian National University.
Tony Wood is Program Director, Energy at Grattan Institute.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Natural Capital: A Good Idea or the Path to Ruin?

by Alex Gaut, Conservation Council SA: http://conservationsa.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/natural-capital-a-good-idea-or-the-path-to-ruin/

Alex Gaut, Biodiversity Program Manager here at the Conservation Council of SA has been pondering economics and the environment. Here are some of her thoughts on the topic.

I have recently started a journey into the world of environmental economics.

I have no background and, I thought, no interest, in economics and started where most of us are at with having to manage my own finances and attempting to understand how the national and global economy affects that.

It is beginning to dawn on me just how powerful a driver the economy has become. Do you remember just a few years ago the term ‘triple bottom line’ was everywhere? Where is it now? It’s gone. Because all too quickly it was realised that it wasn’t a line but a triangle and the economy is at the top.

I credit Nicole Fosse with sparking my interest in this area via a presentation she gave in Adelaide last year. She was both eloquent and scary but how much of it was dramatisation I don’t know. What I do know is that some of her advice made a lot of sense, for example, decouple your finances from the global economy and try not to use credit.

However, I digress.

Today I read something that really made me stop: ‘biodiversity loss should be regarded as one of the greatest economic problems of this century’.

Just stop and think about that. Most of you reading this already know that biodiversity loss is a very serious problem but we think of it as an environmental problem. It is rarely phrased as an economic problem.

But more and more economists are working with ecologists and environmentalists try to put some kind of value onto ecosystem services - our ‘natural capital’. For example, see Natural Capital Initiative, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity and Wave Partnership. 

In what is known as ‘classical’ economics there were traditionally three factors: land, labour and capital. The ‘land’ factor included all natural services and resources that contributed to agricultural productivity but somewhere along the way ‘land’ got subsumed under ‘capital’ in ‘neoclassical’ economic models, thereby losing any value it might have otherwise been given.

Richard Heinberg, a Senior Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute, states that this ‘amounted to a declaration that Nature is merely a subset of the human economy - an endless pile of resources to be transformed into wealth’ and there the problem started.

It is extremely difficult to account for biodiversity and natural capital, let alone face the arguments for and against trying to do so. There are significant obstacles in trying to analyse the economics of biodiversity:

It has system properties that defy easy definition. It is more than the aggregate sum of species: some species play a vital role in the survival of ecosystems; some provide key ecosystem services to humans; some are positively harmful to humans; species depend upon each other; and policies aimed at biodiversity are often oblique, aimed at preserving habitats rather than particular species. Biodiversity is a series of overlapping public goods from the local to the global scale.¹

The subsuming of ‘land’ into the ‘capital’ factor meant that not only did it not get accounted for but that it could be ‘externalised’, it is an unpriced impact affecting another party but for which there is no accountability.

Externalities provide corporations with economic loopholes through which they can pass all the pollution and waste they produce, without having to account for it.

For many economists that’s what is so wonderful about the farce of GDP, which measures economic activity in the form of monetary transactions.

For example, any time there is a major natural disaster, all the activities associated with the recovery count towards an increase in GDP because houses have to be renovated or rebuilt, infrastructure has to be repaired, injured patients have to be cared for and it all costs money, therefore money has to be spent, products made, services rendered and thereby an increase in economic activity, leading to an increase in GDP. Didn’t you know? Climate change is going to mean more GDP!

Richard Heinberg explains it well in his latest book, ‘The End of Growth’:

If a country has happy families, the GDP won’t reflect that fact; but if the same country suffers a war or natural disaster monetary transactions will likely increase, leading to a bounce in the GDP.

Calculating a nation‘s overall health according to its GDP makes about as much sense as evaluating the quality of a piece of music solely by counting the number of notes it contains. There are some good arguments to support putting a financial value on ecosystem services and biodiversity but there are some good ones against it too.

Making large, powerful corporations incorporate ‘externalities’ into their accounting creates interesting results and may be able to significantly influence decision-making for the better.

Pavan Sukhdev is the Study Leader for The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity program, and provides excellent examples of how it can change outcomes, financial and environmental. I highly recommend his TED talk.

The UK government has introduced ‘Whole of Government Accounts’ whereby they are going to attempt to account for natural capital alongside other forms of capital and the UK Natural Capital Committee has been established to work on this. Some of the benefits of attempting to do this are that:

• it can be used to consider whether and to what extent biodiversity is being preserved
• it can be used to estimate the required capital maintenance costs as a charge on current spending and to check whether the capital maintenance is being met by current spending
• natural assets can be treated as ‘assets-in-perpetuity’ rather than assets to be depreciated
• cost-benefit analyses can be conducted

However, the downsides of this approach are that market instruments such as offsets are beginning to be developed to commodify and trade nature.

Whilst carbon offsetting might not be such a bad idea (although it’s still a moot point), biodiversity offsetting sounds like a really bad idea because an ecosystem is more than the sum of the parts. And for some, taking such a human-centric perspective is far too narrow and ignores any intrinsic value.

Personally, I love the idea of intrinsic value. How is it possible to put a financial value on the sense of wonder I get from a vast stretch of wilderness, or from admiring the beauty of a leafy sea dragon? How do you put financial value on nature as artistic inspiration? How much value do you put on someone’s improved wellbeing because they were able to interact with nature?

George Monbiot has written a piece about the downsides of the commoditisation of nature, how once a resource is ‘commoditised’, then speculators and traders step in and start talking about return on investment, blended revenue streams and so on.

But it’s probably too late because even some well known environmentalists are now starting to discuss return on investment for biodiversity protection - spend a lot of money saving one species and let many others increase their risk of extinction?

Or do the unthinkable (to many of us) and let one species go so that money can be spent saving more species before their risk of extinction is so high that they can’t be saved?

By accounting for nature in economic models are we creating more of the same problem that got us to where we are today? Are we buying into economic growth (and corporate power) because it seems like there is no other way to make humans (and in particular corporations) value nature? Or is it one step closer to forcing business to face up to their impacts?

Should we Move Tasmanian Devils Back to the Mainland?

by Euan Ritchie, Deakin University

In almost all parts of the world our environment is under siege and we are losing the battle to save many species from extinction.

The most common threats behind this unfolding catastrophe are habitat loss and modification, invasive species, and climate change.

What can we do?

Usually we focus on treating the symptoms - planting trees or shooting pest animals - but these treatments often fail. Perhaps we need radical new solutions for fixing broken ecosystems.

One such solution could be introducing (or reintroducing) species to ecosystems. There is now a serious and broad-based proposal to release Tasmanian Devils into the wild at Wilsons Promontory in Victoria, saving devils from extinction in Tasmania, and restoring damaged ecosystems on the mainland.

What is rewilding?

We can look at the Tasmanian Devil proposal in terms of an ecological concept known as rewilding. In essence, rewilding seeks to restore ecological function to habitats by introducing or reintroducing species that could perform vital roles.

Perhaps the best example comes from Yellowstone National Park in the US, where wolves were returned after a 70-year absence.

Wolves are crucial to Yellowstone’s ecosystems. Without them herbivores like deer and moose flourish, and prevent trees from producing saplings (see video below).

We must return predators and their functions back into landscapes

In Australia, the Tasmanian Devil is an ideal candidate for reintroduction to the mainland.

Saving devils

Tasmanian Devils used to inhabit mainland Australia. When exactly they went extinct on the mainland is uncertain, with dates ranging from 5,000 to as recent as 500 years ago.

But in 1881 Frederick McCoy, the first director of the National Museum, noted that Tasmanian Devils (or perhaps that should be “mainland” devils) are very common in the most recent cave deposits in Victoria. These fossils are identical to living devils in Tasmania.

Why they became extinct is more mysterious. Various theories have attributed blame to climate change, over-hunting by Aboriginal Australians, and dingoes.

But whatever the cause, current conditions at Wilson’s Promontory closely resemble those in Tasmania, and have likely remained unchanged for thousands of years, with no dingoes and plenty of prey. So we can be sure that the devils would fit in.

But why move them now?

One excellent reason is that there is a genuine risk that devils could become extinct in the wild by 2025, as a result of devil facial tumour disease (DFTD). A mainland population would act as a large, wild insurance population, outside of Tasmania where DFTD is present.

How would the mainland benefit?

So we know Tasmanian Devils have been on the mainland before, and that moving them might help save the species from extinction. But what could devils offer the mainland?

One of the biggest benefits devils could offer is in the control of the red foxes, feral cats and overabundant herbivores (such as wombats, rabbits and wallabies). Evidence for this comes from Tasmania.

Following the decline of devils due to DFTD, species such as the feral cat have been increasing. This in turn is associated with a halving in population size of a smaller, native predator, the Eastern Quoll (once present, but now extinct in Victoria).

Some have also suggested that the reason foxes have only recently established themselves in Tasmania is not solely due to humans introducing them, but because devils declined around the same time. Prior to DFTD, devils may have been acting as a first line of defence against foxes by killing their cubs.

Currently we spend a lot of money managing foxes on mainland Australia through baiting programs. But are we going to do this forever? Devils may provide a 24-7 predator control service, free of charge.

Focusing on foxes also ignores the fact that there is no effective control of probably Australia’s most damaging feral animal, cats. As noted above, devils are capable of limiting cats too.

Another issue at Wilson’s promontory is an over-abundance of herbivores including wombats, swamp wallabies, rabbits, kangaroos and hog deer. All of these increased rapidly following the removal of dingoes in the 1940s.

In high numbers these herbivores can radically alter habitats, making them unsuitable for other species. We can shoot herbivores to keep them down, or we could introduce a natural predator such as Tasmanian Devils.

What’s next?

Parks Victoria and an ambitious multi-institutional research hub, the Wildlife Biodiversity Co-operative Research Centre are behind the new proposal to move devils to Wilson’s Promontory.

Planning is underway for a comprehensive proposal to the Victorian and Tasmanian governments, and thorough consultation with the public.

With this in mind I urge our leaders to be bold and act now. There are always risks with moving species, but not taking calculated risks to conserve our wildlife is perhaps even worse.

A devil reintroduction should be viewed as a positive and strategic national decision, and one for which future generations will thank us.

It is not often we can achieve win-wins in conservation, but helping prevent the extinction of the Tasmanian devil by re-establishing a mainland population, and restoring desperately needed ecosystem function to habitats, may just be the best conservation win-win waiting to happen. 

Euan Ritchie does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.



This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

Scientists Wary of Wearing Their Hearts on Their Sleeves - Is This What We Really Want?

Flowchart of Scientific Method (Wikipedia)

by Dr Susan Lawler, Head of Department, Department of Environmental Management & Ecology at La Trobe University, The Conversation: theconversation.edu.au

A reader complained that my last column about the environmental damage caused by super trawlers was too emotive.

We agreed about the facts, but not about how to frame them.

I tried to ignore this comment, but it kept bothering me, and for different reasons on different days.

After some rumination, and conversations with colleagues, I have decided to address it. Must serious conservationists avoid using their hearts? Do we do better science when we only use our brains? Is our advocacy for the planet best framed in dry factual statements? I think not, and my reasons are varied.

Reason one: science communication often suffers from a lack of emotive content. Yesterday, a colleague sent me a link to an article called three tips for science communication, in which the author complains: "It dismays me how scientists - so full of passion and creativity - sometimes make the wondrous mundane, and the story of their work stripped of emotion.”

Part of my life’s goal is to share my enthusiasm for science and the species with whom we share our planet, and being told that I need to be wary of wearing my heart on my sleeve is frustrating. I want to keep my heart where it belongs, right here in my chest, but I want it to be part of my work.

Otherwise, how can I convince non-scientists that I speak from a place of truth and honour? My integrity is firmly embedded in my passion for this thing called life.

Reason two: science is more fun than most people realise. I know from personal experience that scientists are passionate, emotional creatures. We get really excited about apparently esoteric stuff, but when we explain it, we get our students, friends and families excited too.

I have often been on field trips where we meet unique, endangered creatures, and the students do not realise how special the moment is until the senior staff’s excitement becomes apparent. If scientists do not share their emotional responses, they are not truly teaching.

Scientists, like everyone else, do better work when they put their whole person, body and soul, into their work. The world needs more people to learn and use the scientific method, but this won’t happen if people think they have to check their hearts at the door. If we portray ourselves as merely walking brains, how are we going to convince others to join us, and become scientists, too?

Reason three: my environmental students are afraid of being labelled as greenies. I think this is the crux of the problem. Young people who want to save the planet and protect our environment enrol in a degree in science so that they will have the knowledge and credentials to make a difference. But to do this they feel they must reject the extremes of some in the environmentalist movement.

I can illustrate the problem with a conversation I had about a year ago. I rang someone (in government or industry, I forget the exact issue) and introduced myself as a conservationist. The person on the other end began with, “You people”… and began to tell me what I thought, almost none of which was true.

When I managed to break in and explain that I was a scientist who had been doing research in the area and had hoped to offer some useful suggestions, the individual calmed down and said, “Oh! You mean that you are a conservationist!” … as if I should have said so. Except that I had.

Conservationists are therefore somewhat twitchy, and as a group we are schizophrenic. We feel compelled to express our concerns about the environment in a way that distances us from other people who care about the environment. Some of us work from a scientific framework, base our arguments in logic, and seek solutions that are acceptable to society.

Others are looking for fundamental changes to society as we know it, and are willing to take radical actions including vandalism. Most environmentalists are somewhere in between.

To read further, go to: http://theconversation.edu.au/scientists-wary-of-wearing-their-hearts-on-their-sleeves-is-this-what-we-really-want-9016?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+24+August+2012&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+24+August+2012+CID_e9b2fff041b8ed43e695f1be95bfcdb3&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Scientists+wary+of+wearing+their+hearts+on+their+sleeves+--+is+this+what+we+really+want

Reading the Climate of the Nation 2012

Activists paint the message 'Reef in Danger' on the side of coal ship Chou San on March 7, 2012 in Gladstone, Australia (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

by Dr Graeme Pearman, Adjunct, Senior Research Fellow, School of Geography and Environmental Science at Monash University, The Conversation: http://theconversation.edu.au

Over the past several decades, scientists have studied the climate of the world and how that is changing.

These studies have built on the recognition, made over 150 years ago by John Tindall, that certain gases in the atmosphere help determine global temperatures and climate.

This work has identified, with high probability, that the climate is changing and will continue to do so through this century in response to the emissions into the atmosphere that result, primarily, from human combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels for energy. It has also shown that there are potential impacts on virtually all sectors of the economy.

Climate change has been perceived by some as an “environmental” issue confined to climate science and potential impacts on human and natural systems.

More recently it has broadened to include the economics and politics of how we sources and use energy, manage the economy, build employment opportunities and well being, transform the economy to a low-carbon future, and adapt to the inevitability of some climate changes. Indeed, it has broadened to encompass the way we view the future of our society.

The involvement of the community thus far in this broader view of climate change has been marginal: a result of the technical and complex nature of the science, the remaining uncertainties, interface of human and natural systems and array of risk management options.

Yet, the climate change issue has resulted from the way we live, as well as our aspirations, our desires and visions for the future of our children. In turn, how we deal with the issue will depend on us, as individuals and as communities and how we embrace these challenges, prepare for change and seize the opportunities that change can create.

The climate change issue is about us.

It is perhaps surprising therefore, that community understanding of the climate-change issue is poor and commitment to support actions to respond to the climate-change issue is varied.

The Climate of the Nation 2012 report, released last week by the Climate Institute, examined - through discussion groups and polling in late May - just how people view this issue.

It found that almost two-thirds of Australians (64%) agree that the climate is changing, with a fifth (19%) unsure. The community is mixed in its views of causes. Almost half (49%) say climate change is due to a mixture of natural variations and human causes, with only a fifth saying that humans are the main cause.

Yet half of the population (54%) is concerned about climate change. People worry about a more polluted Australia and destruction of the Great Barrier Reef (79% each); more droughts affecting crop production and food supplies (78%); and plant and animal species becoming extinct (75%).

To read further, go to: http://theconversation.edu.au/reading-the-climate-of-the-nation-2012-8546?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+1+August+2012&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+1+August+2012+CID_98b8d4558b26ea2fdf56f42372516cf5&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Reading+the+Climate+of+the+Nation+2012

Can Forest Conservation and Logging be Reconciled?

Hi everyone, here is an alternative view on the issue of logging and conversation. Do you agree or disagree? Comments are most welcome.

by Professor Jerry Vanclay, Dean of Science at Southern Cross University and Douglas Sheil, Director of the Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation at Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation, The Conversation: http://theconversation.edu.au

Logging and conservation (AAP/Greenpeace/Sutton-Hibbert)

Is there a role for logging in ensuring the future of the world’s tropical forests and their rich diversity of plants and animals?

For many this idea is absurd, because timber production achieving conservation goals have long been viewed as incompatible opposites. “Loggers” were tarred as planet plunderers, “greenies” were branded ignorant idealists, while researchers found themselves caught between warring factions with little interest in data from outside their own views and experiences.

Sadly, this myopic and highly polarised view of preservation versus production rarely helps save vulnerable landscapes. Fortunately these views are changing.

Finding outcomes that offer real improvements for conservation gains depend on recognising some myths and acknowledging the dynamic nature of forests. Many people, especially in Australia, generally imagine all “logging” as broad-scale clear-felling. However, timber harvesting takes many forms, and large-scale clear-felling is at one end of a broad spectrum.

In well-managed forests, foresters seek to harvest in an ecologically-appropriate way. Generally, clear-felling is appropriate only in forests that are naturally adapted to major disturbances (such as Australia’s wildfires).

At the other end of the harvesting spectrum, single-tree selection is appropriate in forests that evolved with small-scale disturbance (such as many species-rich where most trees die standing and finally collapse from decay), and where seedlings tolerate heavy shade.

In most tropical forests managed for sustainable timber production, harvesting is selective. Between two and 20 stems are removed from each hectare of forest, once every few decades. When done carefully this leaves over 90% of the trees in place. Thus a logged, rich, tropical forest is still a rich tropical forest and stems regrow to replace those removed.

Many of the technical arguments against timber production in tropical rainforests relate to species loss or to the increased likelihood of forest conversion (i.e. that the forest will then be converted to some other non-forest use).

There is ample evidence from various sites that logged forests lack many of the species - especially the larger animal species - found in more pristine forests. There are also many cases where forests that have been selectively logged for timber have subsequently been converted to pasture, oil palm, or other intensive uses. But, we now realise, the implied cause-and-effect relationships are not necessarily inevitable. Let’s deal with these issues one at a time.


First, how does timber harvest affect the biological value of tropical forests? Our recent study summarised over 100 scientific papers from a range of sites and concluded that 85% to 100% of the forest biodiversity was maintained in forests that have been logged once.

Other studies of forests harvested repeatedly have found similar results. This doesn’t mean that other older observations were wrong - just that they didn’t distinguish the cause of the species declines they observed.

Areas that are accessible for timber harvest are often accessible for hunting, pet-trade collecting, gold panning, and so on. Certainly, new logging roads often provide access into once inaccessible areas, and can exacerbate and facilitate other harmful activities, but whether they are the cause is a matter of semantics.

High levels of hunting can and do occur in strictly protected forests, too - but no-one would argue that that is a valid reason not to have strictly protected forests. In both cases, logged or protected forests, the answer is the same - stronger incentives and controls are required to favour the desired conservation outcome.


The question then is how to provide these incentives and controls. On the ground, control of activities like hunting is often more practical in actively-managed production forest than in national parks starved of staff and resources.

The need to control, and in some cases prohibit, hunting is now a common element of good practice in forest management and is implemented in many concessions (in Sarawak, Congo, and other concessions accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council).

To read further, go to: 

Australia's Carbon Tax: Fuzzy Or Phony?

Hi Readers,

Here is a highly controversial article by John Prytz. Please leave a comment as this one will definitely ruffle a few feathers!

Cheers, Robert.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

no carbon tax (Photo credit: Leonard John Matthews)

By John Prytz

There are people who deny the reality of global warming, or climate change, or at least the role that humans play in that scenario.

Of course some people have vested interests not to believe and of course some people once denied a spherical Earth or that Earth orbited the Sun (and not vice versa) or that stones could fall from the sky. Wishing or belief, however sincere, doesn't make things so.

The consensus is that global warming is factual and that the human species is largely responsible. We do have to hedge our bets ever so slightly since terrestrial climates have altered due to forces not related to human activities on the grounds that these climate changes happened before humans were created in anyone's philosophy.

However, it's probably prudent to err on the side of the argument that accepts Planet Earth is warming up and that humans are largely to blame, especially when most of the experts in this area agree that it is so.

And so, many governments, organizations and individuals try to do what they can to address the issue, though often hindered by factors such as 1) global warming is a future crisis so there's plenty of time to act and anyway we have enough current crisis situations on our plate to deal with in the here and now, and 2) the economy and jobs and the goods and services we all need are often the very things that contribute to climate change in the first place. It's called being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Still, we mostly all try to do our bit, even if it's akin to trying to bail out the sinking Titanic with a thimble. At least one is making an effort.

On the other hand, some measures designed to address global warming can be a phony as a $3 bill. Take the case of Australia and the implementation of her carbon tax. The operative word here is "tax".

Now as we are all aware the only things certain in life are death and taxes. Taxes are a legal instrument of government designed to separate money that's not already in the grubby hands (coffers) of government, into the grubby hands (coffers) of government.

So individuals and any for-profit institutions both private and public have to cough up at regular intervals dough to satisfy the needs and demands of the current powers-that-be.

Okay, on average people have little argument against that grubbiness since they want public roads and public education and sewage works and all those sorts of infrastructure and social security safety nets taxes provide (provisions which of course includes regular increases in politician's pay above and beyond the inflation rate, and of course additional lurks and perks for those powers-that-be that tax us in the first place, but that's another topic).

That said, increases in taxes are never popular, and so it came to pass that the Prime Minister of Australia, one Ms Julia Gillard (soon to be ex-PM if the opinion polls are any guide), went to the great unwashed at the last Federal election with the election promise that there would be "no carbon tax" introduced and implemented under her government. Let's repeat that "no" so there will be no misunderstanding of what came to pass.

But then it came to pass that her political party didn't quite get enough runs (votes) on the (electoral) board to rule the roost in their own right, and so they had to get into bed and between the sheets with one of the minority parties and this form a majority quasi-coalition.

That minor party happened to be Australia's environmental party, known, not surprisingly, as The Greens. However, the price of admission The Greens required for that romp in bed was - you guessed it - a carbon tax.

That's because The Greens like to feel all fuzzy - that feel good all over; nice inner glow sensation - by doing things for Mother Nature first and worry about the truth and consequences of that action on humans later.

And so it came to pass that Ms Gillard and her Green bedmates saw to it that Australia got that carbon tax that she promised we wouldn't never, ever have while she was chief cook and bottle washer. It's the same old lesson never learned by the voter - you can't trust a politician and a political promise, especially just before an election.

Now the introduced and implemented carbon tax doesn't mean that individuals have to eventually declare on their tax return forms how much carbon [dioxide] they put into the environment in the financial year just begun. Not even politicians with all the hot air they spout out have to make such an entry or declaration - pity.

The carbon tax is designed for the big carbon dioxide emitters, large companies and big industries that use a lot of energy to do what they do and in the process emit lots of greenhouse gases. Okay, you're the CEO of one of these companies and the government has socked it to you. Now what?

Well at first glance you'd think it would be in the best interest of these companies or industries to clean up their act and cut back on their carbon emissions, modernize with new technologies, etc. and thus pay less carbon tax. Of course that means shelling out money up front for such modernization, and even so, it's a pipedream to think that they can reduce their pollution to zero.

Ah, but there is an easier less costly option. Keep up the status quo. Pollute like hell, pay the carbon tax, and recoup what you pay the government by socking it in turn to the consumer. Most of the products produced by high polluting companies or industries are must-have items the consumer can't do without - like electricity.

When you have the consumer by their short and curly parts - a captive audience - their wallets will follow where you lead them. So, if you fly, expect to pay more because of the carbon tax since the airlines aren't going to pay extra to the government and cop the loss just because jet aircraft emit carbon dioxide.

If you buy anything made of steel and/or aluminum, like a car or an appliance, expect to pay more since it takes a lot of energy to produce metals from raw ores. If the farmer has to pay more for farming, you'll pay extra at the supermarket.

Release of carbon dioxide is a function of energy production and use. Generating electricity efficiently across an entire continent generates lots of carbon dioxide. In this case the continent in question is Australia. So why not generate carbon free energy via nuclear power?

Alas, Australians are paranoid about the use of carbon dioxide free nuclear energy on home soil; though Australia happily exports uranium to other nuclear powered counties. Maybe Australia's paranoia is because our lords and masters, the British, tested their nuclear weapons on our home turf (not theirs).

But then we (Australia) are just a humble and minor colony of the mighty British Empire and so it remains to this very day - but that's another story. Related, it's time long overdue to kick the British royal family (legally Australia's royal family too) in the privates and be done with these parasites who have turned lurks and perks into an art form. Australia needs to declare its own Independence Day and become a Republic, but that too is another topic. Meantime, let's get back to the carbon tax.

So, carbon dioxide emissions via coal or gas generated electricity is what Australians are willing to accept. And what they now have to accept is that all electricity prices, thanks to the carbon tax, are heading in the direction of outer space - upwards.

So any industry that uses electricity and that means all small, medium and big businesses, will have to pass on that extra cost, that carbon tax burden, directly or indirectly, onto the consumer. I mean only a total idiot will believe that they will absorb the carbon tax loss with a fuzzy smile on their face. But wait, the pain doesn't stop there.

Of course you the home consumer also use electricity directly. When it comes to paying for your own personal domestic electricity supply and usage, the power buck stops with you - unfortunately. You can't pass on your domestic home electricity price increases on down the line.

There is no further on down the line. So, you're slugged twice by the carbon tax - indirectly as a consumer of goods and services where producers and suppliers and their carbon tax burden has been passed on to you, and directly as a homebody.

So what is the bottom line here? The powers-that-be, the government coffers, gets more revenue. Polluting companies don't ultimately lose their revenue to the government since they pass on their share of the carbon tax to the consumer.

The buck stops with the consumer - that private individual who ultimately absorbs the cost of it all. Oh, and what of the environment which was supposed to be the ultimate beneficiary.

Well, in my scenario, there is no benefit. There is no decrease in carbon (dioxide) despite the carbon (dioxide) tax. The result is the status quo; business as usual. Government wins; industry breaks even; consumers lose; the environment loses.

But even against all the odds, what if the carbon tax works to such an extreme degree never originally envisioned, and Australia cuts back on it's carbon dioxide emissions by 99.99% (people are still allowed to exhale, but that's about it).

We've all gone back to the Stone Age, even prior to the discovery of domestic fire. Will that result in an environmentally fuzzier and cooler climate in the lands Down Under? I'm afraid not. There won't be one solitary jot of temperature decrease for the extremely simple and bloody obvious reason that atmospheric gases do not respect national borders or boundaries.

That aside, even the government admits that it will take at least 15 years before there's any evident and measurable reduction in carbon dioxide levels, even if Australia's atmosphere stayed put above Australia and Australia thusly received all the benefits of carbon dioxide reductions due to the carbon tax - but that's assuming those taxed did the hard yards and made an effort to reduce their emissions - not a given.

However, let's not end on a totally negative note. With post carbon tax electricity prices increasing by an average of 10% (it's actually 17.3% in my local neck of the woods), people may not be able to afford to fly or buy automobiles or the petrol (gasoline) to power them, or petrol-operated leaf blowers and chainsaws.

Maybe carbon dioxide levels really will go down after all - but I wouldn't bet the family farm on it. So, let's instead end this on a totally negative note after all.

All up, when it comes to addressing global warming, I have to employ that old hairy chestnut observation that "when all is said and done, there's a lot more said than done". That I suspect hits the nail on the head when it comes to real action on climate change.

So I feel it is pretty hopeless trying to stop and reverse global warming - there's just too much vested (economic) interests standing in the way, like your standard of living the good life to which you have become accustomed to and your continued employment.

In the long term it will probably be far easier to just go with the flow and adapt to whatever long term changes are in store in any specific geographical area. If humans can't achieve that sort of adjustment, something's seriously amiss.

On that theme, the one disquieting thing I find about all the contributing verbal hot air spouted off by those who like to spout off about how nasty climate change is, is that all and sundry assume that everything that comes to pass about global warming is a negative. Warm will be warmer; hot will be hotter; storms will be stormier; dry will be drier; wet will be wetter, etc.

Well, some dry areas will become wetter and some wet areas will become drier, and some frigid areas will become milder; even some tropical areas might become slightly cooler. I'm sure there are lots of people in areas prone to very cold winters who would welcome a trend towards an extended autumn and an earlier spring and reduced heating bills and less driving in the snow and ice.

As to all the other non-human species we've forced this specific climate change scenario on, well, over billions of years of terrestrial natural history, species have had to adapt or die to naturally (as in not caused by humans) changing climatic conditions.

There's nothing new about changing environmental conditions that non-human species have had to face. Some species will decrease, even die out; other species, even some endangered species, will survive and thrive in the changing climate. Many species will have time to evolve and adapt - that's natural selection at work. Life will go on.

Science librarian; retired.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=John_Prytz
http://EzineArticles.com/?Australias-Carbon-Tax:-Fuzzy-Or-Phony?&id=7178210

Has the London Olympics Really Gone Green, and What can the Gold Coast Games Gain?

by Colin Hunt, Honorary Fellow in Economics at University of Queensland, The Conversation: http://theconversation.edu.au

Upper ring of Olympic Stadium made from 2,600 tonnes of surplus gas pipes

For seven years, the London Olympics Organising Committee has been striving to live up to the sustainability vision it set itself.

It’s been a long, honest fight. On the eve of the Games, how well have they done?

The case was made for a sustainable London games and Paralympics back in 2005, based on WWF’s Vision of a One Planet Olympics.

The London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) has tried to instill sustainability into every facet of construction and delivery. The Committee set sustainability objectives, standards and tools. There is even a powerful watchdog on the LOCOG - the Commission for a Sustainable London (CSL).

It's not easy being green

Despite the commitment, failures in delivery have already attracted a good deal of attention. The most conspicuous is in energy, where the CSL criticises the lack of an effective plan. The renewable energy target will not be met, because a wind energy project was cancelled, and the carbon footprint will not be reduced by much.

London does not meet all EU air quality standards. This together with the need to cut greenhouse emissions prompted the development of impressive public transport infrastructure and links.

However, diluting this is the provision of 4,000 cars to transport the “Olympic family”; and congestion on an ageing road network could still pose a problem. Rail transport from Europe is being encouraged. But the greenhouse emissions of international travellers are not accounted for and will be only marginally ameliorated by carbon taxes and airline offsets.

Sustainable fuels such as biogas could have been used much more for combined heating and cooling. Instead, fossil fuels will be prominent; 169,000 litres of diesel be used in power generators. The indirect energy consumption of offices and operational sites will be around 25 million kWh, sufficient for town of about 160,000, drawn mainly from the grid.

Materials reuse is very low. While nothing reaches the dump, recycling isn’t a perfect solution: it costs money and uses energy.

Some PVC (polyvinyl chloride), which contains the dangerous pollutants cadmium, lead and phthalates, is still being used on site; and some cooling systems still use HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons), a powerful greenhouse gas. LOGOC makes the point that that future event organisers need to engage suppliers early to ensure safe alternatives are available.

CSL has also criticised the sustainability of merchandise. By last month only one games partner, Adidas, had disclosed the location of its factories. And the consequences of appointing the Dow Chemical Company as an Olympic Partner have rebounded and continue to dog games organisers, taking the focus off achievements.

Delivering a physical legacy for some purpose built venues may be a headache. How will they attract users and revenues?

Games' green achievements

It is inevitable that in a project of such ambition and scale there will be failures; but when measured against the impressive successes they seem relatively minor.

Some parts of the Olympic complex have been very well planned. The block that housed the construction offices is to be taken over by games administration; then post-games it will become commercial. The games village will become sustainable housing. And a 20-year programme will follow to deliver new homes and development to the precinct.

A hundred hectares of the Lower Lea River Valley, once a degraded industrial area, will be transformed to parkland, with an emphasis on encouraging the return of biodiversity.

But perhaps the most impressive of the green initiatives is the commitment to sustainably-sourced supplies. Sea freight and delivery by rail and water are mandated. Paper consumption is minimised.

No food packaging will go to landfill and all food waste is to be composted. Water reclaimed from sewage is used for irrigation and toilet flushing. Moreover, all timber used in construction was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

Much food will be from certified sources. The fish with your chips - whether from ocean, river or ponds - will be Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified; London became the first “sustainable fish city”.

There are no less than 100,000 contractors involved in supplying the games, and all of them are subject to sustainability standards and tests. Innovations wrought among suppliers are expected to have a lasting effect.

To read further, go to: http://theconversation.edu.au/has-the-london-olympics-really-gone-green-and-what-can-the-gold-coast-games-gain-8215?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+16+July+2012&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+16+July+2012+CID_d58c683f19320c9f8fab4ec09dd3c0b3&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Has+the+London+Olympics+really+gone+green+and+what+can+the+Gold+Coast+Games+gain

Giant Earthquakes Of The Pacific Northwest

                                  Image via Wikipedia
on Before It's News: http://beforeitsnews.com/

The danger of a very large earthquake striking the coast between northern California and British Columbia proves much greater than suspected

Few people question the possibility of a devastating earthquake once again hitting Los Angeles or San Francisco. The state of Alaska has also suffered some serious shaking, including, in 1964, one of the world's largest earthquakes. Until recently, however, many residents believed that the intervening territory from northernmost California to southern British Columbia (an area sometimes referred to as Cascadia) was a safer place to live. Seismologists had recognized that Vancouver and Seattle were not exactly sheltered--sizable earthquakes buffeted the region in 1946, 1949 and 1965--but no truly disastrous events had ever damaged these cities.

Yet views have changed drastically. Ten years ago Thomas H. Heaton of the U.S. Geological Survey and Garry C. Rogers of the Geological Survey of Canada began warning that giant earthquakes could indeed strike this seemingly quieter stretch of coast. Initially, many scientists questioned the seriousness of the threat, but most doubters now realize that such earthquakes have happened in the past and will do so again. How could perceptions have shifted so quickly?

To understand the change in thinking requires some knowledge of the way seismologists estimate how and where powerful but infrequent earthquakes occur. For most active fault zones, the rate at which earthquakes take place decreases with increasing size in a systematic way, as was shown in the 1930s by Beno Gutenberg and Charles F. Richter. This regular pattern applies up to some maximum earthquake size--one that corresponds to a break of the entire fault zone from end to end. Using the Gutenberg-Richter relation, seismologists can gauge how often large earthquakes strike a given place even if no such events have ever been recorded. Engineers can then design buildings, dams and other structures accordingly.

To read more, go to: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/724/236/Giant_Earthquakes_Of_The_Pacific_Northwest.html

Alternative Energy Could Make America Rich

Image via WikipediaBy Walker Sharpe

Electric cars. Solar power. Wind energy. Wave farms. Bio-fuel. What do they all have in common?

American engineers could export them to every other country in the world.

We could topple the Middle East's stranglehold on the World's energy sources - and at the same time make a killing. So why don't we?

Think about it - instead of driving the cost of nearly every product sold in the United States even higher [everything you buy needs to be transported - hence, the price of energy affects every product on the market] - sending billions upon billions of dollars to oversea oil companies and nations we are on the brink of war with - and crippling the American economy by causing our people to pay insanely high prices. Why don't we just switch?

Is the reason that it would be too expensive? Well, if that was the case - then why did we just sign a 100+ BILLION DOLLAR Healthcare Bill into law? "Too Expensive" doesn't seem to be in a Congressman's vocabulary. Is it that as a society [read this following statement with heaping piles of sarcasm], oil is just too ingrained into how we live? That is a little bit more valid - though be it only a slight validation at that. If the American people a truly in love with oil, it's going to be heartbreak the nation over come this summer - when oil is estimated to hit almost $150/barrel.

But Oil, that dirty black gold, isn't the only energy source costing our nation billions of dollars.

Remember that little buddy of ours named Coal? Well - buckle your seat belts for this one: Ready for the statistic you've heard virtually NOTHING about? Harvard puts the cost of coal each year at ... are you ready for this? HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS - EVERY YEAR. Here's a little snippet I found while doing some research for this article:


"In the time it takes most people to read this sentence, the world will have used up (forever) about 8,000 barrels of oil - 336,000 gallons; at 1000 barrels per second, it's going fast."
Bottom line: Oil isn't going to be around forever.

Yet instead of realizing this seemingly blatant fact and switching to more effective sources of energy - Washington continues to thumb it's ass. But wait! - Nuclear energy? Yeah, okay - great idea. I'm sure Japan is really grateful about the whole "we will supplement our energy supply with reactors" decision.

How about alternatives that pose absolutely ZERO negative environmental exteralities, potential or otherwise?
Like Solar Power - Wind Power - Wave farms - Hydrogen Fuel Cells?

If America started a nationwide program to recycle outdated combustion-engine cars, took this raw material and RE-BOOTED OUR STEEL INDUSTRY - while at the same time we EXPORTED HI-TECH ALTERNATIVE ENERGY we would be one [very big] step closer to solving the economic crisis.

New Solar Energy plants would have to open all over the nation - providing thousands and thousands of new jobs and sparking the economy. America could export the next generation of the World's technology - highly efficient electric automobiles - solar panels - fuel cells - wind and wave farming technology.. and undoubtedly the new flame of economic growth would lead to even better energy technology due to revitalized competition in the energy sectors.

New AMERICAN car companies, such as Tesla, would employ thousands of people in making new cars - for the rest of the world to buy up like wildfire.

Share this article with your friends if you think this is a good idea.

Written by Walker Sharpe of the blog sentinelnews.us

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Walker_Sharpe
http://EzineArticles.com/?Alternative-Energy-Could-Make-America-Rich&id=6229334

Is Nuclear Power Safe?

Image by freestylee via FlickrBy Kk Subramanian

This is the first time in our history, that villagers are opposing the construction of a nuclear power plant. Most states are demanding such plants, considering power supply, employment opportunities etc. thinking that it is pollution free.

The reality is that it converts the whole area, into a danger zone, inviting an accident like the one at Chernobyl in Russia. The Russians could control the spread of radiation, by spreading soil, brought from various parts, transported in planes, as the whole nation rose as one man. All European countries admired the management of a disaster of such magnitude.

Can we do it?

The negative factors are:

- Such projects are very costly and the real cost is hidden, because of the fact that, intense supervision by BARC Scientists, is ignored in cost calculations.

- Still, no one knows how to dismantle a plant. The cost of dismantling should also be taken into account, in calculating the cost. This cost is enormous.

- Disposal of spent fuel, which is highly radioactive, is also very difficult. An accident of the special train carrying it can be disastrous.

A newly constructed atomic power plant was abandoned in Switzerland, after the people voted in favour of this idea, after the Chernobyl accident.

The villagers are opposing the acquisition of land for the project, because they fear that the environment will be spoilt forever. Their fears are legitimate and we all should join the struggle against the plant.

It is necessary to create awareness about the dangers to life and environment posed by nuclear power plants.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kk_Subramanian
http://EzineArticles.com/?Is-Nuclear-Power-Safe?&id=5790549

Benefits Associated With Using Public Transportation

Image via WikipediaBy Lisa A Mason

If you live in the city or suburban areas you probably have access to public transportation. Commuters travel to and from work, school and shopping every day by use of these services. Many people use this form of transportation to visit friends and family and to take care of all their personal needs because it an excellent way to travel without having to worry about doing the driving.

Public transportation includes but is not limited to, buses, street cars, subways, commuter trains and ferries. People use these services for a number of different reasons. For example, some commuters don't own a vehicle so this is a dependable way to travel where they don't have to depend on someone else to carry them everywhere they need to go. Many others choose to use this type of transportation so they help to reduce the carbon footprint they leave behind.

There are many benefits associated with using public transportation and some of these are listed below:

· You don't have to worry about dealing with all of the traffic on your way to and from work or waste time looking for a parking space. Someone else does the driving for you so you can sit back and relax. Once you arrive at your destination, you're dropped off with no hassles and when it's time to return home, you'll be picked up the same way.

· You won't have the expense of owning a vehicle such as car insurance, car payments and maintenance.

· It's economical and helps provide income for thousands of families by creating jobs.

· Public transportation has a set schedule so you always know what time they'll be running. This makes it easy to make a schedule around the hours the transportation is provided.

· It helps to reduce the harmful emissions released into the air when you drive. In other words, it's a greener way to travel from one location to another.

· Using this type of alternative transportation gives you the freedom to use your time wisely. Instead of spending time behind the wheel of a car stuck in traffic, you could be reading a book, preparing documents or doing a number of different things while someone else deals with the rush hour traffic.

Even if you only use this alternative transportation for your commute to and from work and drive when you travel personally, you're still helping the environment by cutting back on the use of gasoline and the amount of harmful emissions you emit into the air.

There are many benefits associated with using public transportation and it's so easy to do. As the concerns over the environment become more wide-spread, this form of transportation will surely become even more popular.

About the Author:
Lisa Mason is a freelance writer with a specialty in Internet content and SEO articles and the author of How to Earn a Living Writing for the Internet. She has written thousands of articles, hundreds of ebooks and thousands of website pages and related content in more than 10 years as a professional writer.

See her website for a free article writing template guide as well as more information about writing and the writing services she offers.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lisa_A_Mason
http://EzineArticles.com/?Benefits-Associated-With-Using-Public-Transportation&id=5751022

OPINION: Wind Farms

Image via WikipediaHi readers,

The following article represents the other side of the alternative energy debate. What do you think? What's your opinion on this issue?

Let us know by posting a comment. Cheers, Robert.


Wind Farms by Val Oliver

As we live in the middle of England with the nearest coastline some sixty miles away I don't often get to see it. So on Christmas Eve last, as a passenger on a drive to Holyhead, I was quite looking forward to the trip.We were to avoid the snow in Snowdonia by travelling the A55 along the north coast of Wales, a route I had not driven for quite a few years.

For those who don't know this area the whole coastline is a holiday destination. Towns and villages are interspersed with sand dunes, endless beaches and craggy headlands. It also must have the largest compilation of holiday camps and caravan parks in the country, but then you look out to sea. I have to say, I was very pleased I was not driving, because there, stretched before us like an army from the ''War of the Worlds'' wind turbines, scores of them, what an awful sight.

This once beautiful coastline has been defaced in the name of renewable energy. I have seen four or five of these turbines lined up inland but nothing on this scale. What are the people involved with approving these things thinking. They must be able to do better than this.

It would appear that we must spend money like water to foreign companies to erect these monsters on the basis that we may get some power if the wind blows at the right speed and it doesn't get too cold. They tend not to work when you need them most, especially in very cold still weather such as experienced before Christmas. Are we so afraid to look at the obvious. Here we are surrounded by water, well blessed with rivers and lakes and we have knowledge of its power, it never stops, unlike the wind.

I have looked at many websites since Christmas Eve in the hope that maybe one could convince me that wind turbines are a good idea but not one can. They can produce figures on how much CO2 they save, providing it is windy but they cannot or will not say how much these things cost to start up and run. They will tell you that the UK is the best place in Europe for them as luckily 40% of Europe's wind comes across us, their words not mine. Why do we have to ruin the planet to save it? If we spent half the cost of wind generation on further research into wave power we would have it by now .It would be clean, reliable, constant and invisible.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Val_Oliver
http://EzineArticles.com/?Wind-Farms&id=5755454

Average Fuel Consumption - How to Decrease Fuel Consumption and Save Money Instantly

Image by heathzib via FlickrBy Edward Conrad

We have all been there, at the gas station filling up the gas tank watching how quickly the price of gas rises with every second and how slowly the gas tank is filling up. It is annoying and frustrating and it seems like there is nothing that you can do. However there are some very simple solutions to this problem. When you apply the following simple tips to your car and driving habits you will decrease the average fuel consumption of your automobile and save a ton of money instantly!

Tip 1. Pay attention to your gas consumption as the more aware of your average fuel consumption that you are the better you will be at improving your gas mileage. You can observe your gas consumption by keeping a fuel log in your car at all times. Simply keep a notebook and a pen in your car and take note at how much you spend in gas and how many miles you get per gallon. This is going to help you develop the habit of knowing exactly how much you are spending at the pump.

Tip 2. Keep your gas level above the quarter tank at all times and never drive your car on empty. It may seem like driving your car on empty is using less gas but it is actually using more gas and raising your average fuel consumption. The reason for this is because your car is running less efficiently as it tries to accelerate and decelerate in the normal manner.

Tip 3. Getting your car tuned on a regular basis is one of the best things that can be done to make your car more fuel efficient. Recent studies have shown that the average fuel consumption of a car that has a poorly tuned engine will increase by up to 20 percent! Are you ready for the next tip?

Tip 4. Your car gives you signs all the time so pay attention to them! When that red light on your dashboard lights up telling you that it is time to "check your gauges" then have them checked as soon as possible. If you are unsure of when the last time your car was serviced then you should contact your auto mechanic or which ever mechanic has helped you last. In doing this you can find out how long it has been since your car has been checked and also schedule an appointment at the same time.

Tip 5. My final suggestion for you is to keep your car clean and waxed when possible. This will only help a little bit however every bit counts. Keeping your car clean will reduce the amount of drag on your car and therefore decrease your average fuel consumption.

These were just some of the many ways to help cut down on your average fuel consumption, for more free tips on how to go green and save hundreds to thousands of dollars a year then simply go to http://www.mygogreentips.com/freestuff.html. Thank you for reading and I hope this helps you in your quest to stay green and save money.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Edward_Conrad
http://EzineArticles.com/?Average-Fuel-Consumption---How-to-Decrease-Fuel-Consumption-and-Save-Money-Instantly&id=5561565

The Rationality (Or Irrationality) Of Climate Change Denial

By Will McCorkle

It seems that it is becoming a prerequisite for any conservative politician to cast severe doubts or flatly deny any scientific claims about climate change. Is this because they have all done objective scientific research on the topic? It is amazing they all know more than 98% of climatologists. Of course, it is all political. However, when we look at it from a historical perspective - this is nothing new.

The conservative movement has usually stood against environmental protection - whether it was against Teddy Roosevelt reserving national parks for preservation, against the establishment of the EPA and other environmental organizations in the 1960's and 70's, or modern day movements against carbon reduction. It is often seen as more government. So, it is easier to deny the facts and the urgency of the situation than to change the political viewpoint on the role of government. However, this is extremely foolish.

It seems many people on the right love to eat up this Climate Change denialism. Unfortunately, it is because many are getting their scientific information from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity rather than real scientists and climatologists. There is no real debate on this issue in the field of climatology. Just because Fox News can find a couple of obscure scientists to raise doubts about climate change, does not mean that the overwhelming evidence does not point towards human involvement in this environmental issue. It is a case of chosen ignorance.

We all do this to one extent or another in our lives; however, we must realize that for our elected politicians to live in this state of ignorance on an issue with such global importance as climate change is extremely troubling and something that should be firmly rejected by the American people. Let's starting listening to true wisdom and evidence on climate change from experts and scientists, not the foolish rhetoric of right wing leaders who have a huge political incentive to stay in the dark on the issue.

This article was written by William McCorkle. He writes a blog on progressive social action and the search to find the true essence of the Christian faith at http://www.essencerestored.com. If you are interested in contacting the author, you may contact him at wdmccorkle@gmail.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Will_McCorkle
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Rationality-(Or-Irrationality)-Of-Climate-Change-Denial&id=4932016

OPINION: The Rationality (Or Irrationality) Of Climate Change Denial

Image by net_efekt via FlickrBy Will McCorkle

It seems that is becoming a prerequisite for any conservative politician to cast severe doubts or flatly deny any scientific claims about climate change. Is this because they have all done objective scientific research on the topic? It is amazing they all know more than 98% of climatologists. Of course, it is all political. However, when we look at it from a historical perspective - this is nothing new.

The conservative movement has usually stood against environmental protection - whether it was against Teddy Roosevelt reserving national parks for preservation, against the establishment of the EPA and other environmental organizations in the 1960's and 70's, or modern day movements against carbon reduction. It is often seen as more government. So, it is easier to deny the facts and the urgency of the situation than to change the political viewpoint on the role of government. However, this is extremely foolish.

It seems many people on the right love to eat up this Climate Change denialism. Unfortunately, it is because many are getting their scientific information from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity rather than real scientists and climatologists.

There is no real debate on this issue in the field of climatology. Just because Fox News can find a couple of obscure scientists to raise doubts about climate change, does not mean that the overwhelming evidence does not point towards human involvement in this environmental issue. It is a case of chosen ignorance. We all do this to one extent or another in our lives; however, we must realize that for our elected politicians to live in this state of ignorance on an issue with such global importance as climate change is extremely troubling and something that should be firmly rejected by the American people. Let's starting listening to true wisdom and evidence on climate change from experts and scientists, not the foolish rhetoric of right wing leaders who have a huge political incentive to stay in the dark on the issue.

This article was written by William McCorkle. He writes a blog on progressive social action and the search to find the true essence of the Christian faith at http://www.essencerestored.com. If you are interested in contacting the author, you may contact him at wdmccorkle@gmail.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Will_McCorkle
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Rationality-(Or-Irrationality)-Of-Climate-Change-Denial&id=4932016