Energy Conference
Over the last few days the South Asia Energy Conference, with delegates from the US, Australia, China, India, Korea and other countries, was held in Sydney. "We" and the U.S. are touting this as an alternative "agreement" to Kyoto.
What has come out of the conference, is that they have decided that fossil fuels are going to be the major energy source for the forseeable future. Rather than an attempt to reduce any pollution, they are trying to reach "agreements" and "co-operation" to increase the use of C02 minimising technologies. These include "clean coal", and Geosequestation (storing C02 underground). They have decided firmly against mandatory targets.
It seems to me that this leaves Australia and the US with no obligation to reduce pollution. Rather, they are trying to get Asia to take up so called "clean" solutions as they develop their energy Industries. It seems typical, particularly of the 'states, to try and tell OTHER countries how they should behave, whilst making very little effort (particularly given the size of their economy) to make any changes themselves.
Without any targets, what incentives are there for countries and business to make a difference. Its like giving someone a project to do with no guidelines, no outcomes, and no due date. Of course they aren't going to produce anything!!
On the other hand, I agree there is a good case for pushing the implementation of C02 saving technology - because it IS unrealistic to focus solely on "renewable" energy sources. However, this needs to be pursued in tandem with clearly defined outcomes. Otherwise, there will be no action. More disturbingly, the whole conference seems to have generated a lot of lip service to the issue of the greenhouse effect. The U.S. representative was interviewed on ABC radio, and it was clear that he was a consultant in his past career. He spoke of "enhanced information flows", "co-operative understanding", "synergy" and "alignment of goals". The Australian Minister for the Environment was not much better, saying that they wanted to "save the climate". What the HELL does THAT mean? He clearly had no idea what he was on about.
So whilst I hope that something tangible came out of the conference, I rather suspect it was a "boys club" excuse for free food and accomodation.
In a related story, a german scientist has just published a paper suggesting that Trees excrete Methane in large volumes, potentially making up 1/3 of the earths greenhouse gasses. Conventional wisdom (as adopted by the Kyoto treaty) suggest planting forests can reduce greenhouse pollution. This may turn out to be misguided.
What has come out of the conference, is that they have decided that fossil fuels are going to be the major energy source for the forseeable future. Rather than an attempt to reduce any pollution, they are trying to reach "agreements" and "co-operation" to increase the use of C02 minimising technologies. These include "clean coal", and Geosequestation (storing C02 underground). They have decided firmly against mandatory targets.
It seems to me that this leaves Australia and the US with no obligation to reduce pollution. Rather, they are trying to get Asia to take up so called "clean" solutions as they develop their energy Industries. It seems typical, particularly of the 'states, to try and tell OTHER countries how they should behave, whilst making very little effort (particularly given the size of their economy) to make any changes themselves.
Without any targets, what incentives are there for countries and business to make a difference. Its like giving someone a project to do with no guidelines, no outcomes, and no due date. Of course they aren't going to produce anything!!
On the other hand, I agree there is a good case for pushing the implementation of C02 saving technology - because it IS unrealistic to focus solely on "renewable" energy sources. However, this needs to be pursued in tandem with clearly defined outcomes. Otherwise, there will be no action. More disturbingly, the whole conference seems to have generated a lot of lip service to the issue of the greenhouse effect. The U.S. representative was interviewed on ABC radio, and it was clear that he was a consultant in his past career. He spoke of "enhanced information flows", "co-operative understanding", "synergy" and "alignment of goals". The Australian Minister for the Environment was not much better, saying that they wanted to "save the climate". What the HELL does THAT mean? He clearly had no idea what he was on about.
So whilst I hope that something tangible came out of the conference, I rather suspect it was a "boys club" excuse for free food and accomodation.
In a related story, a german scientist has just published a paper suggesting that Trees excrete Methane in large volumes, potentially making up 1/3 of the earths greenhouse gasses. Conventional wisdom (as adopted by the Kyoto treaty) suggest planting forests can reduce greenhouse pollution. This may turn out to be misguided.
Post a Comment