When I ask around, even the climate skeptics see the need to shift from out currently energy mix to an alternative, for reasons other than climate change. the majority of Australians support nuclear power as an option. There are powerful vested interests who would like to stop alternatives being developed, but they are not so powerful that a strong government couldn’t push through their concerns. The real problem seems to be that the Federal Government in particular raises so much money from coal royalties that they a terrified of a loss in revenue. So a plan to move Australia’s energy mix forward must address this issue. A solution to the gap in revenue to pay for hospitals, roads and stimulus packages needs to be found that is economically viable and politically acceptable.

Written by Paul Dalby on 5 March 2010

The reason we have a political process is to try to balance all of this information and all of these needs. You will never be able to model it perfectly and come up with THE right answer. We live in a political system where all ideas are contestable, even ideas based on very sound science. This is a good thing. Whenever communities have vested all knowledge and power in a few people – disaster has always ensued.

If scientists want to be influential in this world, they must be:

1. Very honest about what the science says. As we can see from the climate change debate, it does not help the cause of putting across a credible message on science when the results are exaggerated to try and build support for a particular cause. Let the truth tell its own story. In the end civilisations rise and fall on the political process. There is not much you can do to change that. Go along for the ride.

2. Very vocal about what the science says, but more circumspect about what the response should be. Scientists can appear arrogant when they presume that they know the right response. It is important to suggest policy responses and explain what you think the implications are of different approaches, but stick to your knitting and talk about what you know about most of all – the science.

3. Tell your story. People love stories, which is why singing contests, sport, soap operas and crime shows are more popular than shows about science. If you want to reach more people, put a story around what you are trying to say. Corey’s blog-post on  how frogs were disappearing because of the global appetite for frogs legs went viral because it was a interesting story. And the science message got out as a result. Some scientists  complain to me that this is “spin”. True, but not in the sense that you are trying to deceive someone, just that you are trying to get them interested. You are showing respect to your audience by “spinning” the message in an interesting way.

4. I need to hear it at least seven times before I’ve heard it. Putting out one media release, or one article or one presentation and thinking that you’ve done the job of communicating is delusional. Good communicators get their message out lots of times in lots of different ways. When your audience has heard the message so many times they are getting sick of it, (think Kevin Rudd and “working families” or Tony Abbot and “great big Labor tax”) they have finally heard it.

5. Maintain patience and pressure. It is sometimes frustrating that no action occurs even when you think it is obvious that it should. Don’t burn your bridges by taking it out on policy makers in government. You may need to work with them for many years to come, and they are likely to get more powerful over time, not less.  But on the other hand, don’t let up the pressure. Maintain a professional tone to your discussions and presentations in the media. In the end, you will mostly be respected if you keep telling the story about the science. And policy makers can be just as frustrated as you about the lack of action as you are, even if they are not allowed to show it.

I’ll finish this post with a quote from Machievelli, one of the great thinkers on political science, said that “… nothing is more difficult than to introduce a new order. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new…”

True

Written by Paul Dalby on 2 February 2010

In July 2007, I posted a link to presentations by Professor David Paton at the University of Adelaide on the “Death of the Coorong“.  David Paton, the leading expert on the Coorong, described the horrible decline of birds, plants, fish and invertebrates in the Coorong system, as a result of years of man-made and natural drought conditions. It should be noted that 90% of waterbirds in the Murray Darling Basin used to live in the Lower Lakes and Coorong. David Paton said the result of continued inaction is likely to be the extinction of some species in the Coorong, and perhaps the compete extinction of the Fairy Tern globally. His student, Dan Rogers presented research on waterbirds in the Coorong in November 2007.  Dan argued for an integrated management system to support policy decisions on managing the Coorong.

In May 2008, I pointed to a series of videos available for download from Catalyst describing the problems of acid sulphate soils and low flows in the Coorong and Lower Lakes. In one of the videos, Mike Young from the University of Adelaide, proposes a different water sharing model for the River Murray that would give the environment a larger share of the water in the system at low flows. In March 2008, I had interviewed Mike Young on the challenges facing the River Murray system and he proposed two key steps to create a “Future-proofed Murray Darling Basin“

1. Replace the current entitlement and allocation regime with a robust one that can be confidently explained as one that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future

2. Implement the resultant change in a just a fair manner.

This has not happened yet, and given the pace of reform nationally, is unlikely to happen for some time yet, if at all. This is a complex problem, and it is difficult to trade off the needs of different users of water in the River system, especially when you are not always sure who really needs what water and when.

In a piece of positive news, a recent study by scientists on the Coorong have identified an important number – 300GL. This is the amount of water that needs to flow out at the end of the Murray River to maintain the health of the River. This number is based on an impressive, interdisciplinary and integrated research program called CLLAMMecology, but it gives a simple piece of advice to government. You need 300GL of water flowing out the bottom of the River to maintain the health of the Coorong. The Coorong is a Ramsar wetland, and government has a responsibility to the global community to protect this habitat which supports bird populations that migrate to countries across the northern hemisphere. I suspect 300GL of water out of the bottom of the system will deliver a whole range of other environmental benefits upstream as well. 300GL would be 2% of diversions in an ‘average’ year, and 5% of diversions in years more typical of the last five. Setting such a target would meet Mike Young’s principle of  “entitlement and allocation regime…that can be confidently explained ….that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future “.

You can download podcasts and videos from the CLLAMMecology study presentations here.

You can register for the Litfuse feed on your i-tunes or mp3 player: http://feeds.litfuse.com.au/litfuse

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 July 2009

“From June 9, 2009 when a householder is seduced into signing across Solar Credits associated with their small scale Solar, Wind or Hydro generation schemes, they will continue to reduce their emissions yet for every deemed megawatt hour (MWh) created, they will displace 5 MWh of accredited Renewable Energy already required under Australian Law. They will be causing a net 4 MWh to be continued to be produced from fossil fuel sources and therefore will cause more greenhouse gas emissions and do more harm to the environment than doing nothing.”

This is the sort of outcome only a cross-agency government committee can come up with. There is enormous goodwill in the Australian population to contribute to lowering carbon emissions. The current policy is either cynically taking advantage of that goodwill, or the committee has become so bound up in the complex issues it has to address, that it has invented a camel when it meant to invent a horse.

A different approach would be to replace the GST with a carbon tax. This could be cost neutral to the Australian economy (in terms of net tax collected – there would obviously be significant costs in shifting policies over), would not unfairly disadvantage our exporters (no carbon tax on exports) and would encourage Australians to buy and manufacture low carbon products. Over time, one would expect that the economy would shift to a lower carbon economy – which would mean the price of carbon would have to rise to maintain the taxation base to the government. There is some brief discussion about this idea here and here.

Written by Paul Dalby on 14 June 2009

“Last week House Energy and Commerce members approved by 51-6 an amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill offered by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) to create a clean energy bank .  As Greenwire explained, the amendment would “create an autonomous Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) within the Energy Department” that would “provide a suite of financing options, including direct loans, letters of credit, loan guarantees, insurance products and others” for “energy production, transmission, storage and other areas that could reduce greenhouse gases, diversify energy supplies and save energy.”

At the same time as investment in clean technology increases around the world, investment in oil exploration is falling,which may lead to another oil price spike in the medium term.

“…Oil firms must work doubly hard to replace declining fields and to increase output. Yet the oil industry is short of equipment and manpower, thanks to underinvestment in the 1980s and 1990s, when prices were low. As soon as the world economy starts growing again, the theory runs, demand for oil will once again outstrip the industry’s ability to supply it. In other words, the global recession has only interrupted the “supercycle” of which many analysts used to speak, during which the normal boom-and-bust cycle of oil and other commodities would give way to a protracted period of high prices, as ever-growing demand from emerging markets swallowed everything the extractive industries could produce.”

Where does this leave Australia? Weak and vulnerable in my view. The recent Federal Budget was analysed by Professor Barry Brook from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide. There is little cheer in the budget for entrepreneurs in the clean energy game according to Barry’s analysis, particularly in relation to the flawed design and inadequate targets of the CPRS. And Australia is an economy heavily reliant on energy. It’s a big place with relatively few people, extreme climates, and all of our capaital cities will be reliant on energy-hungry desalination for their water supplies. We are rich in coal, but produce only 60% of our oil consumption, so we rely on imported oil and petroleum products. A spike in energy prices will result in pressure on Australia’s economy, and leave us reliant on imported technology to meet renewable energy targets and needs, much like we rely on imported desalination technology.

I would add a note of optimism. The changes to the research and development (R&D) tax credit scheme will “double the level of assistance currently available to small companies and remove the cap on the amount of R&D expenditure subject to a tax credit. Large companies with more than $20 million annual turnover will receive a 40% R&D tax credit instead of tax deductions, which is a 10% net – benefit – one third higher than the current regime.  Small companies will receive a 45% R&D tax credit, which amounts to a 15% benefit – twice the current level.  Small companies with tax losses will be able to ‘cash out’ their R&D credit when they file their income tax return.”

As a modest investor in commercial R&D myself, this is a great incentive, and one that the Rudd government should be applauded for. Let’s hope it stimulates Australian businesses and entrepreneurs to invest in clean energy. More targeted approaches, such as a national feed in tariff, and a redesigned CPRS system along the lines suggested by Professor Brook would be even better. An increase in oil price would be a much more economically damaging driver of investment by Australian researchers and entrepreneurs in clean energy solutions. A Clean Energy Bank for Australia would be visionary.

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 May 2009

Biologists like Corey should know that the selection pressure for being able to respond to immediate scary, dangerous things has been much more powerful than the selection pressure for being able to see well into the distance and respond to dangers that will effect populations down the track. Our DNA just isn’t up to the task. A few outliers and individuals who get pleasure and/or income directly from biodiversity conservation might really care, but the general huddled masses who vote people in and out of government do not so much. We might donate money or sign petitions, but we rarely vote governments in and out of power based on their biodiversity conservation policies. We also rarely choose NOT to buy something because of that companies impact on biodiversity (except dolphins and tuna – I give you that). This is not true for climate change. It was not an issue globally until there were heat waves in Europe, unseasonal hurricanes in the US and a long, long dry period in Australia. It is a direct impact that got people scared. The fickle populations who could not give two hoots about climate change the year before voted governments out of power because they were soft of climate change, and now you can buy carbon neutral beer! Seriously – a beverage MADE with carbon dioxide!!

It is not government who are the problem. It is us. Our brain is too interested in the immediate problems of how to survive, get sex and not be bored. Genetic engineering is required if you want lots of interest in biodiversity conservation. Or we need the bees to die out to show us the direct impact of no free services.

Written by Paul Dalby on 20 May 2009

I recently gave an interview to the media outlet “Global Atlanta” on a visit to the United States I made for ICE WaRM. In the interview I talked about how Australia has learned from hard lessons as a result of rapid shifts in climatic conditions, probably as a result of global warming. There are some excellent lessons to be learned for other countries who are at risk from drying and warming – the southern states of the United States of America in particular.

The full article is available at: http://www.globalatlanta.com/article/17131/

Written by Paul Dalby on 3 February 2009