The Emissions Trading systems of the world are being developed in Australia, New Zealand and will be in the United States over the next year. The Kyoto Protocol itself will also go through further transformation as the 1^st commitment period comes to an end in 2012. The next 18 months are critical in the development of the global accords and the individual country commitments.

Simon Dawes of DNV, has agreed to be interviewed on the basis that the following are acknowledged as his personal views not the views of his company, the largest auditor of carbon credits in the world with 50% of the global carbon market.

Mr. Simon Dawes - Heads DNV’s Australasia activities in climate change, and among his many carbon credit roles he helped develop and served as program manager for the Australian Greenhouse Office’s Greenhouse Friendly program and served as the DNV verifier of the New Zealand Government Carbon Neutral Public Service program. He holds an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from NSW Institute of Technology and a masters degree in Business.

Q1: Do you think that the Australian ETS system should adopt a similar cap and trade system to other global systems or is there any merit in the Opposition Leader’s, Brendon Nelson plan?

A: Simon Dawes: On balance, I think the most effective position will be to prepare for a trading system with caps and an abatement trajectory following the international consensus pathway (whenever that may be achieved and whatever it may be) and to implement an ETS following either the international consensus trajectory or, if there is no agreement, a slower trajectory that does not simply result in emissions intensive industry going off shore for no net environmental gain.

It is clearly to Australia’s benefit to identify and implement each of those actions which provide an immediate economic benefit, and to position the economy and, most importantly, public opinion, to embrace the real cuts which will eventually be required.

Regardless of how much both the Government and Opposition discuss easing the financial pain for the Australian community the cap and trade process is essentially one of increasing prices to force alternative action, in this case low carbon solutions. The “Architecture of Australia’s tax and transfer system” was released by Treasury recently, and one clear message from that document is that all costs (whether it is a tax or the cost of an emission permit) end up with the final consumer.

Q2: Do you think transport meaning oil will be included in the Australian ETS system?

And the related Q: Do you think including petrol in an Australian ETS would make much difference to the rise in petrol, which the CSIRO in the SMH, July 11th has predicted could reach $8.00 a litre by 2018?.

A: Simon Dawes “Yes” to the first question and  Fuel pricing is already sensitive. The variability of fuel prices is driven by external market forces, and is likely to progressively increase. From this perspective including a carbon price could be seen as simply bringing forward any overall price increase by a matter of months rather than creating some greater signal for change. The present proposals to offset any ETS cost impact on fuel with a reduction in excise is politically expedient, but will probably have little effect on the final outcome.

Q3: Do you think it is realistic for Australia to embrace hybrid electric vehicle, diesel and natural gas as alternatives?

A: Simon Dawes: Policy makers should not try and pick technology winners - that is better achieved by proving the potential gains in a vigorous free market. It can be helpful for government to provide early mover, technology neutral support to provide a basis for early competition of new technologies with incumbent technologies, particularly if the risk is high and there is a significant barrier to entry - carbon sequestration is a good example.

In terms of transport, even now the most efficient new petrol vehicles can have an equal or lower consumption than comparable diesel fuelled vehicles, and be similar to rival hybrid vehicles. Australian’s will, I think, be looking for means of individual transport for a long time to come and so finding non-petroleum transport energy sources is a critical task.

Q4: Do you believe this is the way forward for the transport sector?

If you take a long view of the use of petroleum fuels, then it makes economic and technological good sense to preserve petroleum fuels for those purposes where it cannot be readily replaced - air transport is one example - and use alternate fuels in other places, such as land transport and stationary energy.

Q5: Could Australian automakers start producing these vehicles?.

Australian manufacturers find it difficult to be cost competitive with existing technologies. A robust and internationally competitive alternate vehicle industry will require more than a small contribution to the largest car maker in the world to encourage it to build hybrid vehicles in Australia.

On the international scene

Q6: Do you think the failure of the G8 to get India and China to agree to 50% reductions in GHG is just round 1 in the negotiations or a more serious position taken by the developing world?

A: Simon Dawes:  It does not seem in any sense likely that India and China will choose to leave their citizens deprived of the comforts we in the developed world take for granted for a minute longer than they need to. If politics is the art of the possible, then the possible for these two countries is framed in their respective domestic political and economic realities. The hard truth may well be that for these two countries there will be no reduction (at least in the short term) but an increase along a low emission per capita pathway. That leaves net reductions in the hands of the developed world. Will there ever be a complete contraction and convergence to actual equivalent per capita global emissions? Probably not in any simple analysis because of national differences and the impact of exports and imports to production and consumption emission patterns.

Q7: What are the important signposts along the road to the Copenhagen meeting end of 2009 and How important is the meeting in Copenhagen next year in terms of the post Kyoto 2012 agreements?

A: Simon Dawes: Realistically, if there is no framework in place by that time it is difficult to see other than a continuation of the status quo in terms of CDM type projects and regional trading systems. The Doha round of trade talks may have failed (at least that it is how it appears), but trade still goes on and bilateral and multilateral trade agreements continued to be forged. It should be remembered that there is now a depth of awareness and concern for the impact of climate change in the West that has scarcely been tapped. Businesses are looking to reduce costs through improving efficiency and marketing their green credentials. If the impact of modernisation has been moving progressively from the developed to the developing world then the benefits of low carbon technologies can be the same. Imagine if achieving a low carbon lifestyle had the same sense of benefit as the owning the latest large screen LCD television, and a sense of entitlement was attached to being able to achieve the benefits of modernity with low emissions.

Q8: Are you optimistic about turning around climate change?

Climate change will not be turned around, but it may be slowed with the global climate reaching a new point of relative stability, but at higher temperatures. Thoughts now seem to be moving towards plans to mitigate to a 2 degree rise and plan to adapt to a 4 degree rise.

Q9: What do you think the market needs as the major auditor of carbon credits internationally?

The main difficulties the market faces are getting enough competent human resources and complex administrative systems. The two are linked - complex systems require people with more training and greater skills. Of course, the skills required to manage complex systems are to an extent non-productive if the systems are more complex than is needed. If the systems can be simplified, harmonised and to the extent possible automated the market will grow more quickly and efficiently.

I would like to thank Simon Dawes for his candid comments on the Kyoto Protocol and Emissions Trading system.

I am speaking today with Vince Memmott, Founder and President of Hydrogen Economy LLC, which is working to commercially develop a High Temperature Steam Electrolysis (HTSE) technology that was developed by Ceramatec, a Salt Lake City technology company, and Idaho National Lab (INL).

At GHGblog.com I am interested in technologies that lead to real breakthroughs.

Vince believes HTSE can be used for a variety of uses to produce hydrogen for commercial uses as an alternative method to making hydrogen through steam-methane (natural gas) reforming (SMR).

HTSE can replace conventional methods of creating hydrogen, a feedstock in the petroleum refining industry, the ammonia industry and eventually as a source of hydrogen for motor vehicles. It could make the need for carbon capture from coal fired-power stations obsolete and it works well with renewable technologies producing carbon neutral hydrogen.

Q1: GHGblog.com:

What is High Temperature Steam Electrolysis (HTSE)

A: Vince Memmott:

A water molecule can be separated into its atomic constituents of hydrogen and oxygen using electrical energy.  This is referred to as water electrolysis.  Normally water electrolysis is quite energy inefficient.  The hydrogen that is recovered only contains about 75% of the energy that is required for its production through electrolysis.  High Temperature Steam Electrolysis performs this electrolysis process using steam at temperatures in excess of 600 degrees Centigrade.  At this elevated temperature, the electrolysis process is considerably more energy efficient.

Q2: GHGblog.com:

What are the main uses of HTSE?

A: Vince Memmott:

The most obvious use of HTSE is to produce hydrogen for commercial use.  The demand for hydrogen is growing rapidly in the United States and in the world.  In the United States the largest consumer is the petroleum refining industry where hydrogen is an essential feedstock in producing clean fuels and in converting heavier crude oil to clean fuels.  This demand for hydrogen is growing as cleaner fuels are mandated and as crude oil feedstocks trend heavier.  Worldwide, the largest hydrogen consumer is the ammonia industry which feeds fertilizer production.  Fertilizer demand is expected to grow as the world works to increase its food supply.

There is also considerable interest in migrating to hydrogen as a motor vehicle fuel because of its clean burning characteristics.  Such a migration will significantly increase the demand for hydrogen production.

Unfortunately, hydrogen is not found in any meaningful quantity in nature and must be produced.  Hydrogen is currently produced in commercial quantities by steam-methane reforming (SMR).  This requires significant quantities of natural gas.  Natural gas is used as the source of methane and is commonly used to produce the steam.  Increased hydrogen production will put additional pressure on the already tight supply of natural gas.

Another exciting use for HTSE is the co-electrolysis of steam and carbon dioxide.  In this mode, a mixture of steam and carbon dioxide is electrolyzed to oxygen and a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide referred to as syngas.  Syngas is used commercially to produce a number of valuable products, including synthetic petroleum.  Co-electrolysis could be used in conjunction with coal fired power, or any industry that produces carbon dioxide, to convert carbon dioxide to syngas, thereby reducing the emission of carbon dioxide.  Hydrogen Economy LLC believes that this application can be developed to provide a superior alternative to sequestration of carbon dioxide for carbon management.

Q3: GHGblog.com

Could HTSE be used as an alternative to carbon capture popular in countries where coal - fired power stations are still being built especially in the UK, China and Australia?

A: Vince Memmott:

Yes, HTSE can be used to convert carbon dioxide into useful products rather than sequestering it deep below ground.  It provides an opportunity to significantly reduce the carbon emissions from power plants and any other industry that generates carbon dioxide.

Synthetic petroleum can be produced from Syngas using Fischer Tropsch synthesis technology.  HTSE can be commercially developed to provide a superior alternative to sequestration of carbon dioxide for carbon management.

While carbon management using HTSE can be economical under these conditions, if carbon free electricity is used, synthetic petroleum can produced from this technology without carbon emissions and will therefore result in a net reduction of carbon emissions.

Q4: GHGblog.com

What is the cost of High Temperature Steam Electrolysis (HTSE) technology?

A: Vince Memmott:

Because HTSE uses electricity, its cost is highly dependent upon the cost of electricity.  Our current economic model shows that at a power cost of $70 (US) per megawatt hour, hydrogen production from HTSE will compete favorably with hydrogen production from SRM.  At $70 (US) per megawatt hour, synthetic petroleum can be produced at about $100 (US) per barrel.  $70 per megawatt hour is a reasonable power cost basis.  Current estimates for new nuclear power are in the range of $50 per megawatt hour.  Alternative energy costs are typically higher than nuclear power, but these sources will be evaluated on a case by case basis.

A particular opportunity exists for utilizing off peak power.  Most power plants adjust their power output to meet the daily demand cycle of the power grid.  When integrated with HTSE, the power plant could operate at a constant output.  As the grid demand drops, power would be diverted to the HTSE module.  Such off-peak power is normally considered less expensive making HTSE even more economically attractive.

Q5: GHGblog.com.

How does HTSE compare in cost to carbon capture?

A: Vince Memmott:

It is difficult to compare the cost of HTSE to carbon capture and sequestration.  HTSE produces useful products from carbon dioxide while carbon capture merely removes carbon dioxide from the carbon cycle.  Perhaps the best way to determine the economic value of HTSE is to compare the cost of its products to the market alternatives.  As I mentioned earlier, synthetic petroleum can be produced for about $100 (US) per barrel.  In today’s world this is an economically attractive use of HTSE technology.

Q6: GHGblog.com

Can HTSE be used with renewable technology as well?

A: Vince Memmott:

HTSE can be integrated with any source of steam and electricity.  When power from nuclear, wind, solar thermal, geothermal or any other source of carbon free electricity is used, hydrogen produced from this technology can be certified as “carbon free” production.

Q7: GHGblog.com

What stage of development is HTSE?

A: Vince Memmott:

This technology has been proven through a rigorous bench scale testing programs.  Ongoing bench scale tests are continuing to improve this technology.  We are currently beginning the effort to commercially develop this technology.  This will require converting the bench scale experience to a commercial scale production facility.

Q8: GHGblog.com

Are you looking for further investment?

A: Vince Memmott:

Yes, Hydrogen Economy LLC is seeking capital for the commercial development of HTSE.  We are also looking for strategic corporate associates to participate in this development.  We believe that there is a significant opportunity to license this technology worldwide.

Q9: GHGblog.com

How do people contact you?

A: Vince Memmott:

I can be contacted at vmemmott@gmail.com.

I am speaking with Julia Wilhelm of Studley, the market leader in Green Buildings. She is a Leed Accredited Professional working for Studley, Inc., commercial tenant adviser. Julia is one of the new generation of professionals working with tenants and building owners to create Green Buildings in San Francisco. Leed is a Green Building accreditation under the auspice of the U.S. Green Building Council.

Studley is totally unique in its focus.  Most real estate companies derive a vast majority of their income representing and servicing landlords, not Studley-tenants are our focus. Our mission is to represent our clients zealously, without fear or favor, and through that commitment, to achieve superior results.  With respect to sustainability this means that we are able to advocate some “out of the box” type of green structures and concessions and it is starting to have a remarkable impact.   In an industry that is highly impactful-one of the largest consumers of natural resources, energy, and that converts natural land to the built environment, I feel personally and professionally gratified to be part of the solution.

FOR ME THIS IS FANTASTIC TO SEE THE NEW WAVE OF GREEN BUILDINGS PROFESSIONALS.

1. Could you explain how the market for Green Buildings is developing in San Francisco?

As few as two to three years ago, when I worked on one of the first LEED Certified office projects in San Francisco, the concept of green building was totally foreign to the landlord and ownership community here.  Likewise, tenants and occupants of space, other than the companies and organizations whose basic mission was focused on conservation or environmental issues, for the most part didn’t think about the environmental footprint of their operations or office space or were not aware of the means to improving it.  So, in helping the first company I worked with that truly cared about creating a model green office space just three years ago, it seemed that no one in the San Francisco real estate community had heard of LEED-the most widely adopted standard for green building in the US-or knew the energy performance of their buildings, water efficiency, or any other “green” characteristics.  So it was quite difficult to actually implement their green objectives in selecting and negotiating on the best office space for them.  Likewise the cost of materials that came from renewable resources, were locally sourced and were free of toxic properties were more expensive and the construction and design experts were not widely educated in how to utilize them.

Within the past 12 months alone, the awareness on the part of landlord and tenant communities on what green building means and how they can improve their own foot print has accelerated at an unbelievable pace.

Now all types of companies not just the environmental groups, most notably mature technology companies, financial services companies and law firms are rapidly adopting/demanding green building practices.  I believe this is being driven by a number of factors: at a grass roots level by their employees, because their investors or customers are now asking them what their sustainability statement is and facilities are a measurable and relatively easy means of demonstrating an environmental commitment, and because there is finally some real evidence of cost and long term economic benefits associated with green building.

These tenants are pushing the Landlord community to make changes.  My opinion is that most building owners have severely lagged behind demand in making investments in green retrofits or equitably sharing in the costs of their tenant’s efforts.  For example, if you are a company that is located in San Francisco and want to relocate your office to a LEED Certified building, you literally have one option that is currently on the market and one more that is being constructed-out of an 80M square foot market.  The few buildings that have undergone green retrofits are 100% leased.  I think this lagging supply is primarily the result of condensed investment horizons on the part of building owners over the past several years.  Historic +/-10 year holding periods for office building asset had become few years or even just months, as close to 80% of the class A buildings in San Francisco sold at record prices in 2006 and 2007, and many of them multiple times.  Without leasing space or creating additional demand, owners of major buildings were able to “flip” their assets for higher prices.  This too has changed and I am very hopeful that instead of the dramatic rental rate increases Landlords had thought would create value in their properties that they will go back to fundamentals and look towards reducing operations and maintenance costs through green retrofits and boost demand for their space by making concessions to attract tenants that care about the environmental foot print of their space.

I believe we are on the verge of this shift, and it will be accelerated by new legislation.  San Francisco is the first city in the US to pass a “Green Building Ordinance” which amended the Building Code to impose green building requirements for new structures that are 5,000 square feet or larger and renovations to existing buildings that are 25,000 square feet or larger.

2. Is it increasing and what initiatives are helping the expansion of the green building market.

Yes, it is rapidly increasing.    Unfortunately there are not many incentives available to groups that are employing green building strategies or undertaking green initiatives.  Most incentives are coming from local energy providers for improvements to efficiency.  But the pay-back for a change in light bulbs for example pays for itself in a matter of months anyhow so these incentives aren’t hugely significant.  There is one federal tax incentive I am aware of that was borne out of the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, also aimed at energy efficiency improvements.  The San Francisco Department of the Environment also provides companies with free technical assistance.

The bottom line is that there are very few incentives available.

3. Who is promoting the Green Building market? Is it tenants, building owners or developers?

I believe tenants are the primary drive behind promoting green building.  They represent the demand base to Landlords and the rental stream from their lease commitments is what a building’s value is fundamentally tied to (as well as a Landlord’s ability to secure financing).  So, if a company is challenging a landlord to make building or space related investments as a requirement in attracting or retaining them, in a competitive market with greater than 10% vacancy, which we are in now in San Francisco, there will be Landlords that will “go green” for a particular tenant or tenants.  Without this type of push, I have seen little proactive effort on the part of Landlords to make green related investment (more…)

Julia Wilhelm, the first Real Estate Professional in San Francisco to have been awarded the LEED-Accredited Professional designation from the US Green Building Council is the West Coast head of Studley’s Sustainable Real Estate Practice Group, noted in her blog  greensuite that the  ”The  U.S.Green Building Council (USGBC) announced that the plan for the Beijing 2008 Athletes Village home to 17,000 athletes has won Gold–that is, a LEED®-Gold certification under United States Green Building Council’s (USGBC)’s pilot LEED for Neighborhood Development certification program”.

Wilhelm stated that the “The Beijing Olympic Village is the first Olympic Village to receive LEED certification, and as part of the pilot program, it is one of only eight developments–and the first international project–to thus far achieve certification under LEED for Neighborhood Development, a program that began with a call for pilot projects in early 2007. Nearly 240 projects from 39 states and six countries are now registered to participate in the pilot. USGBC says the information learned during the pilot program will be used to make further revisions to the rating system and certification process, and the resulting draft rating system will be posted for public comment before it is submitted for final approvals and balloting. For more information on LEED for Neighborhood Development, visit  www.usgbc.org/leed/nd.

I have to say I am personally very pleased to see the ‘Greening of the Olympics’ is alive and well and still has broad significance around the world from improved China / US relations to  mainstream concerns of the Real Estate Industry in California. Julia will be giving GHGblog.com an expert view of the development of Green Building programs in California in the coming weeks. The Democrat platform did have a proposal for Green Buildings under Hillary Clinton. Will that remain in the Barack Obama platform, Julia will let us know.

(more…)

In the New Republic 19^th August 2008, article “Green Grudges from Bill” about the energy policies of Barack Obama and Senator McCain, Bill Clinton was reported as saying at the National Clean Energy Summit, at the University of Las Vegas, convened by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Centre for American Progress that,

“Obviously, (well not so obviously), I favour Senator Obama’s energy positions, and Democrats have been by and large the more forward-leaning actors,” Mr. Clinton said. “But John McCain has the best record of any Republican running for president on the energy issue and on climate change.” He added.

In a further twist, noted in the Weekend Australian it has been stated that possibly 20% of the Hillary Clinton supporters are so peeved with the recent contest with Senator Barack Obama, that they will vote for McCain.

The Climate Change policies of McCain and Obama should now be compared to the commitment’s Hillary Clinton made in 2007, admittedly before the economy began to flag.

Hillary was committed to:

-       A cap and trade system aiming at an 80% reduction of GHG on 1990 levels

-       Vehicle  efficiency standards of 55 mpg by 2030

-       Green building standards

-       Investment in green energy and efficiency by rescinding tax breaks to oil companies

-       Tax credits for solar and wind

-       Bio-fuels - A target of 60 billion gallons of home grown fuels by 2030

-       Clean coal subsidies

-       Limited support for public transportation

-       Development of smart grids and plug-in hybrids

In “The doomed fate of Climate Change legislation”, posted on gristmill by “Jason D Scorse”, who said that a few months ago, there was a view that no matter who is elected president this November that the U.S. would soon embark on serious climate change legislation.

Scorse noted with recent high oil prices, McCain, has moved to recommend opening up all of America for oil drilling with major tax breaks for oil companies. Scorse believes McCain is simply a foreign policy person. His domestic support for a cap and trade system is there in principle but given McCain’s objections to higher taxes on energy, any cap and trade system has the effect of raising energy prices.

Scorse is not optimistic about Obama’s support for Emissions Trading although he has resisted the offshore drilling mania to date. A serious cap on GHG emissions is unlikely in the first year or two as Obama will have to address major foreign crises and that his political capital will be used more on foreign policy than most expect and that health care will be his domestic priority.

So lets see just what the two candidates offer the world on Climate Change. Hillary is now the benchmark.

The global warming battle over coal is heating up.

Every day the news on coal as the Climate Change Culprit comes in thick and fast whether from England, China, the USA or Australia. At No Simple Matter Mike Davis August 11^th 2008, discusses the fact that, “Coal production, is undergoing a dramatic renaissance, as the nineteenth century has returned to haunt the twenty-first century. China is opening two new coal-fired power stations every week.

David Roberts August 11, 2008 of the Huffington Post is campaigning against the economic and environmental nightmare that is liquid coal. He is running his campaign against West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin to fight off the coal to liquid plant proposed by Appalachian Fuel LLC who he believes is subsidizing an unsustainable industry.. The Governor has offered tax breaks and incentives worth about $3.3 million in government incentives for each of the 60 jobs the facility would provide. Many non-government organizations such as the US League of Women Voters — a civic organization are calling for, “a moratorium on all new coal plants”. National President of the League Mary G. Wilson says that, “Coal is the single largest source of global warming pollution in the U.S., with power plants responsible for 33 percent of CO2 emissions. Because of this pollution, we already face increasingly severe heat waves and droughts, intensifying hurricanes and floods, disappearing glaciers and more wildfires. If left unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic to us and our planet”.

However, most U.S. Senators and Congressman simply won’t countenance the phase out of coal. For example Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) believes, “environmentalists will be forced to compromise next year and support the development of clean coal, nuclear power and other alternative fuels”:

In the face of China opening two power stations a week, GHGblog.com will look at Carbon Capture technologies. Critics of carbon capture or sequestration argue that the technology will divert attention from research on long-term clean energy options, such as renewable power. GHGblog.com supports solar companies such as solar-thermal technology developed by Dr David Mills from Sydney University, now being commercialised in the USA. His company, Ausra is making great strides and is billed as a cost effective alternative to coal fired power generation.

However, not with-standing the real alternatives to coal, that exist, Global Research organizations at the behest of government are focusing on cleaning up coal. Most researchers see Carbon capture or sequestration as a bridging technology.

The CSIRO 31^st July 2008, scored a “Carbon capture milestone for CSIRO in China”. Chief of CSIRO’s Energy Technology Division, Dr David Brockway, said the project was part of a broad program to identify ways to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. The CSIRO and its Chinese partners have officially launched a post-combustion capture (PCC) pilot plant in Beijing that strips carbon dioxide from power station flue gases in an effort to stem climate change.

What is Carbon capture? Carbon Capture and storage, also called carbon sequestration, traps carbon dioxide after it is produced and injects it underground. The gas never enters the atmosphere.

In the USA, Sally Benson, executive director of the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) and professor of energy resources engineering believes the, “idea that we can take fossil fuels out of the mix very quickly is unrealistic”, and that, “if all human-induced emissions were sequestered, enough capacity would exist to accommodate more than 100 years’ worth of emissions”, according to Benson, coordinating lead author of the IPCC chapter on underground geological storage.

“Carbon capture has the potential to reduce more than 90 percent of an individual plant’s carbon emissions” said Lynn Orr, director of GCEP, colleague of Benson and Professor of Energy Resources engineering.

GCEP states that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of worldwide storage capacity range from 2 trillion to 10 trillion tons of carbon dioxide in its report on carbon capture and storage.

Benson cites the costs of incorporating carbon capture and storage into a power plant at costs of $30 to $70 per ton of carbon dioxide-taxes on an emissions level playing field, would help make it viable.

Further Excerpts from the CSIRO story. Full story CSIRO website.

- Post Carbon Capture (PCC) is a process that uses a liquid to capture carbon dioxide from power station flue gases and is a technology that can potentially reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing and future coal-fired power stations by more than 85 per cent.

-The post-combustion research pilot plant at the Huaneng Beijing Co-Generation Power Plant is designed to capture 3000 tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide.

-CSIRO’s partners in the Beijing pilot project are China’s Huaneng Group and the Thermal Power Research Institute (TPRI).

-The next steps in the research would be moving to a much larger demonstration phase, before then progressing to a full scale system.”

-The installation of the PCC pilot plant in Beijing is a CSIRO Energy Transformed Flagship research project which receives funding from the Australian Government through the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate initiative (APP). The APP program for PCC also includes a pilot plant installation at Delta Electricity’s Munmorah power station on the NSW Central Coast, with an additional Queensland site currently under negotiation.

- The Australian Government’s APP support PCC research is A$12 million, A$4 million of which supports this work in China.

- CSIRO is also undertaking PCC research outside the scope of the APP program with a A$5.6 million project in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia, which focuses on brown coal.

According to Guardian reporter, George Monbiot, August 5^th 2008, “Everything now hinges on stopping coal. Whether we prevent runaway climate change largely depends on whether we keep using the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. Unless we either leave it - or the carbon dioxide it produces - in the ground, human development will start spiralling backwards. The more coal is burnt, the smaller are our chances of future comfort and prosperity. The industrial revolution has gone into reverse”.

Monbiot is supporting the Climate Camp outside the coal plant at Kingsnorth in England aimed at stopping more coal fired power plants from being built as a social justice supporter,

“It is not because of butterflies or frogs or penguins or rainforests, much as I love them all. It is because everything I have fought for and that all campaigners for social justice have ever fought for - food, clean water, shelter, security - is jeopardized by climate change. Those who claim to identify a conflict between environmentalism and humanitarianism have either failed to read the science or have refused to understand it.

The Guardian further reported this week, “Up to 4 billion people will be left without water with up to 5 billion at risk of flooding. Half a billion will be left hungry as agricultural yields decline by 15-35% in Africa with entire swaths of the world ceasing food production altogether. More than 80 million exposed to malaria in Africa. The Amazon collapses and 50% of species will go extinct. It’s basically the end of the world. And it’s reported in this morning’s Guardian. There is such a gaping chasm between the matter-of-fact reporting of this nightmarish 4C scenario that government scientists now say we should be planning for the worst”.

Emissions Trading as a political football between the Liberal opposition and the Labor Federal government maybe part of the process of global consensus building. The Liberal party-room this week, endorsed a policy which, “calls for an emissions trading scheme to start no earlier than 2011 and “probably” in 2012.

The Federal government probably needs the time that the opposition tactics are delivering them to not make any uni-lateral decisions before we know exactly what the global community is planning to do.

The US won’t be making any definite decision until after the Presidential election in November 08 and their position is linked into what developing nations like India and China are committed to doing. So there is a bit of a merry-go-round going on as we wait to see what everyone will do.

Jeffrey Frenkel, Professor of Economics at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard, and a member of the Council of Economic Advisors to the Clinton Administration in an article, “The next steps after the Kyoto Protocol: Formulas for quantitative emission Targets, 25^th June 2007, has identified some key meeting date decision points:

Latest & next steps

• Early 2009: New US Presidential administration assumes power following elections in November 2008;
• Dec. 2009: Copenhagen climate conference (COP 15) - projected completion of UN climate negotiations on post-2012 framework;
• End 2012: Deadline for ratification of any new climate deal.

Frenkel further stated that,

” Quantitative emission targets for the 21^st century must be set sequentially, a decade at a time, within a long-term framework. The objectives are those recommended by the IPCC (Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change-peak scientific body): a reduction of GHG emissions in the developed countries of 25-40% by 2020; a peak of global emissions within 15 years, and a global reduction of 50-85% by 2050 to turn the tide around to prevent a runaway greenhouse effect. We need to bring in all countries”.