pic by - ABC Rural: Arlie Douglas

The mining of Coal Seam Gas in Australia is a very heated and much-debated topic.

Films such as Gasland have helped propel the issue to the world wide stage, and now with major mining companies around Australia relentlessly pursuing coal seam gas, even going so far as to potentially drill exploration wells in city suburbs such as Sydney’s St Peters, the topic has attracted much attention from the public, politicians, and miners themselves.

But what exactly is so dangerous about coal seam gas mining? A lot of people look to one of the main methods of getting gas out of coal seams, which is called ‘Hydraulic Fracturing’, or ‘Fracking’.

Coal seam gas (methane) is what is known as an ‘unconventional’ gas, whereas mining companies have to take special measures and methods to get at it.

Coal seem gas lies deeper than other ‘conventional’ gas, and is harder to mine, so mining companies use Hydraulic Fracking, a method where millions of litres of water, chemicals, mud and sand are forced at high pressure down an already-sunk mineshaft.

The water/chemicals etc, are forced literally into the coal seam lying deep underground, cracking it open and freeing the trapped methane gas, which is then pumped up to the surface for use.

Fracking induces seismic activity (little earthquakes), in order for it to work, not to mention the environmental threat if the water, chemicals, mud etc is left down there, seeping through the newly formed cracks in the earths crust, and threaten to find their ways into the local groundwater supplies. One can only hope the waste will make it to the storage ponds, where they will most likely leech into the ground water anyway.

If poisoning the water we drink is not enough, fracking is also done around farms, therefore potentially poisoning the food we eat.

The Great Artesian Basin sits under almost a ¼ of Australia, and supplies water to an area even larger than that, many areas are home to diverse and endangered wildlife, not to mention, humans. It also feeds many local aquifers, such as the Wallon Coal Measures, an aquifer Queensland uses for most of the states’ coal seam gas mining.

CSG is often painted as a ‘greener’ fuel for energy than coal, with many pro CSGers claiming it releases far more green-house gases than dirty old coal. But this is not the case. According to Beyond Zero Emissions, an Australian based energy think-tank, the CSG life-cycle in the atmosphere is up to 45 times greater than coal.

Another strike against CSG.

With the Labour governments’ recently approved Carbon Tax, CSG may become an outmoded form of energy, to expensive to mine and too taxed to sell.

The CSG debate has stirred emotions in people all over the world, and in Australia, the voices have been loud and clear. Organisations like Lock The Gate have successfully stood up against mining companies wanting to drill on farmland, while wide spread activist groups continue to keep discussion alive on al levels.

The Greens recently tabled the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which will leave it up the Federal Government to judge the impact on water by the methods used, thereby side stepping the state governments, to the delight of conspiracy theorists everywhere.

Along with the sustained public backlash, the industry itself is in very real danger of the three year study launched by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States of America. The EPA have reportedly found chemicals used in the fracking process in wells in Wyoming. Benzene, diesel-based organics, and methane were present in groundwater wells, and also in the agencies own test wells, which were situated around waste-water ponds.

Industry reps and politicians in the U.S have voiced their own anger, with the senator of Oklahoma, James Inhofe, saying,

“It is irresponsible for the EPA to release such an explosive announcement without objective peer review.”

The report is expected in 2012.

By Chard Currie

Email: chard.currie@gmail.com

Sources:

‘Fracking pollutants detected in water wells.’ – Jennifer Doiuhy

Sydney Morning Herald, December 10, 2011

LockTheGate.org.au

The Labour Government in Australia, under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, seems to have had a bumper 2011.

One of the first major Carbon Tax legislations was passed in November, they have also fought and won for a new scheme to tax the super-rich, a move which last year cost former PM, Kevin Rudd, his job.

On December 4, Labour announced another ‘victory’, namely that of making a 180 degree turn on their former position on trading uranium with India.

The vote passed 206 to 185 in favour of lowering the trade barrier between the countries.

Trade Minister Craig Emerson says safe guards will be put in place before any trade takes place, which will commence in early 2012.

Australia had previously banned the sale of uranium to India because it does not recognize the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only two other countries in the world have the same stand point, Pakistan and Israel.

Israel has its own booming nuclear industry, but as soon as Labour announced its back flip on selling to India, their neighbours, Pakistan, voiced that they would be more than welcome for the same deal. With Pakistan and Israel being on the list of countries not to supply nuclear material to (again, the only two on the list put forward by the Nuclear Suppliers Group), the Labour Government will be right not addressing this issue for some time.

With an estimated 80-100 nuclear warheads in their arsenal, India claims to have enough fissile material for up to another 150, a number that may well grow with the importation of uranium from outside for certain programs, while tapping their own supplies for others. In fact, the Indian government has wanted to import uranium to do exactly that.

Of course, India has stated that any uranium sourced from outside their country will only be used for energy generation and other ‘civilian’ forms of nuclear energy. This was one of the conditions that helped the US Government see the light and begin selling uranium to India in 2006.

The US deal helped Labour come to the conclusion that to not trade with a country such as India with a material such as uranium, makes obvious economic sense. The Sydney based think-tank, The Lowry Group, were reportedly, also highly influential in the deal.

However, with India not recognizing the NPT or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, their thinly veiled arms race with Pakistan, and the lax efforts to conform to international safeguards and internal monitoring, plenty of people who aren’t miners or politicians or lobbyists have these and more reasons to be upset.

Australia has the largest known deposits of uranium on the planet, the harnessing of which will see dollars flow into South Australia and the Northern Territory, the states where uranium is currently mined.

Queensland has retained its stance against uranium mining in their state, but with exploration companies being given licenses to find out the sizes of deposits (in QLD as well as NSW), suspicions the same that have driven Coal Seam Gas protesters to action are being pulled out into the open.

Various anti-nuclear groups around the country have expressed open disgust and have called for an independent inquiry and protests in the New Year.

By Chard Currie

Email: chard.currie@gmail.com

SOURCES

Crikey.com

news.com

wikipedia.com

On October 12th, the Australian Labour government, led by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, passed the historic carbon tax legislation through the Lower House of Parliament.
The first 18 bills were passed by a margin of 74 votes to 72, leading to much cheering and jeering not only in parliament, but also around the country. And also a much lauded kiss on the cheek from the Prime Minister to former PM Kevin Rudd.
Opposition leader Tony Abbott has of course been a vocal non-supporter of the tax, which he claims will raise prices for consumers, cost the country jobs and do nothing to help the environment. He has sworn a ‘blood oath’ to repeal the legislation and oust it entirely should he become Prime Minister.
According to the Labour government, the tax will most certainly take away, but it will also give back, in the form of reduced taxes and tax breaks for working Australians.
The consumer price index will rise by 0.7% in 2012-2013, the first year of the tax plan, leading to such tangible outcomes as costing the average Australian household and extra $9.90 a week.
It doesn’t sound like much, but depending on who you talk to about this still hotly debated subject, it’s either a small price to pay or is that it will lead to the downfall of society itself.
Lets’ look at some of the bills that were passed;

Aims of a 5 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. That’s 159 million tonnes of carbon.
Emissions Trading to begin in 2015, with restrictions on International Credits to be lifted, but the importation of which must only constitute half of Australia’s emissions.
Free permits will be issued to the ‘big polluter’ industries such as the aluminium and steel industries, which are susceptible to fluctuations in international trade market. Some will receive permits covering almost 95% of average industry emissions over the first 3 years. The steel industry itself will receive $300 million in the first 4 years as incentive for continuing innovation and improvement.
The tax-free threshold towards salary and wage earners will rise to $18,000 per year in 2012-13, and to almost $20,000 in 2015.
Most workers earning up to $80,000 will get back an average extra $300 a year thanks to tax breaks.

The 18 bills that constitute the Carbon Tax will be before the Australian Senate in November, and the feeling here is that it will pass though into law.
Of course the tax has its nay-sayers, as does any tax that has come along, but more importantly it is the hardest part of any new venture; taking the first step.
The ‘big polluters’ will cry the loudest as they get hit the hardest, apart from generous rebates and free credits, studies have shown that the metal industries in Australia will indeed suffer (the aluminium industry looks to pay $60 for every tonne in carbon emissions while China will end up paying $8, while the airline industry will almost certainly meet some bumps in the road as they move to new technology. Qantas alone spends $3bil on jet fuel per year and the industry is one of the biggest fuel users and carbon emitters in the world.
It makes sense that Australia is the moving forward in regards to a Carbon Tax, we are currently the worlds’ biggest carbon emitters per capita, and the continent is highly vulnerable to the effects of Climate Change. For such a country to pass a Carbon Tax shows the commitment to change has to be undertaken.
Ultimately, can humanity sit on its hands with all the data available on the coming effects of climate change to bet on the chance that doing nothing is better than doing something?
Opposition is still rife and it is not yet set in proverbial stone, but the die has been cast, the idea is out there, all we have to do is follow it through.

By Chard Currie
Email: chard.currie@gmail.com

References:

msnbc business
telegraph.co.uk
carbontax.net.au
Noosa News

For being such a sunny continent, Australia is largely underutilised when it comes to solar power. When it comes to manufacturing Australian-made solar panels, well, with Silex Solars announcement in August 2011, the proverbial nail in the coffin was hit in and the coffin buried. Silex Solar was the last remaining manufacturer of solar panels in Australia. They continue to build and sell solar panels, but with imported components, mostly from China.
Former Silex CEO Michael Goldsworthy claims his company had to ‘bite the bullet’ and lose 30 manufacturing jobs after the government rebate programme was scrapped. In a rather obvious case of damage control, Silex replaced Goldsworthy with Craig Menzies who quickly announced that their move was to help secure Silex’s position in the marketplace.
The move to ‘clean energy’ has thus far proved to be a very rocky road with lots of time consuming bends and potholes. Government rebates that help the ‘battlers’ are constantly stopped right when the scheme becomes too popular, with the government never really sure on how much it should give back, let alone contribute to the switch from dirty to clean energy.
The ‘Feed-In’ tariffs (where one can receive money when they feed power back into the electricity grid) that initially made installing solar panels attractive have been cut when the scheme became too successful, while the government rebate (up to $8000), for installing a solar system at your home was done away with entirely. It was replaced by the Solar Credits Programme, where an installed solar system would receive a higher amount of Renewable Energy Credits for the first 1.5 kilowatts they generate. RECs are basically a form of ‘energy currency’ that one can use against energy costs or trade them for money. A great way of us getting used to the cap & trade system that will be rolled along with the Carbon Tax in mid-2012
But just because we aren’t manufacturing solar panels here, doesn’t mean all is lost. The Australian Government is hard at work with its ‘Solar Cities’ program, which aims to showcase the potential of solar power in 5 major areas across the country. However, this programme was announced in 2007 with a woeful $7 million dollar budget.
This of course pales in comparison to the $125 million afforded by the government to Silex Solar to build a .5MW pilot plant, which will then be turned into a 100MW planet, near Bridgewater, Victoria.
Australian manufacturing may seem to be heading to an impasse, but that doesn’t mean we can’t become key players in the renewable energy game or left out of the ever evolving global market place.
World leading solar research continues in Australian universities and with a renewable energy target of 20% by the year 2020, we must stand up to set-backs and pressures and do the best with what we have, when we have it.
By Chard Currie
email: chard.currie@gmail.com

sources:
Skynews
Eco Who
Silex Solar
wikipedia – Solar cities in Australia

The 90 year ban on importing New Zealand apples into Australia was lifted in August of this year.
To a country which exports 60% of its agricultural output every year, it was feared that this could attack the profits of the local market (claims of losses up to $30 million per year), and of course, included the possibility of importing the dreaded ‘fire blight’ from New Zealand.
However, New Zealand called the ban a ‘barrier to trade’, and the claim was brought before the World Trade Organisation, which agreed with them.
Now, for the first time 90 years, we in Australia can now buy New Zealand apples.
However, it has not flowed smoothly. A shipment of NZ Apples was rejected in Tasmania due to quarantine regulations (small amounts of leaf matter were found in the shipment). A few red faces were revealed, but reassurance came via Bruce Beason, managing director of Apollo Apples, one of the major apple exporters in New Zealand, who chalked the situation up to ‘over reaction and scaremongering’.
One of the main reasons for the 90 year ban of NZ Apples comes down to fire blight, which was first discovered in NZ orchards in 1919. The disease gets into trees via lesions in the leaves and branches and can affect the entire tree. Hailstorms especially leave orchards susceptible to infection, and can help infect an entire orchard in mere minutes.
The disease leads to scorched looking leaves, like the tree has been affected by fire.
Hence, fire blight.
It can infect the entire tree if untreated, and it has been known to destroy entire orchards within one growing season. It is treated by various antibiotics, but this does not come without complications, as strains resistant to antibiotics have been found in the United States.
The history of fire blight is something like a cold sore on the face of the fruit export world.
Countries fiercely deny they have it, but then it turns out they do.
One such example is Japan, who claimed fire blight wasn’t present in their country and did not threaten their major fruit export; pears. When this was in fact deemed untrue, the scientist who discovered it there committed suicide over the shame of outing farmers who traded with blight-affected fruit. The Japanese government to this day, denies the existence of fire blight in Northern Japan.
For all the emphasis being placed on NZ Apples and the possibility of fire blight in Australia, not much fuss was made over the announcements of Chinese apple imports in January 2011.
China is the world’s leading apple grower, but has at least 18 ‘pests’ that appear on quarantine watch lists in Australia and no doubt prove much tougher to police than watching out for a few leaves and twigs.

By Chard Currie
Email: chard.currie@gmail.com

Source:
bloomberg.com
theaustralian.com
tvnz.co.nz