Barack Obama – the world’s your climate stage

There is some hope in the world since Obama was elected. He proposes a firm target for reducing emissions together with an ambitious list of measures to achieve that goal, including a cap-and-trade system apparently far tougher than any attempted elsewhere.

Obama will not commit the United States to meet the Kyoto emissions target – a cut to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Instead, his goal is to get back down to 1990 levels by 2020. This will be a relief to most European countries. During the 11 years since the Kyoto pact was signed, most of the 38 industrialised countries that accepted targets have made little progress toward meeting them. A little sad this is; but with the US now heading in the right direction there is now a consensus and mandate to act for all industrialised countries.

Barack Obama also made some interesting comments on on the Bush administration during his campaign: “This is the administration that commissioned government experts and scientists to do a study on global warming, only to omit the part from the final report that said it was caused by humans. This is the administration that didn't try to improve the Kyoto Treaty by trying to include oil guzzlers like China and India, but walked away from the entire global effort to stem climate change. And just recently, this is the administration that tried to silence a NASA scientist for letting the rest of us know that yes, climate change is a pretty big deal.”

As far as I can see Bush was just an active supported for Climate Change. Having to spend so much time in Washington, he wanted to use Climate change as a way to quickly get the North East coast to become the new Florida. Simple thinking really for a very simple man! Although Bush put the world at a stalemate for a decade, this new leader may help write the history books for an evolution to sustainable energy economies.

When Money talks

In 2005 ExxonMobil posted $35 billion in profits, the largest ever profit posted by a US company. In 2008 ExxonMobil reported the highest quarterly profit made by any company in the history of the World. Now, in US politics, we know it’s money that buys the senate votes (through their lobbying power); and I believe ExxonMobil profits find their way to some interesting influences.

When the price of oil went up recently, Bush was on a plane to visit the Saudi’s – requesting them to take immediate action on bringing the price of oil down. That’s a pretty powerful lobby group when the President takes action for you! Of course it was in the interest of the American people – cheap oil that is; or is it?

Obliviously the renewable energy sector obviously doesn’t have the same funding as the Oil companies to get power behind US legislation that will support (or not support) the transformation from fossil fuels to renewable forms of energy. The consequence of all this is seen clearly in political actions in America:

1. President Bush’s FY06 budget requested the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to accept reductions totalling nearly $50 million - an overall cut of roughly four percent.
2. Bush supported the Vehicle Industry lawsuits against the state of California over a landmark clean-air regulation that requires the production of millions of low-emission cars and trucks over the next decade and a half. California has had to put that on hold.
3. It seems a little funny that the US seemed so focused on invading and occupying the country with the richest OIL reserves on earth…hmmm…
4. Senate voting denied success for a vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.
5. Despite Senator McCain saying he supports renewables, he did not show up for the crucial S.3335 vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. (By the way McCain didn’t show up for any of the eight attempts to pass this legislation whilst Obama did show up many times for the vote).

Recently evidence has surfaced that the Bush administration, in particular Dick Cheney, pressured the EPA into lying about the extent of the harm low level ozone causes the environment, human health, and how it affects global warming. California made request to the EPA for details that would allow them to require stricter air quality rules than federal standards. Apparently they were turned down because the President wants to preserve a legacy of the US oil use (low cost energy) and we’ll obviously see money going from government to encourage more off-shore exploration in US territory. Bush’s thrust is get America off foreign oil not necessarily oil – so he now supports a faulty Corn Biofuel campaign (1).

Now I’ve generally been against Biofuels; since as I have written in this blog before there is concerns that if we start using good farming land for Corn and Sugar Cane and other Biofuel sources, then we are pricing up food; just because of the high price of fuel (2). And it’s questionable if Biofuel is a benefit over the whole eco balance – ie land clearing in Sumatra for Palm Oil has a huge impact on both the environment and species depletion (like apes). This does not encourage me to think that agriculture for Biofuel is a great answer to our fossil fuel problem. However China is doing Biofuels like it should be done. Using waste that would otherwise be an environmental impact. Look at this -

In YanQing District, about 50 km north of Beijing, there is a farm (the Beijing Deqingyuan Chicken Farm) which has three million chickens. Chicken is probably the most frequently eaten protean in China; so it’s well needed. However, in the course of production this farm produces 220 tonnes of manure and 170 tonnes of wastewater each day. New gas engines are being installed that will use biogas created from chicken manure to generate needed power and heat at this large chicken farm.

The farm is installing new cogeneration systems which features an anaerobic digester system to treat the waste material, producing enough biogas to fuel two gas engines. The plant will have an installed capacity of more than 2 MW for use at the chicken farm. Additionally, the plant's thermal output is used to support the chicken waste fermentation process and also heat the chicken farm in the winter. The Chicken Farm Waste Utilization plant will supply some 14,600 MWhr of electricity per year and will qualify for the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Now, this brings me back to where we started. I watched President Bush on television giving a serve to the Chinese on human rights and religious freedom. At the same time he hasn’t supported Kyoto and is withdrawing support for renewable energy (see actions above). So where does Bush get off thinking he’s such a great leader; leading the world continually down the fossil fuel path whilst the Chinese are in fact becoming more supportive of renewable energies, and have set targets that will exceed the US renewable mix in the near term? Leadership considers humanity, something Bush is myopic about. Humanity is better served today focusing on survival and Climate Change that any issue about democracy vs central government controlled economies and censorship vs freedom of speech. Where’s the freedom of the +80% (3&4) of Americans who support the renewable thrusts when the senate (influenced by oil money) take a different tact than what the majority of the population desire. Oh, that's democracy Bush style for you!

Now as a parting gesture here is a great link to read; it outlines how the US defence budget could provide 24 Million homes with renewable energy for a year:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/90742-the-economic-cost-of-the-military-industrial-complex

(1) A vehicle loses 10 % or more mileage from adding 10 % ethanol to gasoline, so it would be better for the energy consumed to have not added the ethanol at all. Why should humans be wasting our grain resources to produce ethanol that could be feeding farm stocks?

(2) In 2004, before the Ethanol mandates were imposed, the cost of corn hovered around $2 per bushel. Now in the US it is close to $8 per bushel – it just doesn’t make sense.

(3) National public opinion survey by Public Opinion Strategies of Alexandria – nearly unanimous support for 25% renewables target. Over 80% were in favour of increasing financial incentives in contrast to the reduction outlined above.

(4) Also the Schott Solar Barometer™ showed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/3492.htm

Australia one step forward - but lets get Generation right first

It was interesting to see the Australian Government's Green Paper on a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It has one! A distinct departure from Australia’s pervious government.

The framework being proposed looks like it has some chance of achieving the stated outcomes; although just by the media speculation and hype it has generated continued support for Prime Minister Rudd (good political move to expedite this). I can see concerns at eroding the value of the investments in Coal fired power (not a bad thing) but if it knocks out investments in clean coal technology then of course there needs to be some “special treatment” of these dirty generation assets. Again, not such a bad decision.

If you’ve watched my dialog for sometime you’ll understand that in country like Australia the reducing available water for agriculture has many farmers destitute; just the thing to avoid as the rising population and climate change reduces agricultural yields across the planet.

So, all in all, promise for the political will in Australia to move forward and take public opinion with them. Transformation of Electrical Generation may happen.

In emerging countries that I work in, I am starting to see a similar turn of events. Two weeks ago in Malaysia; after much dialog with senior management of Utilities; I thought the question of Green House Gas would forever be unanswered. But I recently heard that the Malaysian government has asked for strategies for Carbon Trading in light of its anticipating in being drawn into a scheme post 2012 (post Kyoto).

Last week in India I was surprised to see very determined efforts to increase renewable mix (if only as a result of the increasing cost of fuel).

The real media fallacy of course is that electric cars are the answer to our carbon problem. They are only the answer if we can convert the source of Generation & Distribution systems for Electricity to renewalable (or perhaps broader – non fossil fuel) sources. If you produce electricity by Coal, Gas or Oil; and transmit it; THEN distribute it to houses; THEN convert into a storage form (ie chemical) THEN convert to horse power -hp (via electric motors) in a car; more CO2 is generated per hp than directly in a petrol driven engine. So, electric cars are worse unless we attack the fixed electrical production elements of our energy value chain. First we need to get a high % of renewables in place (even Nuclear would help here) and then covert the land transport systems. Carbon trading is a key part of the strategy and yes it will mean higher pump prices in most economies, but “no pain, no gain” comes into play.

Japan - good news for GHG leadership

At the GreenXchange conference last Tuesday, Tadashi Maeda, the Director General of the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), remarked, "Japan is the world leader in efficient use of resources, even though we import most of it." How do they do it?

Japan doesn't implement a carbon tax or have a carbon market. They rely entirely on voluntary agreements with local governments, markets, and civil society to reduce carbon output.

As a country that signed on to the original Kyoto agreement to reduce emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, Japan has made steady progress towards their goal by requesting industry leaders to voluntary implement carbon-cutting strategies. Every year the government tracks emissions levels of each sector and subsequently assesses how much more must be cut to meet the nation's goals. The majority of companies have complied using standard corporate carbon reduction strategies. Many have even been creative in their approach, allowing employees to forego their suits in summer so that buildings burn less energy through air conditioning.

One can only imagine if such an approach could work in Western Countries. If the U.S. Administration is reluctant to set a firm mandate on reductions, implement a carbon tax, or create a carbon market, then why not propose widespread voluntary measures? The E.P.A. Climate Leaders Program has demonstrated that Fortune 500 companies are ready and willing to set corporate reduction goals. Instead of being the stubborn child at the Bali table, the US administration could at least agree to support voluntary reductions.

The Prime Minister of Japan Yasuo Fukuda is planning to announce a major initiative when the G8 leaders meet for their annual summit in July in Hokkaido. The Japanese government drew up a list of Technologies under 21 categories to help reduce greenhouse gas emission. These will get special funding from the Government as part of their plan to place Japan at the forefront and reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2050. An aggressive target, but that’s true leadership for you.

The Climate Crisis can be funny

Al Core’s not a bad comedian!

This following link takes you to a presentation from Al, and he spends five minutes up front with some pretty funny off the cuff comments.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/1

He also talks about US emissions, and actions to take.

Reuse and recycling saves an incredible amount of energy. The energy to create a bottle for soft drink is amazing; but just to wash and sterilise, very much cheaper and low carbon.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/

This is not a bad tool, quick, but in imperial units.

The end of Oil (as we know it; cheap and available!)

The bulk of the world’s oil was formed in two periods 90 and 150 million years ago. Rifts formed as the continents moved apart; captured algae which absorbed oxygen, increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This organic material fell to the bottom of the rifts (in the ocean) and was then was “folded” into the earth, buried beneath the surface. Meanwhile changes in carbon increased the earth’s temperature which accelerated the whole process. This we know. Hence scientists have a good view (historically) of what happens when the carbon dioxide level increases. But this carbon impact isn’t the point of today’s story.

Ironically, we know that the above circumstances for oil formulation is a relatively rare set of circumstances where conditions were right (in the 90 & 150 million years ago event) to enable the underground or undersea area to capture this organic material and form into oil (which was trapped until today). And, as we have seen there are a lot more places where oil is not, and in those places where oil is (North Sea, Arabia, Russia, Gulf of Mexico, Texas or even the Bass Sea - Australian) the economies thrive on selling it to the rest of the world’s countries that are dependent on it.

Well, you might ask so what?

Dr Colin Campbell (a retired British petroleum geologist) has a great story. He says even a beer drinker knows that you start with a full glass and as you drink it the glass gets empty. Now Colin also finds it hard to believe that this principle has escaped oil companies. He predicted some time ago that we would reach in 2007 a condition called “peak oil”.

Now this whole discussion starts a debate:

Global oil discovery peaked in 1964, and since the early 1980s oil production has outpaced new discoveries. The world currently consumes oil at the rate of 84 million barrel per day (31 billion barrels/year, or 151 m³/s), and consumption is rising, particularly in China.

According to Campbell:

• There are no new potential oil fields sufficiently large to reduce this future energy crisis.
• The reported oil reserves of many OPEC countries are inflated, to increase their quotas, or improve their chance of getting a loan from the World Bank.
• The practice of gradually adding new discoveries to a country's list of proven reserves, instead of all at once, artificially inflates the current rate of discovery.

Campbell has been predicting since 1989 that this peak will cause a catastrophic world-wide economic depression.

One theory, held by many in the oil industry is that oil production will continue to increase, due to technological advances and the geopolitical pressure caused by rising oil prices. Boy, do they need to speak with a beer drinker! They argue that:

• Much of the world's oil reserves come from areas that have not been fully explored because they are politically unstable, like Russia and Iraq. Nobody knows how much oil is really left in those areas, and economic pressure could result in a new exploration boom.
• New methods of extracting oil from existing fields are currently being developed. This may even expand the definition of "oil": Hydrocarbons exist in shale and tarry sands, and as a result companies like Exxon predict that there are up to 14 trillion barrels (2,200 km³) of exploitable hydrocarbons left in the world, which could fuel the oil industry for another century.

The U.S. Department of Energy, have been out speaking to beer drinkers, since their report “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management,” often referred to as the “Hirsch Report”, proposes an urgent mitigation approach to deal with the possibility of oil production going into decline in the immediate future.

It states: "The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking."

Campbell, arguably one of the world’s experts in this area says peak oil is here. The US department of Energy says its here. But Bush and his cronies in government, and of course our friends the oil companies have yet to accept this, or even talk to the humble beer drinker who has understood this principle from the day they had their first beer. And the beer drinker knows that eventually the bar closes at midnight and the up-ending of the amber glass must stop.

It’s quite incredible when you think of it. Let’s go and ask the cigarette companies if smoking is harmful, and base our health planning on that (oh! that’s right; we’ve already done that 20 years ago!). So the US government have quite sensibly gone to the oil companies to ask if there is an issue, and based on the answer made decisions about whether we should take any action on alternative energy (sustainable energy) sources. The consequences of inaction are tremendous.

Interesting? What does it have to do with Global warming? Well, the turn around in prices of oil (now it’s over $100 per barrel and headed like a rocket to $300) is a consequence of the scarcity, and the impending shortage.

Oil prices in the mid term

Oil Prices in the short term

This incredible change in the economics of oil could bring about a rush to find sustainable alternatives; more so a rush than any dialog about global warming could produce. It’s funny about how an impact on the wallet accelerates thinking and the search for solution.

So, if you see the price go spiraling in the next year (just finished watching the TV on the riots in Iceland due to the cost of oil); you might spare a thought for how this may drive the right revolution in oil consumption and investments in alternatives.

Now all we have to do is address coal as the preferred electrical producer………

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=919893099474621118&q=&hl=en

Renewables, a realistic vision for Australia

The last couple of blogs have discussed a way out of our Green House Gas producing dilemma. Sticking to Australia for an example, there is progress on the green energy front; as I said we have the ability to become a leader in this area in Australia, the choice is ours.

Geothermal. There, I’ve said it. This is one golden key to the future!

What Geothermal is in Australia you say?!!? But the country is not volcanic, unstable like New Zealand where Geothermal sources abound. The process is simple. The centre of the earth is super hot metal and it’s surrounded by molten rock. All we need to do is get some of that awesome power up to the surface. In some places that happens naturally. New Zealand where there are pools of water boiling just under the surface the tapping of this energy has been in place for some time. In locations like NZ you can see the steam come out. And you can smell the sulphur gas that comes with it. Smells like rotten eggs. While it might put you off your lunch, this sort of geothermal energy is pretty useful. The steam can spin turbines which create electricity. There's hardy any harmful emissions, and it can make power all day every day.
So, traditional Geothermal energy is energy from the molten rocks heat close to the surface of the earth. It has been used for thousands of years in some countries for hot water, cooking and heating. Well, Geothermal now has a new and interesting twist.

Hot Dry Rocks:
In Australia, the main types of geothermal energy are to be found in hot dry rocks (HDR) and hydrothermal reservoirs (hot groundwater that has been heated by hot rocks). Currently, these are being used for heating applications and tested for electricity generation in various States. Harnessing HDR energy typically involves drilling into and fracturing hot basement rocks, so that water can be circulated via deep injector wells into the heat source. This heated fluid is recovered from deep production wells and circulated to the surface to a heat exchanger and used to generate electricity. The fluid is then recirculated. Project are ready to run in other countries.
In Australia, the potential to produce electricity is being tested in South Australia and the Hunter Valley Region in New South Wales.

Let’s take the Cooper Basin, in South Australia example. At about four and a half km under the surface there's 1000 square kilometers of hot granite. It’s hot because of the slow decay of potassium, thorium and uranium, which generates temperatures as high as 300 degrees. The granite is hot because of the natural nuclear activity in there - it's actually green nuclear! At this temperature it's more than hot enough to boil water.

A great little Aussie company, Geodynamics, is trail blazing the way. It is planning to use the hot rocks as a big underground kettle. They're drilling holes into the rock and making cracks in the hard granite below. Water is sent down the hole and through the cracks where it heats up. The water turns to steam and pours out of another hole where it spins turbines to create electricity. The water then cools and is sent back down the hole to make more steam so if it works properly nothing should be wasted. So far Geodynamics has produced some pretty impressive steam. The pressure in the Copper Basin test holes is actually high enough to force the water 3.5km into the air. The company says there enough hot rock down there to power the whole of Australia for well over 100 years. The setting that up will cost many millions of dollars. But, given that the previous government spent $200M to try to produce clean coal based energy, I think this technology deserves a little bit of effort too. Hot rock supporters recognise the one glitch. The transmission lines are not in place. Before deregulation of generation and the break of transmission system, the government paid for power lines from fossil fuel plants when they were built. So, it should help geothermal companies now just as they helped the coal fired plants in the past.

This is a promising technology, proven at a test well in Cooper Basin; and ready for commercialisation now (unlike clean coal).

Hydrothermal Power:
Harnessing hydrothermal energy usually involves accessing deep hot water reservoirs and circulating the water to the surface where a heat exchanger is used to generate electricity. The water is then recirculated. Hydrothermal energy can also be used for non-electricity producing activities such as temperature regulation (eg heating) and greenhouse warming. Hot groundwater has been used on a small scale in South Australia, Queensland and Victoria. For example, at Portland, naturally hot groundwater from the Portland area was used from 1985 until recently to heat municipal buildings, the town swimming pool and a motel.
Advantages of using geothermal energy
· It's free once built.
· It is renewable (ie. it won't run out).
· It does not take up very much land, and does not spoil the landscape.

Renewables and Baseload

Baseload power is the energy that supports the 24 hour 7 day a week consumption at the bottom of the demand curve. Unfortunately much of the renewable sources of energy (wind and solar) don’t have a 24X7 baseload supply capability. They come and go with the wind and the sun. Back to Geothermal as a source of power… This has the same capability as a coal fired power station. It will continue to supply a constant source of power at the rated capacity of the generation plant. This makes geothermal an important element in the portfolio of renewable generation capacity in any countries fight to reduce GHG emissions. In Australia we have the capacity, innovation and tenacity….. do we now have the political will and support?

Although I give the US political environment grief from their lack of action at a federal level its not all doom and gloom in America. Since Arnold Schwarzenegger has become governor of California his mantra has been “We are not waiting for politics, we are not waiting for problems to get worse; we are not waiting for the federal government; we are not waiting period; because the future does not wait”.

His state government has set aggressive guidelines and targets for renewable energy mix in the power generation portfolio required to power that state. In 3 years time 20% of energy must come from renewables and this doesn’t include the current level of 28% already provided by generation from hydro and nuclear power. California has set a 30% target by 2020, which is significant given the growth in demand that overlays the amount capacity that must come on line in the next 12 years.

Within that US state, Southern California Edison has responded. From its Grid control center this company controls over 30,000MW in power representing more than half of the total Australia generation capacity. They are in the process today of bringing on another 4,000MW of wind energy from one project alone (as much as 6 large coal fired power stations) to complement their current renewables contracts of wind (1500MW in place), solar (500MW from Nevada - see pictures), biomass, geothermal and others (together with a healthy mix of co-generation). This is the mix that offers diversity of generation needed to sustain a base load dispatch capability with the % of renewable power to meet the aggressive targets. No one technology can currently provide sustainable green generation.

One thing is clear, most industrial advantage comes through innovation and if we stay with coal power in Australia we won’t have that industrial advantage moving forward. The Howard government in their economic heyday set us back in the long term. And we congratulated them.

In the 1960’s, when the Snowy Mountains scheme was finished, Australia was running at 20% renewable power. Now we are down to 8%. Coal has been the mainstay of Australia’s increased capacity. In 1993 an Australian senate recommendation to increase renewables was refused by the then Howard government. They set a mediocre 9000MW total renewable generation by 2010. Taken together with Australia’s growth in energy needs the country looks to slip back another 2% to a 6% total renewable mix by 2010. It may be necessary to tighten the belts to enable the investments necessary to transform Australian power generation base into a clean, green form of provision.

As I alluded to in the previous blog, most Australians are looking for our new federal government to show leadership in this area. California has shown how aggressive target setting can lead the distribution environment to engage in renewable contracts and also generator companies to invest in renewables and a viable energy source for the future. The future is looking brighter, given the political impetus, interest from the investment community, and guidance under the energy regulator NEMMCO. Given these factors Australia could leap forward to become one of the global renewable energy transformation leaders.

One step forward in Australia

2008 marks a dramatic step forward for Australian action on Climate. With an election win old news Prime Minister Rudd ratified the Kyoto Protocol for Australia; a significant about turn on the ignorance displayed under the Howard government.

The move towards reducing Australia GHG emission is significant already. The government are moving on:

• The introduction of a national emissions trading scheme no later than 2010,
• The introduction a target for 20% renewable electricity by 2020,
• and the creation a series of funds including:

1. $500M for a clean coal fund,
2. $500M for a renewable energy fund,
3. $240M for a clean business fund; and,
4. $150M for an energy innovation fund

Now I am more a fan of the renewable energy push that a “clean coal” approach, but given our reliance on coal in Australia, and the proportion it contributes to essential energy services it seems like an indispensable part of a CO2 reduction formulae. My support for renewables comes from an inherent feeling that we need to start looking at sustainability of the population on earth; and sustainability starts with renewable energy sources, not expendable fossil fuel sources at any rate; so why not start now.

I am just returning from a two week session on energy production and distribution in New York. It was interesting to get the view of those in the US vs Canada vs Europe and of course we have the Aussie contingent. It is hard to generalize, but I still see a number of the Americans arguing that Climate Change is not an issue; and therefore the status quo on electrical generation mix is fine, whilst the Europeans take a very dynamic approach to changing the way we produce and distribute energy. Distributed generation, in the form of Wind Energy, Solar Energy and Co-generation; Micro generation (ie Solar Voltaic’s on houses) are all going through increasing cycles of investment and government sponsorship. In Canada and Australia I feel that we are lagging the European community, but sensitive to the degree of change necessary to stem the headlong rush to climate avalanche predicted by some. Whilst there remains a fraction of a chance that climate change might cumulate in an “avalanche” how can we continue to be satisfied with the status quo of atmospheric CO2 increases and accelerated increases in the CO2 atmospheric mix.

What is fascinating (and becoming obvious) is the way the US will take a back seat in renewable energy innovation. Whilst the US has led the charge in IT innovation (even thought the original micro processor and micro computers were designed in England) they are missing the boat in renewable energy. I point you to the attitude of conservation of fossil fuel resources and vehicle consumptions. In this regard the US mentality needs a reset. The Europeans however are thought leaders. What will be the governing factor is the liberal capital investment attitude taken in the American community vs the conservative approach in Europe.

However, government drive is also a key element. The European community have proposed a set of ambitious and comprehensive international agreements for the period after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol’s first compliance period ends. The 27-member EU bloc has proposed that developed countries collectively reduce emissions 30% by 2020 and 60-80% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels.

Despite some global lag in government initiatives, a recent report published by the law firm Clifford Chance saw four out of every five companies globally believing more regulation is needed to curb climate change. Businesses around the world want governments to take a more coordinated approach to climate change and introduce more regulations to help them adapt. Businesses setting their strategies on climate change want to see clarity in governmental policy and thinking so that they avoid uncertainty. They are sending clear signals about the need for fair and consistent regulation on this issue, ideally based on a coherent global approach. The majority of companies surveyed said they are taking steps to mitigate risk that go beyond current requirements. The report also reveals that firms expect new business opportunities from climate change, including development of renewable energy technologies. Pity about America missing the Bali climate change meeting.

So, if the impetus is already there; Australia has changed their political agenda and the private sector and popular opinion is headed in the right direction. Europe is on board. A change of government in America is what is needed, but we have to wait a whole year to see that evolve.