Government wrong on solar power

Ballarat Courier
Friday 16/5/2008 Page: 8

A FEED-IN tariff is a financial credit you receive from the government when you produce power from a grid connected solar system. There are two types. First, a net tariff, which is when you are only paid for the power you produce that is over and above power which you yourself use. And second, a gross tariff is where you are paid for what your system produces regardless of what your house consumes. Obviously the latter provides a greater incentive for the householder as it allows him to recoup the initial cost of the system much faster.

It also provides a financial incentive that encourages others to take up the solar option. The 60 cent per-kilowatt hour net feed-in tariff offered in the recent state budget would be a huge joke if the spectre of global warming wasn't so deadly serious. The 1kW to 2kW systems being commonly installed by householders across Australia at the moment only provide for a quarter to a third of the average power requirements.

Thus, the chance of any of these installations being in the position of having any excess power to feed back into the system is zero. They will never benefit from the tariff. The State Government has disallowed any systems over 2kW receiving the tariff. They effectively have provided nothing at all. This is the icing on a very unpalatable cake. Until a gross feed-in tariff is offered, as in Germany and other progressive countries, the take up of the solar option will never really get off the ground.

To respond to such an important issue with tokenism shows a State Government that is either in denial or ignorant of the opportunities lost by their sadly inadequate offer. This will not sit well with the hundreds of Ballarat householders that are considering the solar option.

Jim Brown, Ross Creek

Coal power wins

Age
Friday 16/5/2008 Page: 14

MR SWAN, the solar panel rebate was designed to encourage people to install solar panels to reduce carbon outputs and demand for traditional power stations. Even with the $8000 rebate, the owner would be lucky to pay back the investment in 10 years, but like many people I was preparing to do it. Without the rebate, the repayment period is more like 20 years and out of the question.

Graeme Martin, Alphington

No incentive to let the sunshine in

Age
Friday 16/5/2008 Page: 14

I AM bewildered by the recent decision to restrict the solar power rebate to families with a combined income of under $100,000 a year (The Age, 15/5). On the one hand, the Government has increased the Medicare surcharge threshold to $150,000 for families on the basis that $100,000 is no longer considered a high income, yet it seems that this is too large an income to receive a rebate for installing solar panels.

The rebate has not been increased and at its present level solar power is unaffordable to most families with a combined income of less than $100,000. Now the Government has completely removed any incentive for those on higher incomes to install solar power panels.

The net effect is fewer solar power panels being installed in Australia and higher greenhouse gas emissions. This at a time when the Government is seeking to put policies in place to enable us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2050. Of all the money-saving measures introduced in the budget, this is the most outrageous.

Gavin Brown, East Geelong

Summit anti-climax

Blue Mountains Gazette
Wednesday 14/5/2008 Page: 6

For those of us concerned about climate change. the recent 2020 Summit has been something of an anti-climax. A delegate representing the Australian Youth Climate Coalition reported that the coal industry used the Summit to push its 'clean coal' agenda as the solution to climate change. They argued for even more Federal subsidies and want to abolish the proposed 20% by 2020 Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. claiming that it is "unfair" to 'clean coal'.

However, the recent Climate of the Nation Report shows that the majority of Australians want the Federal Government to take urgent and compelling action on climate change. Most Australians believe that any new electricity generation should come from clean energy. They want Australia to become a world leader in renewable energy and want to cut subsidies that encourage the fossil fuel industries.

Coal-fired power stations are the biggest greenhouse polluters in the energy sector. NSW power stations and vehicles pumped out 8% more greenhouse gases in the first quarter of this year than in the same period last year. We shouldn't kid ourselves that 'clean coal' is going to be ready in the near future. Even the National Generators Forum acknowledges that 2020 is the earliest it could be commercially available. It is still very much in the research stage. Fast tracking renewable energy is the only option to start cutting emissions now.

Robin Mosman, Wentworth Falls.

Ignoring 'the fossil fuel facts' dangerous

Northern Star
Tuesday 13/5/2008 Page: 11

NORTHERN Star editor Sue Short (NS, 7/5) is hoping the sceptics are right about climate change. Me too. NASA's leading climate scientist Dr James Hansen, however, has no doubts. He knows the sceptic campaign has flourished under the funding of `Big Oil'. His own reports undergo Bush administration censorship.

In desperation, Dr Hansen has recently written to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, warning him of the dangers of ignoring `the fossil fuel facts' and pointing out we need to reduce carbon below 325ppm (parts per million) to keep the planet fit for human habitation.

Coal-fired power is no longer an option. The problem is, the longer we quibble and deny, the less time we have to start the cure. The Earth's agricultural soils are potentially massive carbon sinks. Incentives are needed to encourage farmers to act. Baseload solar thermal technology is finally taking off in the US. There are so many options. We can maintain our living standards with clean energy and we can pull carbon out of the atmosphere by a variety of means. But shall we?

Shakti Burke, Kyogle.

Clean brown coal still dirtier than dirty black

Bendigo Advertiser
Monday 12/5/2008 Page: 10

YOUR editorial on Saturday is a timely reminder that urgent action is necessary to avoid the effects of climate change. Effective action to minimise the effects of climate change is presently being compromised by the government's inability to look beyond the coal industry for a solution.

Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, announcing a multimillion dollar investment in trials, reportedly said the new Exergen clean coal technology, developed in Tasmania, will revolutionise the coal industry by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from brown coal by about 40 per cent. It beggars belief the Minister can describe this as clean coal.

Our brown coal is so dirty that a reduction of 40 per cent in greenhouse gas emissions is still dirtier than the black coal that is polluting Australia and the rest of the world. Australia has two choices. We can use our proven technology to generate clean electrical power from renewable energy and immediately start reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or we can allow the coal industry to hold us to ransom with the dubious promise of clean coal.

Kevin Cloonan, Bendigo

Tariff works for me

Age
Saturday 10/5/2008 Page: 8

NEW solar tariffs will make a difference. Unlike Chris O'Dowd and others (Letters, 9/5), I believe the announced solar feed-in tariffs will make a big difference to those who are weighing up the pros and cons of solar systems in northern Victoria. There is a lot of interest in grid-connected solar systems in this area, given that we have an average of 7.4 hours of sunshine each day, ranging from 4.2 hours in winter up to
10.1 hours in summer.

Our 1.4 kilowatt system has been in place for a year now and over that time we have exported
984.2 kilowatt hours into the grid above our household use. At the present rate of 20 cents per kilowatt hour, we would be paid $197 for this. Under the new scheme it would be $591. The new tariffs will help tip the balance for some contemplating investing in a solar power future.

Lucy Finger, Tatura

Failed leadership

Age
Friday 9/5/2008 Page: 14

THE Brumby Government has shown itself to be a laggard on the issue of climate change and solar industry support. The opportunity to show leadership in encouraging the uptake of solar energy with a gross metering feed-in tariff is the sort of initiative that is required to address the clear and present danger that climate change presents. The details are complicated, but the result is simple - an opportunity for leadership lost!

Trevor Plumridge, Swinburne University TAFE

Missed opportunity

Age
Friday 9/5/2008 Page: 14

MINISTER Batchelor claims that the solar laws proposed by Environment Victoria would dramatically increase electricity prices (The Age, 8/5). But we believe his calculations are wildly and willfully inaccurate. One can only hope that the cabinet decision was made on the basis of more sophisticated analysis.

Our analysis is that the maximum electricity price rise for an effective feed-in tariff would be $1 per month per household - much less than recent price rises forced by climate change with hydroelectricity generation falling. In all likelihood the impact would be even smaller as solar would defer the need to build new power stations and provide electricity at peak times on hot, sunny days, saving consumers money.

The introduction of solar feed-in tariffs in Germany has seen electricity prices fall, not rise. The Brumby Government has missed a great opportunity with its solar laws, but the most serious consequence of the decision is that it signals that the ALP is out of touch and lacking the vision to take the necessary steps on climate change.

Mark Wakeham, campaigns director, Environment Victoria, Carlton

Higher bills small price to pay for the environment

Age
Friday 9/5/2008 Page: 14

I WAS disappointed to read that Energy Minister Peter Batchelor was instrumental in rejecting a plan to introduce higher feed-in tariffs for solar energy (Tl cAge,8/5).If true,it is a missed opportunity to move us further down the road towards a carbon neutral economy, which is the direction we inevitably have to head. It also misses a unique political opportunity. There is a groundswell of concern about climate change that I believe far outweighs any concern about increasing power bills.

Like most Victorians, my family is extremely worried about climate change and wants to do our bit. More generous feed-in tariffs would have made the decision for us to go solar more feasible. Higher power bills are a small price to pay for saving our environment. Higher power bills are also not the inevitable result of higher feed-in tariffs. Families can easily offset any expected increase in their power bills by being more power-efficient. The predicted impact of climate change only gets more worrying. I want my leaders to do more to head us in the right direction.

Matthew Read, Northcote

Feed-In tariffs vital

Narooma News
Wednesday 30/4/2008 Page: 4

CLIMATE change presents a clear threat. The solutions are expensive, but obvious. We can afford to heat the problem (and can't afford to ignore it), so why are we moving so slowly`? We know the science and understand the solutions, but attitudes need to change. That is what takes time. A change in attitude will drive political change. and politicians still have a long way to go before they catch up with what is needed. Look at what is happening in NSW.

New coal mines, new coal fired power stations, and a bigger Newcastle port to double our export of coal. Morris lemma talks about climate change as the greatest threat that we face, and yet we are planning to dig up, burn and sell more coal than ever before. We are racing in the wrong direction. The talk and the action are two very different things. We need to keep the pressure on politicians. Feed-in Tariffs are a good example.

Feed-in Tariffs boost the adoption of renewable energy through government legislation that provides an incentive by setting the sale price of renewable energy above market rates, so it can be sold back to the grid at a rate greater than the purchase price of electricity.

Feed-in Tariffs (FiT) are a direct incentive for people to invest in renewable energy, as they significantly reduce the payback period for solar energy infrastructure Thus, a small annual increase in the price of electricity per customer can result in a large incentive for people to install renewable energy systems.

So far, only South Australia has a FiT system in operation, and it is South Australia that has the highest percentage of grid-connected solar PV systems. The feed-in tariff, which is paid by the electricity retailer in South Australia, is substantially higher than the retail cost of electricity, and that means you can make money from the sun.

The Queensland Government will introduce a feed-in tariff system on July 1. A feed-in tariff for the ACT has received bi-partisan support. In our part of the world, a 2mW solar farm could generate a substantial income, if there was a feed-in tariff. A FiT in NSW may be the only way that we can move beyond anything more than a demonstration model for a community owned solar farm.

If we want to meet 50/50 by 2020, we will need to install a 2mW solar farm each year in Eden Monaro. For that to happen, solar farms will need to make money for investors. Feed-in tariffs may therefore be essential in setting up solar farms in our part of the world.

Matthew Nott

Solar power the answer

Illawarra Mercury
Wednesday 7/5/2008 Page: 25

Rebates for water tanks were offered to encourage people to reduce the burden of supplying water for everyone. Why hasn't the Government offered a rebate for solar power to be installed in every home? Surely this would take a huge load from the current supply required and as we have been in a drought, the one constant commodity has been sunshine. Where are the lateral thinkers in power? Is it this simple, or would they prefer to yell and rant like Mr Costa. Shame on you for providing such a poor example to our youth, you bully.

Sharen Muller, Wollongong.

Assess the risk of climate change

Cairns Post
Wednesday 7/5/2008 Page: 13

TO determine how we should respond to changes in the world's climate, we should do what we do with other issues that we consider to be a real or potential threat: do a risk assessment.

What is the risk if we take action and the climate change sceptics turn out to be right versus what if we fail to take action and the climate sceptics turn out to be wrong? In the former case, the absolute worst-case scenario would be a heavy economic cost to society, maybe, even a recession.

I would argue this is fairly unlikely as moving to an efficient, clean-energy economy would, in fact, create many new jobs and stimulate significant economic activity while moving away from fuels which pollute and are going to eventually run out anyway. But even so, there is some risk of an economic downturn associated with taking action on climate change.

On the other hand, if the world's leading experts on our climate system are, in fact, correct and we fail to take the action required, we run the risk of major global economic collapse, the mass extinction of thousands of species, millions of environmental refugees seeking sanctuary and large parts of the earth being rendered unproductive and uninhabitable with major implications for food production, health and global security.

Faced with the risks associated with action versus inaction, taking action to address climate change is the only morally and rationally defensible position to take.

John Rainbird, Bangalow Place, Kuranda.

Thanks to SCAPE

Scone Advocate
Thursday 1/5/2008 Page: 6

Editor, I HAVE to agree with Bev Smiles (Letters page 24, April 10) in her appreciation of the emergence of SCAPE with an E, Scone Citizens Against Polluted Energy.

It is not a windfarm project that divides a community, it is the pushing of a case by any means fair or foul. We have seen artificial photographs passing as data, from protestors, and false statements as to distance from turbines, from promoters. Before anyone leaps to debunk the research by Gloria Muir, they need to check with her sources. The same goes for information from Pamada, CSIRO or anywhere else.

I also take on board Bev Smiles' information that the white box tree community is more threatened by polluted energy projects than it is by a windfarm proposal; 164 hectares of white box to be removed for 2 new mines and a power line, she writes.

That area and more will also lose its fauna of all kinds. Post-mine restoration will replace a tiny fraction of the ecosystems lost, given enough time. But it will not restore any farms or ownerships in the way of the mines, or near them. Evidence of constant vibration noise, dust and chemical pollution from coalmines is now very near us, not to mention the side-effects from their infrastructure.

A wind and solar farm is a far smaller problem for the earth, even if the turbines can be seen and heard. We need to look at wind, solar and geothermal power in the Hunter, not in the future, but now. Pamada needs to give full, exact impact details. Self interest has validity as far as it goes, but it doesn't go all the way, and collecting the facts objectively is a helpful start. Thanks to SCAPE for its work so far.

Bev Atkinson, Scone

Fuel debate with needed funding

Cairns Post
Saturday 3/5/2008 Page: 19

WE are told the world is running out of oil and, with the increased demand from developing countries, supply is barely keeping up with demand which, for the ordinary punter, means increased prices. Most pundits agree that hydrogen is the fuel of the future, but oil companies and governments want to "squeeze the lemon dry" before moving on to alternative fuels.

The idea of hydrogen as a fuel is not new, as back in 1874 Jules Verne predicted that people would live in a world powered by hydrogen. The major motor companies are ready to go with this technology as they have developed fuel cell technology as well as hydrogen fuelled internal combustion engines.

In the current edition of the RACQ's Road Ahead, John Dee, founder and chairman of Planet Ark, outlines the main roadblocks for wider implementation of hydrogen as a fuel as lack of hydrogen infrastructure and a "green" way to produce hydrogen using solar or wind. He said politicians and companies need to solve the first problem, but as for the latter one, the University of NSW has developed solar power technology that turns sea water into hydrogen.

Not surprisingly this project is suffering from a lack of funding.

Ian Fischer. PO Box. Cairns.

Solar power works

Sydney Morning Herald
Friday 2/5/2008 Page: 14

From 2002 to 2006 I worked on the design and construction of a prototype of an Australian-developed solar power collector at Liddell Power Station in the Hunter Valley. The collector, which was originated by the eminent solar scientist Dr David Mills and built from low-cost materials, supplies steam to the existing coal-fired power station.

This small scale project has demonstrated solar re-powering of existing coal-fired power stations. Solar re-powering has the potential to quickly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power stations, while creating new jobs in the manufacturing sector.

Every delay in implementing new technologies increases climate change risks, yet governments delay and debate the risks to economic growth while emissions grow. A solar collector at Liddell could replace the daytime coal used by the 2000-megawatt station and cut that stations annual carbon dioxide emissions by more than half. Similar figures apply to other Australian coal-fired power stations, yet so far no government has been prepared to consider this measure.

Stephen Bathgate, Pennant Hills

Another Big Swim

Summit Sun
Thursday 24/4/2008 Page: 2

A PUBLIC meeting in Tathra last Thursday heard Mike Kelly commit to his pre election promise of $100,000 to look into the feasibility of a solar farm for the region. This has lead to the formation of a working group that includes representation from local government, ANU, the Mosman community, and regional talent. Dr Kelly talked about a further $1 million in Federal Government funding to put into a solar farm.

Steve Garrett talked about the sort of changes that will be required for meeting the 50/50 by 2020 target and the place solar could have in the mix of renewable energy solutions but he made it clear that a solar farm was going to be a big undertaking. On Sunday, about 100 swimmers competed in the Narooma LifeSaving Big Swim which raised enough money to start installation of renewable energy on the surf clubs.

Support from the National Australia Bank and Tathra Beach and Bike insured that the event - a collaborative effort between CEFE, the Narooma and Bermagui surf clubs, and the Narooma swim club - was always going to be a success. On May 10, the Moruya LifeSaving Energy Big Swim will be held in the Moruya River to raise money for renewable energy for the Moruya and Broulee surf clubs.

Matthew Nott, President CEFE

Windfarm opponents must look at bigger picture

Glen Innes Examiner
Tuesday 29/4/2008 Page: 4

WE have been watching with interest and also with surprise, the opposition to the proposed local Wind Farm. Our concern comes mostly from the lack of vision and foresight regarding the real and pressing need for alternative power systems. There simply needs to be change, as coal is not a viable power source for the future - what with its limited or at least finite supply and then add to that, the ever growing costs involved with transporting and mining.

Crude oil continues to drastically rise in price, and will continue to do so. Ten years ago crude oil was $10.00 per barrel and now it is around $120.00 per barrel. It is not even a real choice, let alone a wise one, to think that we can stay the same while these resources are quickly disappearing and associated costs rapidly rising.

This is an issue that all areas will need to address, and those that have the courage to do so, sooner rather than later, will in fact become sought after places because of this type of infrastructure and their vision to look to a realistic sustainable future. This type of proposal is looking at the long term benefits for the entire area and it would be very sad indeed should this district miss out on all of these benefits.

Kim and Maureen Bennetts, Gleninnes

Export carbon rebates

Australian
Thursday 1/5/2008 Page: 15

THE economic boom and Australia's major export industries are under threat. Export rebates and import carbon equivalent tariffs are an absolute necessity for our future carbon trading scheme. It levels the playing field. Without a level playing field, there would simply be carbon leakage as Australian industry and jobs shifted to countries that ignored global warming and the world would be no better off. If export carbon rebates were based on industry best practice, companies would still have an incentive to invest in minimising their own emissions.

Imposing import carbon equivalent tariffs would provide a powerful incentive for all nations to improve their act and the more countries that imposed them, the stronger the reason for China to take global warming seriously. It would also prevent Australian manufacturing being put at a disadvantage. Doing things sensibly we can grow the economy and protect our children's future.

Alex Wadsley Neika, Tas


IT'S difficult to imagine a more outrageous proposal than the idea of exempting energy intensive exports from our carbon dioxide limit ("Carbon trade to burst LNG bubble", 29/4). It's probably not even in our economic interests to triple sales of liquefied natural gas, as we will need gas for our transport sector as world oil production declines. The export of aluminium ("Alcoa wants exemption from carbon trading", 30/4) now involves huge public subsidies; why should we encourage expansion? The line seems to be that meeting greenhouse targets and keeping the earth habitable is acceptable as long as that doesn't slow economic growth. Reining in climate change is our responsibility to future generations. New economic developments have to fit within that duty.

Ian Lowe President, Australian Conservation Foundation, Marcoola, Qld

Inflation of influence

Sydney Morning Herald
Wednesday 30/4/2008 Page: 12

An oil lobby consultant has produced a report citing all kinds of economic nastiness if alternative energy sources are promoted ("Renewables policy under attack", April 29). Who'd have thought? The polite approach is to accept the report and ignore it. Many of the world's problems, from Iraq to climate change to oil-related inflation, stem from excessive influence by such groups. Screw manners; just shred (and recycle) the bloody thing.

Carl Sparre, Eastwood

New vision for our coal port

Newcastle Herald
Wednesday 30/4/2008 Page: 10

IT was tremendously heartening to read Gionni Di Gravio's letter (Letters 23/4) supporting the protest at the construction site of the third coal-loader and calling for Newcastle to become the Saudi Arabia of solar power. When there are more people writing letters like that to every newspaper in the country we may be able to achieve that goal. And what a profoundly historic achievement it would be.

If Newcastle, said to be the world's largest coal port, could shift to clean exports, this would set a clear example to other countries like China, the US or Saudi Arabia that it can and must be done. And why not? Denmark, with a population roughly the same as NSW, employs more than 16,000 people manufacturing wind turbines. I understand the number of people employed in coalmining in NSW is fewer than that.

Moreover, the manufacture of renewable energy does not emit thousands of tonnes of dust like coalmining does. Wind and solar factories could be built in mining towns like Singleton and Muswellbrook, linked by rail to the port like coal is. But this will only happen if there are many more protests, and many more letters like Mr Di Gravio's.

Zane Alcorn, Hamilton

Time to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy

Canberra Times
Tuesday 29/4/2008 Page: 10

The photograph of melting Arctic icebergs is a stark reminder of the fate of the SS Titanic, whose master ignored the warnings of icebergs ahead ("Grim picture as greenhouse gases spiral", April 25, p10). Governments and captains of industry are similarly discounting the urgency of dangers from global warming, in which fossil fuel subsidies and combustion have increased by 40 per cent over two decades.

The scientific evidence linking industrial activities to climate change is compelling, as are the threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise and water and food deficiencies driven by rising population and the undermining of the Earth's life support systems, aptly described by Tony McMichael (`Sustaining the sum of us", April 25, p17).

There may still be time to turn the Titanic of climate change through a new industrial revolution, replacing our dependence on non-renewable dirty solar capital stored as fossil fuels by endlessly renewable clean solar currency, and by food produced through land care rather than land clearing.

At the local level, energy sustainability could be achieved by improving efficiency, by solar hot water systems and photovoltaics. Centrally, there is electricity generated by steam turbines driven by concentrated solar power, by geothermal, wind and tidal power, and biofuels manufactured from algae, agricultural and sewage wastes. Australia can spearhead this new industrial revolution, to the benefit of employment and both ecological and economic sustainability.

Bryan Furnass, Hughes

Energy, the better way

Weekend Courier - Rockingham
Friday 25/4/2008 Page: 13

EARLIER this year I was pleased to hear that the South Australian Government's Solar Panel 'Feed-in' Bill passed through both houses of Parliament and became law in South Australia. The Electricity (Feed-in Scheme - Residential Solar Systems) Amendment Bill encourages the uptake of solar electricity by allowing SA residents to sell their solar electricity at a higher rate than they are charged. A feed-in tariff is a premium rate paid for electricity fed back into the grid from a renewable electricity source.

It serves as an incentive for individuals to invest their personal finances into solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, safe in the knowledge that the price paid for electricity generated will adequately pay back this investment over future years. Feed-in regulations now exist in many countries. Germany for example has experienced dramatic growth in its renewable energy market.

In the five years from 2000, the quantity of electricity- fed into the grid from eligible sources has more than doubled with a seven fold increase in installed solar PV capacity to more than 1500 MW by the end of 2005. By comparison, at the same time Australia installed around 7MW. I believe that a move towards renewable energy is an essential means of addressing climate change and that solar PV micro-generation has an important role to play.

Rather than building yet more coal-fired power stations, the WA government should instead be introducing a robust feed-in tariff in order to encourage a major expansion of renewable energy leading to real reductions in greenhouse gas pollution. With the right laws in place, we can move beyond the state government's current slogan of "Act Now for the Future" towards real action to slow our growth in greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate against the worst effects of climate change.

Dawn Jecks, Safety Bay.

Art Auction

News Weekly
Wednesday 16/4/2008 Page: 17

A Clean Energy For Eternity art auction will be held in conjunction with a public meeting in Tathra on April 17. The primary reason for the meeting will be to discuss a community owned solar farm for the region. One of the aims of the meeting is to establish a working group to look at the commercial feasibility of a large-scale solar farm. Such a group has already been established in the Snowy Mountains.

A solar farm working group will need to include representation from local government, and the Bega Valley Shire Council are enthusiastic about getting involved. We will need scientific input, and we are fortunate to have a student from the ANU who will be doing an honours degree looking at the feasibility process and outcomes of this process in SE NSW. We are able to tap into a wealth of local expertise to help us move forward with a solar farm, both from a scientific and engineering perspective.

At the meeting, Member for Eden- Monaro Mike Kelly will be talking to us about the proposed federal government funding that will allow us to proceed with a community owned power station. After the solar farm discussion, we will be hosting an art auction to raise money for a wind turbine for the Tathra Primary School. We aim to have about 20 art works on auction, and many of our local artists have donated pieces.

This auction will be an opportunity to buy artwork from well known, and not so well known artists, and promises to be an exciting event. A community meeting to look at solar farms and other sustainability options will be held at the Tathra community hall at 6.30pm on Thursday, April 17. Speakers will include Mike Kelly, Steve Garrett from Pyramid Power, Matthew Nott, and will be chaired by Mayor Tony Allen. The art auction will start at about 8pm, and there are bound to he bagpipes played at some point!

Matthew Nott

Warming warning

The Mornington-Southern Peninsula Mail
Wednesday 23/4/2008 Page: 4

THE recent extreme bushfires, summer heat, floods and drought worldwide and the local storm surge are surely a lesson about global warming. We new Australians have been destroying our country in a multitude of ways for 200 years. Now global warming has added a new weapon to our arsenal, one that we cannot control without critical lifestyle change. Most of us know what changes we must make, but too many of us are not prepared to change.

Business as usual, greed and short-term gain, will not do. The massive winds, floods, waves, fires, heat and sandstorms of the past few years and weeks locally and globally will be repeated if we continue on that basis. To avoid, or at least try to avoid catastrophe, we should all try to improve our personal, family, street, neighbourhood, community and economic fitness.

This will mean sitting less and walking more, working and playing more sustainably, spending wisely, buying and growing foodstuffs locally, reducing consumption of all carbon power and goods in every way possible, sharing household amenities, reducing our use of cars, sharing travel in them and moving ourselves and our goods by public transport.

Where possible we must replace our past needs with home and neighbourhood-based income, increase household sustainability and use homegrown foodstuffs, clean power and rainwater. We must also direct our local, state and federal political servants to provide immediately for such a challenge.

In the short term, global warming will increase and climate change will get rougher but, in the longer term, if we all try, we should be able to raise a few more generations of our species and that of our indigenous fauna and flora. To do this, our peninsula community, our nation and our world must reset our shared syllabus right now, today. Let us just hope then that we have all learnt our lessons, that we can change for the better and that Mother Nature has not yet lost patience with us. As we now see, she is quite capable of giving us and all living things a belt in the ear that could easily knock our heads off our shoulders forever.

Craig Forster Mt ElIza

Coal protesters not just hot air

Newcastle Herald
Wednesday 23/4/2008 Page: 10

I WOULD like to support the actions of the 16 people arrested on the weekend in protest of the new coal-loader. While many may believe their actions were just a nuisance, it is important to understand that runaway climate change will be an even greater disruption to our lives. The NSW Government received more than 750 submissions against the proposal to construct this third coal-loader. The fact that it was ratified by one man, Planning Minister Frank Sartor, to me displays the lack of democratic process that exists at present.

The NSW Government appears to have become mollified by the money it receives from the fossil fuel industry to the point of appeasing it via what seems to be a planning dictatorship. Our leaders need to remember to lead for the future, and that future is one of clean, green energy innovation. As Professor Peter Spearritt so aptly said at last Thursday's National Trust forum at the Town Hall, there was no reason why Newcastle could not become the Saudi Arabia of solar power.

Gionni Di Gravio, Mayfield, April 21

Follow German lead on solar feed-in tariff

Geelong Advertiser
Thursday 24/4/2008 Page: 20

MR Brumby recently held a climate change summit to discuss Victoria's response to climate change. To become a national leader on climate change, Mr Brumby could implement a solar feed-in tariff that would encourage investment in renewable energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This would mean that homeowners who installed solar power on their roof would be paid a fair price for all of the clean electricity they produce. Since introducing a feed-in tariff for households and industry, Germany has seen massive investment in solar power creating 30,000 jobs and actually reducing electricity prices. If Germany can do this with less sunshine than us, surely we can do it here.

Victoria McKenzie-McHarg, Brunswick

Clean coal is actually not very clean at all

Bendigo Advertiser
Tuesday 22/4/2008 Page: 10

THE fallacious arguments of the coal industry have done nothing to engender public confidence in their ability to combat climate change. The deceptive term clean coal is a concept devised by the coal industry to hoodwink the Australian public into believing they can produce a product free of greenhouse gas emissions. But this is not so. The product, clean coal, is in fact very dirty - somewhat cleaner than coal, but much dirtier than renewable energy.

Because the clean coal process, by the coal industry's own admission, can capture only some of the greenhouse gas emissions, clean coal will always be a source of pollution. Not so renewable energy - it generates electricity without producing any greenhouse gas emissions to dispose of. Coal industry propaganda should not be allowed to influence Australia s choice of energy. With limitless solar energy from the sun and geothermal energy from some of the hottest rocks in the world, the choice of energy should be a foregone conclusion.

Kevin Cloonan, Bendigo

Denial false optimism in view of global warming

Canberra Times
Saturday 5/4/2008 Page: 6

Professor Don Aitkin would have made an excellent lobbyist for the tobacco industry, which spent many years obfuscating the clear evidence of links between smoking and cancer ("One cool view of global warming", April 3, p0). During his research into evidence on global warming, Aitkin must have missed the widespread retreat of glaciers, which threatens water and food security in South Asia, the recent large cracks in the Antarctic ice shelf and the satellite photographs taken by James Hansen of NASA showing that 23 per cent of summer Arctic ice has disappeared in two years.

This is an area twice that of NSW and portends sea. level rises of several metres this century, threatening the survival of Pacific islands and inundation of densely populated coastal areas around the Pacific rim. As Aitkin says, there have been many changes in global temperature and atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels over millions of years of glacial and interglacial epochs, but rises have never been so rapid as over the past two centuries.

Aitkin dismisses the scientific evidence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the predictions in the interim Garnaut report that an 80-90 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be required to avoid catastrophe. They reflect the earlier report by the British economist Nicholas Stern that failure to take action now to mitigate climate change will entail immeasurably greater costs later.

Our descendants will not thank us if the denial and false optimism promoted by Aitkin become part of government policy. Bryan Furnass, Hughes Don Aitkin's opinion on global warming shows considerable ignorance of scientific method. Could he tell us when, in the "human history" that he mentions, CO. levels in the atmosphere increased at the rate that nobody questions them to be increasing at present.

Could he tell us, if the consequences (many of which he ignores and because they are based on science are inevitably conservative) forecast by the world's best science through the IPCC should look highly probable even to him, at what atmospheric levels of CO2 would he choose to take action, given that time will be of the essence to reverse those trends.

Given that human use of fossil fuels, which were laid down in the Earth's crust by biological activity over billions of years, will have caused them to be largely released again in little more than 100 years, perhaps he could also tell us why he thinks this enormous addition of carbon to the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in such a short time would not be assumed to have a significant effect on the Earth's climate.

Does he also not think that the impact on a world with well over six billion people will be far more significant than whatever he supposes to have happened in the human history to which he refers. Geoffrey D. Smith, Lyneham Don Aitkin's opinion piece is excellent. This should be a wake-up call to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and to all those pushing for emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes, mandatory renewable energy targets, and other such government interventions. Aitkin's research shows that the premise upon which Garnaut's arguments for an Australian emissions trading scheme is based is flawed. We do not need the massive disruption to our economy and standard of living that some would like our new Government to impose on us.

Peter Lang, Griffith

Graceful windfarms can bring in tourism

Glen Innes Examiner
Tuesday 15/4/2008 Page: 4

I WOULD like to comment on the windfarms proposed for the district. Last year we spent a month at Ravenshoe, North Queensland. Just down the road from the caravan park is a windfarm. There in the green rolling hills with birds flying and cows grazing peacefully stand 24 majestic vanes. Everyday we made sure we went and stood and watched and listened to those majestic wonders.

There was a constant stream of tourists stopping to photograph and take in this spectacular view. Not once was the turning vanes or turbines offensive. It certainly didn't bother the cows, the noise was so minimal. Everywhere we travel and there is a windfarm we go out of our way to have a look. It could be made into a tourist attraction for Glen Inns, viewing platform and information board that's all it needs. We have not met one person who was against them. These are our modern day monoliths. They are majestic.

Mike and Renate Moloney, Torrington

Wind energy

Portland Observer
Wednesday 16/4/2008 Page: 15

IN Wednesday's Portland Observer, April 9, the Member for Opportunism Denis Napthine claimed the Labor Government was hypocritical when providing a $200,000 grant to Keppel Prince. He said it signalled the final death and burial of 136 jobs at Vestas Portland. The closure of the wind blade factory is not indicative of how the wind/renewable energy industry is progressing through Portland, Victoria and Australia. Renewable energy is driving investment, economic growth and jobs around the world and it is just a shame the Liberal Party at State and Federal levels never truly believed in climate change and its coming effects on the world.

Back in June 2004 Vestas chief executive Svend Sigaard said "the Federal Liberal Government's decision not to extend the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) scheme did not give Vestas enough confidence in the future of renewable energy in Australia" (ABC News press release). The Vestas factory was still built after this date in the hope the Federal Liberal Government may change its thinking and policy with the support of the State Labor Government. History has shown that they didn't change their policy and they lost the Federal Election with climate change being a major issue.

The 40-metre wind turbine blade being made in Australia lost its market in Australia due to advancing technology. For the factory to continue, Vestas would have to have made a massive investment in Australia to make different blades with the risk of the non-climate change party (The Liberal Party) winning the election. What company would risk millions of shareholders dollars on an election result? So to Dr Napthine, if you don't actually have a policy on these issues you should keep your political point scoring to a minimum as the people within the industry actually know the real story, and they vote too.

John Herbertson, Portland

Gas

Caloundra City News
Friday 18/4/2008 Page: 9

It has been reported that the worldwide demand for liquefied natural gas will increase markedly over the next decade and Australia will play a large part in its supply. Whilst this country currently has a plentiful supply, we should also be looking to the future for our own needs. The carbon emission from LPG is very low compared to coal, so our power stations should be converted to run on this product and also our cars. We currently sell it offshore for less than three cents per litre - it is surely worth more to us than that.

If future cars become electric, we will need considerably more electric power for recharging batteries so the demand on our power stations will increase dramatically. Surely it is time to curtail any increase in offshore sales of gas as it will likely be close to a hundred years before our energy requirements can be met by solar and wind power. Australia's deserts provide an excellent venue for solar power stations and work should start now to provide such power for the future.

Peter Keogh, Bokarina

Solar farms

News Weekly
Wednesday 9/4/2008 Page: 18

Clean Energy For Eternity are pretty busy in April. We have the Narooma Lifesaving Energy Big Swim on April, 20, which is looking like being a pretty huge event. We are planning more swims in the near future and we have a public meeting coming up at the Tathra Community Hall on April 17. With everything else going on this would probably be the right time to discuss the April Tathra meeting. The primary reason for the meeting will be to discuss solar farms in SE NSW.

There will be several other items on the agenda, but more on that closer to the meeting. The objective for the meeting will he to establish a community- working group to look at the feasibility of 'a community owned solar farm. Mike Kelly will he talking about what sort of support we can expect from the Federal Government. What is a solar farm'? Well, that's pretty much up in the air at the moment. What I'm envisaging is a 2MW, 20-hectare field of production line solar photovoltaic cells. The other option is solar thermal generation where solar reflectors concentrate sunlight to generate steam to turn a turbine, to make electricity.

All these numbers are very ballpark, but I reckon we are looking at a cost of around 10 million. That's a lot of money. How on earth are we going to achieve that? We have a funding commitment from the Federal Government of up to $ 1 million. I reckon the State government should match that offer. At best that leaves $8 million. We have a CEFE group in Mosman that is committed to off setting their communities carbon footprint by investing in solar farms in our part of the world.

Maybe we have to find another $7 million. Talk about hard work! I know that Mike Kelly has been talking to the ANU about using our region as a sort of test bed for new solar technology. That could allow us to tap into some funding options, still a long way to go to get to $10 million. A community owned power station might well turn out to be a viable investment opportunity. That is what will clinch the deal. That is why we need to get a community group of smart people together to look at outside the square ways of making this work.

We need to decide what sort of solar technology we are going to look at, we need to make sure that a solar farm is the best investment for a community owned power station. Would it be more cost effective to invest in wind or biomass generation? These sorts of issues are going to have to be sorted out very soon if we are going to make this work. That is why we are having a meeting in Tathra on April 17, I am hopeful that we will be able to attract interested people from right across the region. There will be a couple of other items on the agenda and a few surprises.

Matthew Nott

Pleased about SCAP

Scone Advocate
Thursday 10/4/2008 Page: 24

Editor, IT WAS pleasing to read your article in the April 3 Scone Advocate that the SCAPE group has been formed in the Scone area to support renewable energy. I was interested to read that Hunter Landscape Guardians President, Carmelle Lymbery, is concerned about the loss of White Box woodlands. A new opencut coalmine, Wilpinjong, operating at the top of the Goulburn River will supply coal to Bayswater Power Station. It is allowed to clear 47 hectares of good condition Grassy White Box.

The next coalmine to be approved in the same area, Moolarben, is allowed to clear 65 hectares of Grassy White Box. Between them these mines will produce nearly 20 million tonnes of new coal per annum for 21 years. A new large power line carrying coal-fired electricity from Bayswater to western NSW has been allowed to clear a further 52 hectares of Grassy White Box.

I would expect that people wishing to `save what we've got for our children and grandchildren' and 'protect the environment' would be very concerned about climate change. Renewable energy will cause much less damage than coal.

Bev Smiles, Wollar

Come clean on coal

Daily Examiner
Wednesday 16/4/2008 Page: 10

AT the risk of being accused of flogging a dead horse, I have to comment on the Rudd 'roadshow', particularly the current coal deals reported as cooperation between China and Australia over climate change. That cooperation is apparently centred around the clean coal myth. Rather than looking at truly clean renewable power generation, we once again see Australia encouraging the mining and export of coal, the burning of which is a major contributor to global warming.

Despite being warned unequivocally, that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions must begin immediately, requiring cuts of at least 30 per cent by 2020, the government continues to pursue unproven technology that cannot become a reality until after the 2020 deadline, while at the same, time gearing up to open more mines, and massively increase coal exports.

John Edwards, South Grafton.

Falling for the spin

Age
Wednesday 16/4/2008 Page: 14

CLEAN coal (carbon capture and storage) does not exist and if it ever does, it won't be for a least a decade. However, the science tells us that we must act now to avoid catastrophic ecological and economic collapse from climate change.

If the profitable coal industry wants to spend money researching clean coal, so be it. However, the federal and state governments should not spend a cent of taxpayers' money. Renewable energy technology already exists to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and money should be put into the widespread uptake of these existing technologies.

We need to shut down our coal-fired power plants, not build new ones. Clean coal is merely a ploy from the coal industry to keep polluting and making money for as long as it can, and our governments (and the CFMEU, the WWF and the Climate Change Institute) are falling for it.

Pablo Brait. Richmond

Another Slug For Renters

Canberra Times
Monday 14/4/2008 Page: 8

I am very happy that the ACT Government is committed to encouraging home owners to install solar panels. But I was rather dismayed when I read that the project would be funded by a levy on all electricity bills. As usual, renters are not being considered at all and will be left to foot the bill. The levy will come on top of the already significantly higher energy costs for renters due to the very poor housing efficiency rating of most rental properties.

Liii Van Oevelen, Watson

Energy research better spent

Queensland Times
Saturday 12/4/2008 Page: 27

I NOTICE the Rudd Government seems to have lost its way in energy research. It seems more offshore areas have been opened up for the exploration of oil. Why on Earth would we be looking for more greenhouse polluting oil when we could put the money into renewable energy? The Howard Government subsidised greenhouse industry to the tune of billions of dollars.

I am disappointed that it seems the Rudd Government is following in the footsteps of the previous Government. I would have expected the Rudd Government to invest in solar, wind, geothermal and such to remove us from the oil economy or at least decrease our reliance on it.

Shaun Newman, Townsville

Solar eclipsed

Hobart Mercury
Saturday 12/4/2008 Page: 35

THE State Government supports reducing global warming but does not support solar rebates to householders, as does the Federal Government and Hobart City Council. The rest of the state misses out on additional rebates to assist people going solar.

Walter Christy, Shearwater

Solar oversight

Canberra Times
Saturday 12/4/2008 Page: 6

Much interest appears to have resulted from the proposal to have a high feed-in tariff for electricity from home solar panels. Mick Gentleman has just tabled his private member's Bill for this in the ACT Assembly. A great deal needs to be done to improve the use of renewable energy and reduce greenhouse emissions and I wish this proposal well. However, I am puzzled about why there is such fanfare about photovoltaic solar panels and so little about solar hot water.

If I install a grid-connected 1kW photovoltaic panel, I am eligible for an $8000 rebate regardless of my income - and if the feed-in tariff goes ahead, I'll also get a generous ongoing payment for the power I generate on my rooftop. Estimates suggest a payback of about 10 years. I will stop about 1.5 tonnes of CO2 being generated per year. If I switch my gas storage hotwater systems to solar and save almost 1 tonne of CO2 per year, guess how much rebate I'll get? Nothing. I will continue to save on gas consumption but that probably only costs maybe $250.

I may receive a small payment for solar renewable energy certificates. A solar hot water system will cost me about $4000 to $5000 to install. So I'm looking at a minimum 20-year payback. Only those with electric storage hot water systems are eligible for a $1000 rebate, and it is means tested (unlike the photovoltaic rebate). No other systems are eligible, including electric instantaneous even though they typically generate four tonnes of C02 per year - not much less than an electric storage system.

Has there really been a careful cost benefit analysis of photovoltaic versus solar hot water? If there is one, where is it and how does it justify the vastly differing subsidies for photovoltaic and solar hot water? Demand management should be an equal or greater part of plans to reduce electricity consumption and greenhouse emissions - not just subsidising the generation of more electricity, even if it is green. Solar hot water seems to be a large oversight in the strategy and needs urgent attention.

Glenn Pure, Kambah

Art auction

Bega District News
Tuesday 8/4/2008 Page: 8

A Clean Energy For Eternity art auction will he held in conjunction with a public meeting in Tathra on Thursday, April 17. The primary reason for the meeting will be to discuss a community owned solar farm for the region. One of the aims of the meeting is to establish a working group to look at the commercial feasibility of a large scale solar farm. Such a group has already been established in the Snowy Mountains.

A solar farm working group will need to include representation from local government and the Bega Valley Shire council is enthusiastic about getting involved. We will need scientific input, and we are fortunate to have a student from the ANU who will be doing an honours degree looking at the feasibility process and outcomes of this process in SE NSW. We are able to tap into a wealth of local expertise to help us move forward with a solar farm, both from a scientific and engineering perspective.

At the meeting, Mike Kelly will be talking to us about the proposed Federal Government funding that will allow us to proceed with a community owned power station. After the solar farm discussion, we will be hosting an art auction to raise money for a wind turbine for the Tathra primary school. We aim to have about 20 art works on auction, and many of our local artists have donated pieces. This auction will be an opportunity to buy art work from well known, and not so well known artists, and promises to be an exciting event.

The community meeting to look at solar farms and other sustainability options will be held at the Tathra community hall at 6.30pm. Speakers will include Mike Kelly, Steve Garrett from Pyramid Power, Matthew Nott and will be chaired by Mayor Tony Allen. The art auction will start at about 8pm, and there are bound to be bagpipes played at some point.

Matthew Nott

Pensioners the big losers when electricity prices rise

Sydney Morning Herald
Monday 7/4/2008 Page: 8

I'm dismayed at the insensitivity of the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens ("Get used to being greener, poorer", April 5-6). Every commentary these days is focused on people who earn a living.

How about some concern for the great majority of pensioners who are on fixed incomes. They have already lowered their standard of living and cannot afford to go much lower. What about disability pensioners who, because of their illnesses, need air conditioners to survive? What happens to them as the cost of electricity keeps rising? We are only two months away from the next price increase, mooted at about 7 per cent for the next three years.

I suggest the various bodies assisting people with disabilities band together to lobby the federal and state governments to work out how they can assist these pensioners, who would not benefit from any GST-style package of tax cuts as suggested by Ross Garnaut. Because electricity rates have gone up while pensioner rebates have stayed static for about a dozen years, the GST we have to pay is twice as much as the pension rebate received, and keeps rising.

Anne Spinks, Surf Beach


Saturday's front-page headline was misleading. How can a greener society be described as poorer? Surely when the time comes that our personal wealth is measured by the quality, sustainability and purity of our lives, rather than our bank balances, the world will be richer.

Jeremy Sheaffe, Clunes

Renewable energy sources available

Bendigo Advertiser
Monday 7/4/2008 Page: 10

THE Federal Minister Martin Ferguson's statement at the launch of the geosequestration project at Warrnambool bears some scrutiny. He does nothing other than adopt the coal industry's mantra when he states new coalfired power stations in Australia are inevitable and proposals to bury carbon dioxide emissions deep underground are essential if the country is to tackle climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth! Carbon sequestration can play no part in combating climate change.

In the words of Dr David Brockway, the chief of CSIRO Energy Technology, the general consensus is that it will be 15 to 20 years before carbon capture technologies are commercial. Even if successful, after construction and commissioning, much too late to avoid cataphoric climate change. Would the minister tell us why he will not use the immediately available renewable energy technologies to combat climate change and provide the clean carbon dioxide free electricity we need? Kevin Cloonan, Bendigo

Turbine talk tells towering tales of tragedy

Glen Innes Examiner
Thursday 3/4/2008 Page: 4

RECENTLY your front page featured an advertisement apparently canvassing opinion on the desirability of discarding the somewhat laboured local brand of `Celtic Country' and re-labelling ourselves as living in `Turbine Territory' instead. What a wonderful notion, we might then be seen to be looking to the future and talking up the district on it's actual merits, and features; rather than peering myopically at a selective and romanticised view of a heritage that a decreasing minority of people either share or relate to.

An excellent plan, if only because it might end the perennial debates upon which fashion reigns supreme in the `hard C versus soft C' methods of correctly enunciating the 'Keltic/Seltic' part of the brand. One feature of the anti-windfarm campaign seems to revolve around all the supposedly wicked effects, which the whirling of the turbines will be wreaking on all the poor whittling wildlife.

My experience, and it's well over 20 years since watching one's own theory on experimental turbines trying to spin wind into enough excited electrons to be called useful, is that even with high-speed blades (twirling at 10 times the wind speed) and the tips half a metre off the ground, nothing bigger than a dragonfly has been seen to be hit by a blade or found lying dead and broken underneath.

It takes a week to a fortnight for all the wildlife in the clearing to learn the habits of any new turbine, mounted on the low `turbulence resistance' test pole. Both grey kangaroos and swamp wallabies graze under the blades when there's no wind. If the blades are moving the macropods hop out of range, they aren't stupid.

Small birds sometimes perch on a stationary blade-tip but anything as big as a bower-bird is tipped off, by it's own weight turning the rotor. A family of choughs has been seen to walk away, rather than try to fly away, when a sudden gust brought the blades up to 500+ RPM from a standstill, within 10 seconds; the flock were under and around the turbine at the time, and they'd frozen when the gust hit and the blades started to turn. The choughs stood still, looked at each other, waited till the disk established, and walked off twice the height of the tower before flying away, to watch from a nearby tree.

Perhaps it's too great a leap to be likely, but could it be possible that if the local anti-windfarm luddites are as bright as the local kangaroos or the littlest local species of crow then it'll take them a fortnight after it begins to spin for them to learn to cope with their local windmills; if they're half that smart it might take a whole month. Is anybody keeping a book on it?

Chris Wharton, Yarraford Road Dundee

Costa barking up the wrong economic tree on cost of climate change

Sydney Morning Herald
Saturday 5/4/2008 Page: 38

So cutting greenhouse emissions has a greater impact than previously thought ("Costa fears $430b greenhouse bill", April 4). Stern's estimate at 1 per cent of economy: $101 billion. Costa's estimate at 4 per cent of economy: $430 billion. Cost of doing nothing: priceless.

Roger Hallett, Coffs Harbour


Michael Costa neglected to mention whether Treasury has modelled the economic impact of climate change on inflation, Australian agriculture, water supplies, farming communities and the cost of groceries.

Mr Costa doesn't seem to understand that the whole point of carbon trading is to create a market that penalises the polluters and pushes investment towards efficient energy use and production. If he gives coal power a free ride we have lost before we've started. Morris Iemma shows his true colours by allowing this troglodyte to hold our purse strings.

Andrea Blackmore, Neutral Bay


Why does Michael Costa continue to operate with a business-as-usual approach in the face of evidence that this will not be possible? I believe the most useful change we could make to avert climate change and economic meltdown is to call for Michael Costa's resignation.

Leah Mason, Rozelle


Mr Costa, I have no doubt that making the recommended cuts to greenhouse emissions will cost the economy and the country in some way, and probably quite substantially.

But if Australia doesn't make the recommended cuts now then just how much more colossal will the cost be? We have been shortsightedly squandering our environment for far too long. It is time to admit our failings and begin the (probably uncomfortable) task of rectifying whatever we can before it is too late.

If this means disrupting the economy and forcing businesses and individuals to re-examine the way they operate, then so be it.

Ria Hamblett, Dulwich Hill


Michael Costa's attack on Professor Ross Garnaut's climate review is a bit rich. Mr Costa's costings are based on economic modelling that he refuses to release to the public So much for open government.

Recent analysis by respected economists at McKinsey & Company has shown Australia can achieve a 30 per cent cut in greenhouse pollution by 2020 - at a cost of just $2.9 billion. That's 80 cents a day for each Australian household. By 2030, Australia can make a 60 per cent cut in greenhouse pollution at a cost of just $7 billion.

The Garnaut review is making a thorough, consultative and cool-headed examination of climate change. It is also weighing up the huge economic costs for Australia if we let climate change spiral out of control. A responsible treasurer would do likewise.

Phil Freeman, Australian Conservation Foundation

Locals think global

Bellarine Independent
Friday 28/3/2008 Page: 11

IT WAS encouraging to read that Portarlington's residents were planning to investigate ways of reducing the town's greenhouse gas emissions (Independent, February 29). Borough of Queenscliffe has already embarked on this, process by signing up to an International Council for Local Environment Initiatives program. The audit process will be followed by implementation of steps to reduce carbon emissions. At a community level, concerned residents of the borough have formed Global Warming Group Queenscliffe and initiated a number of events and projects.

A borough-funded website under development will provide local as well as general information to residents. Our group has also been actively seeking funds to establish a Bellarine Climate Friendly Town Award, involving all the peninsula's towns to, we hope, provide impetus to encourage a widespread effort across the peninsula to reduce emissions. Professor Ross Garnaut's recent interim report highlighted the enormity of the problem of rising global carbon dioxide levels. It also made cleat that all of us must take urgent steps to reduce our emissions to avoid the more-drastic outcomes of global warming for our children.

Tony Mackenzie, Global Warming Group Queenscliffe

Wind farms can be temporary

Plains Producer
Wednesday 2/4/2008 Page: 8

ON the front page of The Plains Producer of March 27, the caption to the photograph of the Snowtown wind farm reads .".how it will forever change the appearance of the Barunga Range." Surely one of the greatest benefits of wind power is that the structures are temporary. Once we come up with a better idea, these towers can simply be removed. I see this as much nicer than a large hole in the ground producing coal.

Stephen Gill, Clare

But farmers have rights to use their land for business

Glen Innes Examiner
Tuesday 1/4/2008 Page: 4

I WOULD like the opportunity to give my perspective to the wind turbine/ lifestyle debate. Firstly, to the opponents to this fledgling industry, might I suggest that the view, which they enjoy and are fighting to protect, is of another persons land. It is not their "view."

Also these people contribute nothing to the maintenance of the view, either controlling weeds, vermin or managing the land to provide the view. They-contribute none of their capital gain to the owners of the land for the view. In fact the farmers provide a service, that of maintaining and providing a beautiful rural view, without compensation.

What is at stake here is a farmers right to manage his land for the future sustainability of his business. Ray Rossington was correct in saying the future will never be the same. Carbon based power generation will see to that. A planet without polar ice caps will never be the same. A lot of things will change in the near future. The farmers have always been respected for their ability to adapt and manage the environment on their farms as seasons change and the provision of renewable power generation is an extension of that.

Agriculture is an industry, a farm is an industrial site, whether producing food for energy or electricity, farmers endeavour to manage their land sustainably for the benefit of the whole of society. For the record, there are no turbines proposed for my land. My property will be surrounded by around 50 turbines. Lets get behind a new industry for our region. In years to come if grazing becomes unviable this may be the life blood of our town. Being able to adapt to change is what has made us as humans successful.

Chris Gunther, Glencoe